User talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Drug court

I added the WikiProject Medicine tag as it appeared to fall within the scope. Drug courts are not just about the legal system, but also involve mental health professionals and treatment programmes, and is really a branch of drug rehabilitation as much as the legal system. Aha, I've just come across WikiProject Drug Policy, that'll be appropriate. p.s. I've added the medicine tag to the drug rehab article. Fences&Windows 19:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The connection seemed too distant to me: For one thing, the courts order treatment, but don't directly provide it. We'd also include prison under the "involves health care professionals" logic, because they have significant medical facilities and are the de facto mental health "safety net" in most of the USA.

Having said that, I truly understand the impulse, and I don't think your initial action was unreasonable. The drug policy project seems very appropriate, and I'm glad that you thought to add that one.

Please feel free to keep tagging (and removing tags) as seems reasonable to you. If it happens that you and I don't agree, we can always ask for other opinions at WT:MEDA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock?

It may have been proven I'm not WLU, and about 200 other people besides, but I don't think we've had the pleasure of sharing an SPI yet (although I may be wrong). Are you sure you're not me? Or did you just mean you're very talkative? ;) Verbal chat 22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The only SPIs I've been involved in have been reporting User:Jessica Liao's ban-evading socks.

I hadn't thought about it, but perhaps I should have said "WLU or Verbal". There's no need to alarm this new editor with implying that you two are the same person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

special education

made an edit regarding resource rooms, hopefully you can help with the edit/formatting. Thanks for your inputJimsteele9999 (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jessica,

You know that you're not supposed to be editing Wikipedia. Please just stop. If you quit editing for one year, then you can apply to have the ban suspended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

not jessica

A checkuser has checked their IP address, and concluded the same facts. Additionally, I have explained the sockpuppety policy, and asked them to edit from a single account. They have agreed.

I trust this will resolve the matter.

Regards, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing

What a great username. Bravo for the ingenuity.Nerguy (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Roadcreature

Confirmed. I have neither the authority to unban him nor any particular wish to do so. — Dan | talk 02:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am relieved to hear that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Focal Points

I just replied to your question on Talk:Principles and Standards for School Mathematics#Examples. When I wrote I did not know who you were. I have looked at your edits and see that you have made a number of excellent contributions to the PSSM article. If you want to try again to put up some good "Simple Examples", go for it. Just make sure they actually come from the descriptions in the Focal Points document. I think you are right that examples are needed, but I am only an occasional Wikipedia contributor and really don't have time right now. But I'd be happy to tweak your examples as long as they are close to the spirit and content of the actual Focal Points document. Whatever you decide, thanks for your many valuable contributions to this article in recent years. It was quite awful back in 2006! I am glad to see it has grown into a respectable article now. --seberle (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I just saw your two edits of the examples. The second edit is fine. Though not how a textbook would likely put it, it is the same and it spares readers the trouble of checking the definition of "diagonal." The first, however, does not fit the definition in the Focal Points. There is no mention of simple substitution in the Focal Point definition. This kind of problem was already covered in the Grade 6 Focal Points. The definition in the Grade 8 Focal Point focuses very heavily on conceptual understandings of equations. The example I wrote (which I will restore) was based on this sentence from the Focal Points: "Students understand that the slope (m) of a line is a constant rate of change, so if the input, or x-coordinate, changes by a specific amount, a, the output, or y-coordinate, changes by the amount ma." The problem may look slightly unorthodox and even puzzle some readers, but this is the kind of conceptual understanding the NCTM is shooting for. If you still disagree, there are plenty of other possibilities suggested by the definition. --seberle (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My goal was to reduce the example to the simplest case covered by the focal point, which is merely "Students use linear functions...to...solve a variety of problems."

We should probably link to the Linear equation article in that section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Done --seberle (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ending WP:EL RfC

It's been 10 days and the !vote is 6/0/1, with significant support even from the neutral. I don't see much benefit in continuing. Since you are the nominator, you would have to be the one to close it early. --UncleDouggie (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the outcome is favorable to me, I don't particularly want to risk the drama that an early closure sometimes brings. The last response was just two days ago, so it's possible that we'll get more comments.

But if you wanted to suggest closing it on that page, so that others have a couple of days to object, that's okay with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:LAYOUT

Dang it, I forgot to include the One True Way^TM in my comment. Thanks, you're on-top of things. This is the fourth time—we've responded to the same fundamental issue? Whether you agree with me that its mutual concern to address this, diverge to preserve the status quo, or choose neutrality. I'm seeing patterns in the talk mechanics that's making consensus difficult. Before I run my mouth on this: Are you interested? What do you see? ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm always interested, if occasionally frustrated, in this subject, but there's really nothing about these conversation that affects the consensus: The long-standing and strongly defended community consensus is to dodge the inevitable holy war by absolutely and steadfastly refusing to anoint any given system for communicating information about sources as the One True™ answer.

These conversations aren't about consensus; they're about editor education. Some editors are surprised, even shocked, to discover that the bona fide consensus is to allow editors an "unexpected" and "undesirable" amount of freedom. This produces both diversity of practice and, in the minds of some editors, a painful ambiguity about whether their choices are the Right™ choices.

I cannot see any method of soothing their fears about making a "wrong" choice (a choice that technically does not exist, outside of vandalism) while respecting the community consensus. They're going to have to live with the ambiguity, even if they find it painful.

As for Bzuk, I think his (her?) position is even less tenable than the "just tell me the right answer!" folks, because Bzuk appears to wish that Chicago will be declared the right answer, and that will never happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Bzuk is a he. We have a mutual understanding about the guideline's ambiguity, although we diverge on the details; but that wasn't my thesis. This is: Language affects consensus. If an editor were an outright PoV pusher, it wouldn't be hard to get rid of them (WP:PBAGDSWCBY). However, editors who engage in policy will likely have a rudimentary understanding of those policies itself. They won't get blocked, and the discussion will be dramatically lengthened. I was wondering if you had any insights about this, before I tell you mine. That's what I meant. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no particular thoughts on this subject right now, and certainly none that we haven't discussed three or four times before.

(BTW, if you happen to be editing on a Mac, ™ is option-2; the shortcut might save you a little hassle. I hear that these things are harder on Microsoft systems.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, <Alt> 0153 will do the trick on Windows, should you ever take a walk on the wild side ;-) Pointillist (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a blue box

telling you that I've answered you on my talk page. - Hordaland (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

discussion

If there is good faith to resolve this issue, I would appreciate it if discussion happened here. There was a marked degree of nastiness in recent posts and this uncivilness needs to be addressed. If a contributor feels uncomfortable because of very uncivil behaviour, there is no reason why they must communicate if there is a significant chance of further abuse. I've suggested a cooling off period and and apology. If you have other ideas I'd like to hear them.--scuro (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message.

I reject a cooling off period as an unnecessary delaying tactic.

I have wanted only one thing through this entire conversation: I just want you to tell me exactly what "accusations" I have made that I "didn't respond" to and that you don't have diffs to support. Please just name the specific "accusations" that are (in your opinion) unsupported by diffs and links.

Alternatively, if you look things over and discover that the diffs and links are already present, then just tell me that the diffs and links are, in fact, already present, and that you won't make this particular baseless accusation again in the future.

If you wish to apologize to me for this baseless accusation, then I will accept, but I realize that the ADHD case was very long and complex, so I'm willing to excuse it. An apology is much less important to me that your commitment not to make the same mistake again.

If you think that I owe you an apology, then you will have to tell me what you want to be apologized to about.

It's Tuesday afternoon, and I'm going off to read WP:RFC/U. I will not file the RfC/U if you deal with this issue now, but I will be prepared to do so. You can stop that process whenever you choose by simply naming the accusation that still requires a diff or link to support it, or by admitting that you have already been presented with sufficient evidence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have decided to start drafting it at User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox. I will work on it over the next couple of days. You can choose to avoid the RfC/U simply by telling me exactly what assertion isn't supported somewhere on the ArbCom pages, or by saying that upon more careful review, you find that the support is, in fact, all there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"How can that possibly be unflattering or disparaging? Anyone that has received as many negative comments as you and Mattisse have, despite apparently trying to get along with editors, would not be pleased to see new messages, because (based on a purely rational analysis of past experience), odds are that the new message is another message from someone who is mad at you. Even if they "shouldn't" be upset with you, it's still unpleasant.

"You have clearly stated that you don't want conversations on your user talk page (e.g., [1]), and I take this as a sign that you're beginning to feel as badgered as Mattisse. Would it be more 'flattering' for me to conclude that the opposite? Is it 'disparaging' for me to suggest that you've been under attack for a long time -- an opinion that I believe you shared wholeheartedly?"

"But my point is this: if there is any 'unsupported statement', it's an issue right now, because it's an issue for me. The choice available to you is to either identify the statement(s) that you still believe are unsupported -- and I'll provide you with the diffs to support it -- or give me your word that you'll never again drag this baseless claim into another conversation. Do you understand your options?"[2]"

Administrator Xavexgoem also felt your response was "nasty". [3] I need to know that you also see this as uncivil behaviour and that in the future you are committed to solving our difference in a civil manner. From that starting point I'd be pleased to answer your questions and share my perspective about those statements. :-) --scuro (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What is "this"? My message to Xav said that I did not want you to suffer what Mattisse is suffering in her ArbCom-assigned mentorship. Is it "nasty" to wish that you not suffer needless stress from other editors? Is it "nasty" of me to wish you well?

My question for you is only this: What statement(s) in my comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Comment_by_WhatamIdoing is unsupported? If you'd really "be pleased to answer" this question, then please just answer it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I am asking for a lot, and what I am asking for is totally reasonable given the circumstances. This is not just my viewpoint but the viewpoint of an administrator. I'd ask you kindly to reconsider.--scuro (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like you to answer my question instead of saying that you will, but never doing it. I don't think that's asking very much, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay compromise. I'd like to ask one question of you and have it earnestly answered, and I would like an apology. Give me a date that you will do this by. In return I will answer your question tomorrow, I'm a bit busy now and would like time to consider what is in front of me. I live by commitments and I trust that you live by yours. Does this sound reasonable?--scuro (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I buy no pigs in pokes. You may ask me whatever questions you choose, whenever you choose to ask them. I answer appropriate questions and do not answer inappropriate questions. I cannot promise either a reply or a particular date for a reply without knowing what the question is. If your question is appropriate, and I know the answer (and I'm otherwise active on Wikipedia, and therefore actually receive the question), then you could reasonably expect a reply within hours. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, I will probably be off-wiki for about the next 12 hours (give or take several hours). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is, what purpose did you have in connecting my name in a disparaging way, to Mattisse on a post, on my mentor's talk page [4] shortly after that relationship was created? I'd simply like to have a date by which time the question will be earnestly answered, and an apology will be given. I'd like that commitment and with that commitment I would also commit to immediately answering any question you may have of me.--scuro (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You may have an immediate answer, because it is quite simple: I did not "connect [your] name in a disparaging way, to Mattisse".

I reject your assertion that Mattisse's name is somehow an insult, or that being compared to an excellent copyeditor with more than 70,000 edits and a string of awards for Featured Articles is "disparaging", and I tell you plainly that she would be deeply and IMO justifiably hurt to discover that you apparently think so.

There are certainly similarities in the cases, e.g.:

• Both you and Mattisse are involved in intractable problems that started as content disputes;
• Both you and Mattisse have a string of editors that are convinced that entirely neutral statements that you write are proof that you're terrible -- the point that you're both wondering whether it's safe to write something like, "Hello, How are you?" for fear that it might be misinterpreted as meaning "I hate you!" instead of just "Hello, How are you?";
• Both you and Mattisse have received dozens of unpleasant complaints for well over a year, to the point that you clearly dread dealing with certain editors;
• Both you and Mattisse have been blamed and scapegoated for driving away editors and other problems;
• Both you and Mattisse have editors that pile on any little error to blow things out of proportion;
• Both you and Mattisse have been deeply hurt by the ArbCom process;
• Both you and Mattisse are at risk for topic bans if the mentorships don't work out.

There are, in short, a remarkable number of similarities.

I had one single purpose with that message: To encourage Xav to identify and avoid the problems that Mattisse's ArbCom-assigned mentors have (inadvertantly) exacerbated. I did not want your ArbCom-assigned mentorship to be as traumatizing to you as Mattisse's ArbCom-assigned mentorship has been to her.

If you wish, I will apologize for hoping that your involuntary mentorship would be more successful and less stressful than Mattisse's. Alternatively, you could apologize to me for assuming such bad faith that you believed statements like "you might want to consider their problems and see how many of them you can avoid" means "I hate Scuro and I want to hurt him" instead of "I do not want Scuro to suffer needlessly through his mentor's ignorance and inaction". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I can accept that in your mind you saw a connection. What you state above is narrative some of which is true but more not. Here is the quote, "And, like Scuro, Mattisse really doesn't want the conversation on her user talk page. (Anyone who gets that many complaints would develop a twitch whenever the new message box pops up.)". To me it is disparaging to the both of us. This is storytelling to paint a picture in someone's mind. It makes assumptions, and paints an issue in a certain way. That viewpoint is insulting to me, and it may very well be insulting to Mattisse also.

The apology that I am looking for is the "nasty" quote already mentioned above. It doesn't have to be today but I would appreciate it if you let me know if it is coming, and at date I shall receive it.--scuro (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that I have ever said anything to you that any reasonable person would describe as "disgusting; physically repellent; indecent or offensive; malicious or spiteful" -- in short, "nasty", if you choose to look it up in a dictionary. There is nothing "disgusting; physically repellent; indecent or offensive; malicious or spiteful" about saying that you and Mattisse are both suffering from a difficult and needlessly painful ArbCom case. I rather suspect that most people would interpret such statements as being wikt:sympathetic to you.

I have repeatedly requested that you tell me exactly what statements in my ArbCom Request comment still require support. You're spending a lot of time telling people that other editors are unfairly accusing you without support, and yet you persistently refuse to answer my extremely simple question on this point. If you want other people to not accuse you unfairly, then perhaps you should stop accusing me unfairly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I remind you of your own words: No one should be able to continuously make false accusations and speak ill of you in wikipedia.[5] I think I am reasonable in expecting your sweeping statement that "no one should be able to continuously make false accusations" to apply to yourself. Despite this supposed abhorrence of false accusations, you have claimed on several pages, read by many different editors, that I made false accusations against you in a non-binding comment to ArbCom for which you have no supporting evidence.

Please name the specific purported accusations so that I can provide support for them.

Alternatively, if you discover when you look at my statement that it already includes two diffs and two links, and that every other claim is supported by diffs and links in your very own statements, then I will accept a retraction of your false accusation against me and a commitment that you will not lodge this particular false accusation against me ever again.

Note that I do not demand an apology for I still assume is an honestly mistaken memory of the details in a long and complex case. I simply want to be given a fair chance to correct any omission, or for you to stop "continuously making false accusations and speaking ill of" me on this point.

Am I perfectly clear about what I want? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

the challenge

Yes you are clear and I shall give you what you want. I'd ask you kindly to "lower" the tone. So lets get started. I'll do this in chunks because discussion goes on forever on basic points.

A response to WhatamIdoing

Although WhatamIdoing has not joined this arbitration, he did provide evidence at the proposal. I thought it important to respond.

"My impression of Scuro as a result of these past encounters is poor. He doesn't seem to care about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines except as they might be used to bludgeon those with mainstream POVs, and he seems to assume that anyone who isn't with him is against him. When it looks like he might "lose" an argument, he shifts the goalposts, which means that nothing ever gets resolved. You start off discussing a fairly narrow question like "Is there any reliable source that supports this assertion?" and you proceed through discussions about whether or not it's polite to revert the additions of unsourced material, whether this woman he's e-mailing thinks that encyclopedias should be based on primary sources, whether a literature review quits being a literature review when it gets old enough (I'm not kidding), and end up with accusations of "bias" in people that were doing basic editing tasks, like removing unsourced assertions that are probably wrong. Oh, and all of this takes place on at least three different pages, with resulting miscommunications and misrepresented "consensus" from editors that had no idea what the context of his slightly strange questions are". - That's a mouthful. No diffs?

There are a pile of accusations there. It's been a year, so yes some of that certainly seems like hyperbole if not downright false. But I could be wrong, what is your opinion?

The "Theraputics Initiative" review was examined at Doc James med cab [6] and it was found to be lacking as a citation for a bio-med article. At that point I began to question if med/scientific reviews should have a set of criteria to determine quality. A thread was started at "Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) [7] I suggest people open that thread instead of relying on WhatamIdoing's subjective interpretation of what happened there.

This passage is about your sentence, "Is there any reliable source that supports this assertion?" The issue was Doc Jame's citation which was rejected. That topic was dealt with but the end result was an edit war by Doc James to keep the citation on the page. It is still on the page. There was "no jumping around" of topics. What is your opinion here?

More after we digest this. And can you please let me know if you do plan to make an apology for this post[8], and if so when? Lets put that issue to bed.--scuro (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My description of the meandering MEDRS conversation is obviously supported by that conversation, which I linked later in that comment, and which you linked yourself. WP:DIFFs themselves are not required by ArbCom's rules when a WP:Wikilink can serve exactly the same purpose.

Is there an alleged fact in that comment that you disagree with? Do you, for example, choose to deny discussing your private e-mail messages at length? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been so long for me since I looked at this stuff, but it is coming together now. "He doesn't seem to care about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines except as they might be used to bludgeon those with mainstream POVs". I'd like to see evidence for this statement, especially the "not caring" bit. Also can you be straightforward about if you plan to apologize for this remark[9]?--scuro (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly a statement of my opinion -- note, please, the use of the phrase "seem to" -- and is the appearance you gave (to myself as well as others) in the linked MEDRS conversation, in which your primary goal was to change the guideline to support your side of a content dispute. My impression is additionally supported, of course, by your persistent refusal to provide any sources that support any information that you wanted to add to these articles, but as others addressed those points in rather more detail than ArbCom could possibly have wished for, I didn't think it necessary to include that additional point.

I thought I was already clear: I will not apologize for having wished that your ArbCom-imposed mentorship was less stressful to you than Mattisse's is to her. I will not apologize for believing that you are rational -- rational enough to recognize a pattern of mostly negative comments from other editors, and rational enough to wish that you weren't on the receiving end of so many negative comments. In my culture, at least, being called wikt:rational is a compliment, not an insult. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Again what you state is narrative, it is subjective, or as you call it: "opinion"....or an "impression". Of course you think that using the word, "seems", lets you off the hook to say mean things that you are unwilling to support with diffs.

Let me give you an equivalent. We are priests, someone has made an allegation, and there is a hearing. You use words like, "bludgeon" and phrases like, "...and he seems to assume that anyone who isn't with him is against him", and you do so by your second sentence of a hearing. As priests the only thing that matters is our reputation, but when challenged, you say that this is your, "impression". This doesn't wash on any societal level.

You made the above statements, and some more, at an arbitration request. This is a time when one should be most careful with one's words. It is shameful what you did. Worse, is that more then half of the other complainants couldn't stick to facts either and left us with further "impressions". It was a perfect score when they judged. It never really has stopped now has it? I'm signing off here. Best wishes to you, and I hope the next time we meet, it will be a positive and productive experience. Peace Whatiamdoing.--scuro (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right: I believe that the request at ArbCom was a statement of opinion supported by certain facts, and that the nature of my comment was adequately communicated to the members of ArbCom through my careful choice of words, such as seems to, that clearly indicate that I am, in part, describing appearances instead of physical facts. If you think that ArbCom members are too careless or stupid or unfamiliar with English to separate the two -- or that they are so inexperienced and gullible that they automatically believe that whatever they read is the Truth™ -- then your problems are well beyond what I can help you address. You could ask one or more of them a direct question on the point, if you choose; I suggest that you ask, 'Do you believe that "He seems to ____" means that "He is definitely doing ____", or simply that "Somebody thinks he is ____"?'

I disagree with your claim that society requires conversation to be restricted to verifiable facts. I am not an impartial judge; I am not required to present a balanced opinion to ArbCom.

I want to be clear: I was careful with my words at the ArbCom request. I was careful to present -- as facts -- only those facts that were verifiably accurate and I was careful to present -- as my opinion -- an accessible, graspable, and accurate summary of my personal beliefs about your ability to be a useful editor on the pages involved in the dispute. That my carefully worded opinion was not favorable to you is a separate issue: My statement accurately and concisely represents my opinion of your success in this dispute. I have no illusions about my level of influence at ArbCom: I'm just another editor, as far as they're concerned, and my comments are no more likely to be True™ than anyone else's. I am confident that they will not confuse my opinion with a fact, even when they are in the process of adopting exactly the remedy that I suggested to them as the most likely to be efficient for building the encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, I'm happy to help. On the other hand, you seem to have several responses that look more competent than what I could hope to provide, and mere numerical increase in involved editors doesn't necessarily result in a better decision. I'll assume that you're satisfied with the responses you've received (now at BLP/N), unless and until I hear otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hey, thanks for responding to my request for a quality evaluation on SENSOR-Pesticides. In the course of re-vamping that article, I've had several in-depth discussions about the appropriate-ness of some of the content, and I posted a RfC on the talk page here. Would you mind putting in your 2 cents so I can have an outside opinion? Thank you! Mmagdalene722 (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:LAYOUT 2

“

As far as I can tell, this so-called infobox is actually a WP:NAVBOX, and therefore the infobox rules are irrelevant.

(It is now time for an urgent discussion in the kitchen about the chocolate supply...) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

”

I know! Cacycle keeps stealing our chocolate, my chocolate, for his example!

Serious. Sigh. Slump. I don't like where this is going. It looks like another holy war. What do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks like going to the grocery store, because there's only one kind of dark chocolate in my entire kitchen! (I'm not counting the unsweetened blocks, of course.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I say, if the grocery store stocks Alpin milk chocolate, dark, and white—I would feel jolly good whilst my hyperglycemia knocks me into a perpetual coma. Perhaps as we all stand before Saint Peter we may find the true motive behind that delectable dark chocolate. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the milk and white chocolates aren't really worth the sugar, IMO. You get more chocolate-y goodness per gram of sugar with the dark stuff. For eating out of hand, I usually prefer something in the 60-65% cacao range. Unfortunately, the grocery store didn't have what I was looking for today (a Lindt Lindor dark truffle bar). Perhaps I'll have better luck another time. (Or perhaps getting the joy of deciding, and walking over to the store in this lovely weather, without the possibility that the experience wouldn't live up to my recollection is the best possible outcome. ;-)

It looks like the TfD is part of a much larger kerfluffle about whether "outlines" are just "lists" under a fancy name. Your notion of holy war seems less implausible by the hour. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Before Saint Peter we stand.

The dark chocolate's motives clear.
He befouled LAYOUT, befouled all we hold dear.

Forget what flavor: milk, dark, or white.
The the dark chocolate befuddles all, all during the night.

Rally young zealots, peasants, and naives.
Cry "We shall storm the TFD, drowning them in our waves."

Read the stupid text, read the stupid words.
But in response they throw us their turds.

And so the battle has already begun.
And we didn't even get to pick up our big gun.

So it matters not what we experts say.
For they believe in the one, the One True Way^TM.

Knocked to the side.
With their great pride.

So before Saint Peter we stand.
He teeth dark with that dark chocolate brand.

ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Article stats

Remember seeing a page that listed article view statistics by wikiproject. Do you know if that still exists?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages. You'll find a link in the {{WPMED Navigation}} template, which is displayed on most WPMED pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

inclusion

A good source is The Inclusion Facilitator's Guide by Cheryl Jorgensen, et. al. She is on staff with the Institute on Disability. The agency is neither pro nor con on the issue, interestingly enough, they focus on research and case studies examining what works and what doesn't. I am not sure what part of the article or source you wanted me to check out (was it the text in the red?--I'm still new to this if you haven't noticed yet). If so, I don't think the remark on students with special needs who are "loud" imdepeding on typical student's progress belongs in there. It's not a legitimate criticism of inclusion--the way I see it it's a remark from someone who would argue what a student with a tremor disorder doesn't belong in a general education class because he makes other students fidgit.

Jim Steele (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That source sounds excellent, and was exactly the kind that I was hoping that you'd be able to suggest. I'll have to see if I can lay my hands on a copy.

"Loud", I think, is a simple example. Having someone involuntarily or unconsciously grunt every few seconds, all day long, every day of the school year, is something that any lay person can grasp as "disruptive" to the people around him. Is there an example that you think would be better? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on it.

Jim Steele (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about a seperate page for a special education teacher? Would that help? Or ahould we focus on sifting through what we've got now? Jim Steele (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there very much to say that doesn't duplicate teacher, and isn't US-specific? Also, does it make sense to have a "teacher" article, when special ed staff includes all sorts of paraprofessionals and non-teaching professionals?

As a more general answer, most articles work like what you saw with resource room: start with a small section in a related article, and when it gets to be a decent size, WP:SPLIT it into a new page. So whenever you choose to do this, I'd suggest that you consider starting with a section (named ==Teachers== or ==Staff== or something like that) in either Special education or Special education in the United States, and see how it develops. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

New effort to connect bra use with cancer

See Talk:Risk_factors_of_breast_cancer. Care to comment? Mattnad (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

for your help with the Jeffrey Lieberman article. Psychiatry777 (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, of course. The only thanks that I really want is to see you incorporating those types of changes into this and other articles. It's hard to find anyone that's willing to bother with current biographies outside of pop culture, so I'd like to see you get maximum impact from your work. Happy editing, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Could you clarify your oppose at the poliomyelitis requested move? Seems to have some opposition. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :)

Thankx

Thank you for the information, I will try to follow it. Bye--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome for the information. I hope that it will be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Polio

This is what exactly happens when someone proposes a change for clarity not not substance, and surprise, with wikilawyering, someone is playing trump cards and starting a crusade to edit thousands of articles. patsw (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for peer review of the SENSOR-Pesticides article

Howdy, WhatamIdoing! I was wondering if you'd be willing (and if you're eligible) to look over the SENSOR-Pesticides article and offer any comments for peer review. I know you helped a little with the RfC tag on the talk page, but I'd appreciate your comments on the article as a whole, if you get the chance. Thank you! MMagdalene722^{talk to me} 17:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but after looking over the article briefly, I really don't have any suggestions about how to improve it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Patience

Thanks for being more patient than I ([10]). :) MastCell ^Talk 05:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome; I hope that the combination of the standard template plus a more specific explanation will do some good. At minimum, I'm hoping that the editor will realize that both critics and supporters would be extremely unhappy to have their names given as supporting views that they firmly reject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your integrity, honor and for sticking to your principles. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Article score numbers

How do you get the score of an article as you post here? SunCreator (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

By looking here. Scores are per-project: Each article is given a separate score for each project that tags it (and then the highest score by any project is used to make most WP:1.0 decisions). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. SunCreator (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Special school

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Special school. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special school. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WT:POLICY

Our discussion at WT:POLICY seems like a reasonable choice for this Monday's WP:SIGNPOST Policy Review section. If you'd like to add to your comments, or add or subtract to the summary of your or anyone else's comments at WT:POLICY#Interview for Signpost, please feel free. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS "Organization of articles pertaining to both a virus and a disease"

Yeah, got examples, history won't brief though WhatamIdoing, and I am only addressing one issue at a time. Brevity seems to be taken to terseness, and I don't want a long reply. What do you think? In terms of policy, the guideline shouldn't reflect rare cases, you're right, but that doesn't mean it should make errors in language either. Dicto simplictor, remember? We went over it before in WP:LAYOUT I had to qualify the assertion. "never" would create[...].[11] ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that any proposal to divide articles into "this part is for the virologists" and "that part is for the clinicians" is doomed to failure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

special school

Yes, I see a newbie, an editor who considers himself a "deletionist" has nominated resource room AND special school for deletion. I've been busy lately, but will add references to ensure this does not happen. If you could do what you can to prevent these deletions, I'd appreiat it. I am not as technically proficisnt so I can't act it accordance to WP policy as quick;y as you, but I feel both articles are not only relevant to special education, they are important. The rationale for deletion that "a simple search doesn't reveal importance" is BS.

Jim Steele (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good try

On user:dolfrog. It appears he's now focused on discussing himself on his talk page, and this will make editing the encyclopedia a bit easier. I'm disengaging. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your message

As you can see, I removed my comments from his page and will not be engaging in any further discussions with him. But, how a word to him about his snide comments about my lack of knowledge of Salinger, or my general lack of ability as an editor? How about a word about his original message on my talk page that got this conversation started? It was his bad faith that got the ball rolling. One way or the other, I intend to continue my work as an editor, and fully intend to ignore him. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you removed those comments.

On its face, his short question looks quite neutral and civil to me. ("Civil" is not the same as "friendly", of course.)

Shall I assume that there's some dispute in an article you've both been editing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that. Check out A Perfect Day for Bananafish. Although I'm not sure if "dispute" is the correct term, as I'm trying to make this a better article and this person keeps reverting my editing efforts, without good reason, as far as I can see. At least they're not mentioned in the discussion page (where from what I understand that's where they're supposed to be!). Thanks.

Jim Steele (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There are some explanations in the edit summaries, but, to be candid, some of them make no sense to me. For example, how does "Rv; no link for Seymour, which you'd know if you made careful edits" explain his removal of a perfectly valid WP:LINK to the only page on Wikipedia that discusses the character? How can linking to a highly relevant page be an example of careless editing?

I've left a note at WT:BOOKS to request assistance, but I wouldn't count on it, especially over the (US) holiday weekend. It looks like you've got something of a conversation going at the article's talk page, so perhaps that will help. If not, you might like to look into the third opinion page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one perplexed by this persons' rationale. For a second I thought his edit summary was an esoteric code that us "rookies" couldn't understand. What I'm trying to do is make this article better. It needs it. Surely, I'm making some errors in the process (I'm learning, slowly, but I'm definately not fishy), but the removal of the link seemed strange. Honestly I would like to have a conversation going at the talk page, but that doesn't seem likely. Take a look at the before and after edits. You don't have to be a scholar of Salinger's works to know that what I've added are verfiable sources and are not controversial (which is commoon ground for this story). Anyway, thanks for your help.

Jim Steele (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP/N Comments

In the future, if you're going to use my name, paraphrase me or take something I say out of context I would appreciate it if you would at least have the courtesy of notifying me on my talk page. Malvenue (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I won't make a habit of notifying editors that I have joined a conversation that they are already participating in. You should make a habit of keeping track of your own conversations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case I would appreciate it if you wouldn't misrepresent what I say or use my name in the future. Malvenue (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I did, but you've apparently forgotten what you were saying last week.[12][13] I've posted a longer explanation at WP:BLP/N#Mark_Levin.2FDavid_Frum. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Snide comments from both of us aside, what I read your statement to be was essentially "Malvenue is stating Newsweek is not a reputable source when it obviously is" whereas what I basically said to Gamaliel "If National Review is not a reliable source, neither is Newsweek". The basis for my objection to what you reported my statement as being was taken out of context of a very very long discussion. Malvenue (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see my response at WP:BLP/N. I wish you would pay more attention to the time-stamps on these messages, as you're essentially accusing me of knowing what you're going to post five days in advance of you actually posting it -- unless, of course, User:Ynot4tony2 is also your account, since that editor made a comment along the lines you claim to have made before my note. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Then shall we leave it as a misunderstanding or are you making another accusation? I honestly can't tell which direction you're coming from. Malvenue (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's my belief that User:Malvenue and User:Ynot4tony2 are different accounts, because the only pages the two accounts have both edited are Mark Levin, Talk:Mark Levin, and User talk:Ynot4tony2. This represents 10% of the pages (all namespaces) Malvenue has ever edited, and 3% of the pages Ynot4Tony2 has ever edited. On its own, I would not consider this sufficient circumstantial evidence to file a sock report.

Behavioral evidence (such as claiming to have made comments that the other account made) is a separate consideration, but I assume, without any particular foundation, that your comment suggests confusion or carelessness (as well as your agreement with Ynot4tony2's earlier comments) instead of abusive use of multiple accounts.

For the record (because several dozen editors watch this page): I could have filed a request for CheckUser evidence at WP:SPI in the length of time that it took me to reply here, but I did not choose to do so because I do not (currently) think that such a request is warranted. I am willing to believe that Malvenue simply overlooked the fact that my comment preceded his comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Good conclusion, since your stated facts are incorrect. Malvenue (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If I have made any factual errors, I'd be happy to correct them. But the diffs shown at BLP/N indicate that my comment was made on 17 November, which is generally taken as being five days before your comment at the article's talk page on the 22nd, and several days after Ynot4tony2's comment on the same point.

Or is there a different error that you wish to bring to my attention? It's possible that my cross-check of Special:Contributions/Malvenue and Special:Contributions/Ynot4tony2 missed a fourth page that both accounts edited, but I doubt it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, I owe you an apology. I misunderstood what you said about the pages I'd edited on my first reading. I see now I read it wrong, so I apologize. Malvenue (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I accept your apology, and am glad that the second reading made more sense than the first. Happy editing, WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Just to let you know, Jessica never had learning disabilities. She had Asperger syndrome that is nothing compared to learning disabilities. Next time, if you are finding confidential information about her, I suggest looking for the facts first. [14] Elanaretaina (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

When Asperger's interferes with a person's ability to succeed in school, it's also a learning disorder. In addition, a substantial (some would say "overwhelming") proportion of AS people also have nonverbal learning disorder. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. You could have just said special needs. Elanaretaina (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but since dyslexia and other learning disorders are so common, and "special needs" is often erroneously conflated with mental retardation, I thought that learning disorders was the least stigmatizing of the accurate alternatives. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer...

Just a friendly heads-up that you might want to run a virus scan on your computer. I got an email from you promising what I assume is an exceptional deal on cell-phone service, but something about it had that malware ring to it. Or if it really was from you - thanks, but I'm happy with my current carrier. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I appreciate friendly warnings. As it happens, I saw a bounced copy of that spam about an hour ago. Unfortunately, I don't think that there's anything I can do: I run a completely Microsoft-free environment, and there are no known viruses for the Mac. It's presumably a problem with Yahoo! Mail's security (and/or the weak password on that account; perhaps I should upgrade it).

Do you think I should send a mass e-mail warning to the other editors whose e-mail addresses are presumably in that account? I assume that, like you, they're all savvy enough to ignore spam, but I wouldn't want anyone to think that I approved of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I got an e-mail from "you", I'm guessing it's not really from you. Unless you have a source of cheap electronics you are eager to tell people about.

Ya, I should have checked before saving, same thing as MC. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"No known viruses for Mac"? Sounds like someone's drank the Kool-Aid. :P There are some out there, although their number pales in comparison to the rich natural diversity of Windows malware. This is a pretty decent (and recent) piece on the subject. MastCell ^Talk 19:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly: There are no known computer viruses in circulation for the Mac at this time. Your source doesn't say anything to the contrary: it says that it would be possible to write such software, but makes no claim that anyone bothers to do so.

I've heard that there are a few trojans for the Mac (typically pushed, I'm told, as "the special software you need to view our free pr0n"), but there are no known viruses in circulation. (A virus is self-replicating, and a trojan requires a human to copy/install it. I like to think that I'm smart enough not to install a trojan -- especially since my usual policy is that all software installation is somebody else's job.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fair - I made the classic mistake of saying "viruses" when I meant "malware". Wired says there are a few hundred such pieces of malware floating around for Mac as of September 2009 (up from essentially zero in 2007), but as you mention it doesn't say anything about true viruses. I'm sure you're right - it's mostly trojans and phishing. MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Proclaiming "there are no viruses for Macs" has got to be like waving a red flag in front of the teen hacking community. Particularly non-Mac users. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but they've been saying it for years now, with no apparent production of viruses. If that's all it took, then it would have been done by now.

Writing a new virus, for an entirely different OS, is more complicated than adapting an existing one. The script kiddies can't do this; it requires a significant amount of information and some skill. Additionally, it seems that the purpose of most malware is theft, and any small userbase isn't an attractive target for organized criminals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a project?

If you find yourself lacking a project these days, there's some blatant POV-pushing over at bioidentical hormone replacement therapy. I need some assistance from someone who is willing to read the sources (which are fortunately clear and convergent) and maintain a sustained interest for a little while. The two accounts I'm banging heads with are frustrating me for some rather mind-boggling interpretations of OR, NPOV and SYNTH. Remember Guido den Broeder? It's like that. It's so frustrating because the sources are very clear, but no-one is willing to read them despite multiple requests at WP:MED. TimVickers helped out for a bit, and SandyGeorgia a while back, but the message is not getting through. See here for an example, here for the original source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to leave you twisting in the wind, but it looks like a Mediation Cabal request was just filed. Does that change your interest in involving additional editors at this particular moment in time?

As to the specific dispute you link, the difference between exogenous and endogenous 'natural progesterone' is doubtless important, and it's unclear from the text what they're claiming, but if the sentence refers to exogenous administration of the same natural progesterone (e.g., Prometrium®) that is used in BHRT schemes, then I think that the paper's claims (=insufficient data to make a claim about breast cancer on p 183; unspecified benefits on p 182) must be accepted as being relevant for BHRT. A molecule cannot simultaneously have, and not have, a given set of properties. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The med cabal request will probably die (they usually take sufficiently long that the dispute is often resolved before they get to it) and is essentially predicated on the other editors reading the policies in question and understanding them - there doesn't seem to be evidence of that. There's lots of 'critical' sources that are about bioidentical hormones and they are being ignored in favour of primary sources that don't even use the word "bioidentical" anywhere in the text.

If you are looking into the IMS article, I suggest searching for "bioidentical" - on page 184 it states "There are no medical or scientific reasons to recommend unregistered ‘bioidentical hormones’. The measurement of hormone levels in the saliva is not clinically useful. These ‘customized’ hormonal preparations have not been tested in studies and their purity and risks are unknown." If I was going to use it as a source on the "bioidentical hormone replacement therapy" page, I'd be much more likely to cite that specific statement than I would to cite the information about progesterone that I have to go to a separate source in order to demonstrate that it is bioidentical. Doctors treat the molecules uniquely - progesterone may have better or worse effects compared to equivalent nonbioidentical molecules, but what matters is the evidence for the risk-benefit profile of each molecule. The fact that it is "bioidentical" is less important than the fact that it is untested, and there is no reason to believe it has fewer risks than other molecules used for HRT merely because it is "bioidentical". Endogenous estrogens promote cancers just as well as artificial ones, depending on the cancer.

Anyway, my biggest gripe is that there's no need to go beyond the sources that explicitly discuss BHRT, but one editor in particular (Hillinpa) keeps attempting to use primary sources to debunk secondary. Essentially, "These sources say BHRT is bad, but they are wrong because of this study about estriol, and this study about progesterone, and this study about estrone, and this study about..." It doesn't help that the sources strongly converge on a specific point and opinion on BHRT, but this convergence is ignored. Really, the sources are explicit and clear. If you're looking for specific claims about BHRT and really specific bioidentical molecules, I would suggest Cirigliano, 2007, Boothby et al 2008 (PMID 18660693, which I can e-mail to you), and the four papers by Schwartz, Holtorf and Moskowitz (all of whom have significant conflicts of interest that aren't disclosed in the papers; see Moskowitz, holtorf, and I think you're familiar with Erika Schwartz. But really you can't go wrong by reading the position statements by the FDA, ACOG, Endocrine Society, Mayo, NAMS, the Australian Menopause Society, and the raft of peer-reviewed publications that, again, converge on a critical position that can be summarized as "there is no reason to believe they are any less risky or more beneficial than what we've already studied". The idea that they are safer and better because they are identical to those produced in the body is certainly compelling, but ultimately unproven (and contradicted by any study indicating that endogenous hormones can drive cancer growth or its appearance). Mother Nature doesn't love us, she kinda hates us. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the stance you're taking is too extreme. BHRT is not a simple topic, because it involves both multiple molecules and multiple dosing regimes. Your claims here are too sweeping to be supportable. For example: you assert above that "it is untested". As a point of fact, if "it" refers to any FDA-approved therapeutic, then "untested" is perhaps the least justifiable adjective that any person could legitimately use to describe "it". The source does not recommend for (or, N.B., against) unregistered BHRT. Many of the BHRT molecules are legally registered and duly approved for manufacturing and marketing.

It's not reasonable to dispose of the baby with the bathwater. Prometrium® is widely believed to be safe and effective for approved indications at the usual doses; this natural progesterone does not magically become unsafe whenever someone appends the word bioidentical to it. Similarly, while BHRT, taken as a scheme of high doses of potent hormones instead of as a treatment using normal doses of approved medications, is widely believed to be at least somewhat unsafe, the part of BHRT that uses Prometrium® at a normal dose is not unsafe.

I don't think you'll have any trouble finding secondary sources that support claims that reasonable doses of natural progestagens are not associated with breast cancer and may prevent endometrial cancer. These sources don't have to explicitly say "BHRT progestagens" to be relevant to BHRT's use of progestagens, so long as they're talking about the same molecules.

When reporting this, the article should appropriately distinguish between "BHRT as a high-dose scheme" and "BHRT as a normal dose of legally approved compounds that happen to be bioidentical". The first is a problem, but the second is widely believed to be no worse than synthetic HRT -- and the article shouldn't pretend otherwise, even in its selection of sources.

Don't paint yourself into a corner about "BHRT is untested" or "BHRT is only high-dose": The unregulated term is used for all sorts of things, and the article should tell readers exactly that.

I think the problem is really the same thing that's happened with multiple chemical sensitivity: once upon a time, and MCS-claiming patient either had to be dismissed as a purely psychological problem, or you had to accept not merely the stated symptoms but also the entire "MCS industry" story about the precise biological mechanisms that purportedly caused the symptoms. It was either "You're making all this up" or "I agree that a tiny exposure to petrochemical fumes in the past, which would never bother an average person, has sensitized your immune system to produce a non-IgE-dependent but equally valid allergic response that now results in severe symptoms whenever you are exposed to related synthetic chemicals." There was no middle ground: it was either complete nonsense or every bit was incontrovertibly true. (Now, it looks like it's a neurological over-reaction to scents, and can frequently be treated with antidepressants and/or anxiolytics.) The debate had gotten so polarized that people either "believed in" or "didn't believe in" MCS, with no middle ground. The (current) truth wasn't an alternative: if you didn't agree with the original mechanism, then you weren't allowed to agree with the reported symptoms.

Thus it seems to be with BHRT in some circles: Otherwise, you wouldn't be objecting to the article's inclusion of widely substantiated facts about the legitimate uses, at normal doses, of tested and approved drugs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Untested" is one of the most common complaints made about BHRT, it's verifiable to multiple sources, though it's possible the sources continually conflate BHRT with compounded BHRT. If I could re-write the article based on the sources but ignoring policies, my summary would be "Compounded BHRT is more expensive and unproven, and claims made are lies. There are compounds that happen to be bioidentical which are sold, but they're pretty much expected to offer the same risks and benefits as CHRT; in fact, most of them are already available. It's really not clear why BHRT is expected to be any better than CHRT". But given the sources, what they say, their proportionate representation and not being allowed to give solely my opinion (that is, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR) I can't see a way to negotiate this reasonably particularly the other editors' insistence that it's inherently better, which can only be supported by citing articles that don't use the word "bioidentical" anywhere. It's the sweeping claims made by proponents that are at least as unsupported, and in some cases contradicted, by others. The few reliable sources that are "pro" and aren't popular books or web pages with no sources don't appear to carry much weight.

You appear to believe there is a middle ground between myself and the other editors, which would make your assistance even more valuable, particularly given your grasp of the policies and experience. I'm fully aware my stance my be too extreme, and your opinion would go a very long distance to convincing me of that. If you are willing to read the sources and help out, I would certainly appreciate it, even if I have to eat crow. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Help for school psychology entry

You once helped me on some other Wikipedia editing concerns. I wondered if you could help me again. On the school psychology entry, under the name G. Stanley Hall, the first paragraph stretches out to the right. I tried to fix it but could not remember how to make the adjustment. I wondered if you could tell me what to do fix a problem like that one. Thank you.Iss246 (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. It had spaces at the beginning. The software will happily ignore tabs at the start of paragraphs, but spaces make it do that odd formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You are unfailingly helpful. Best wishes.Iss246 (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions, not just for Articles anymore

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Section_names_in_technical_articles. You are needed. — CpiralCpiral 01:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship

The Revision History of Wikipedia:Mentorship records your participation the article's development; and for this reason, I am reaching out to you.

Please consider reviewing my edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences. In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I plan to cite this as a useful context for discussing what I have in mind. --Tenmei (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well...

Your additions would amount to an unpardonable level of WP:SYNTH if this essay were in the mainspace, and you're basically re-writing an essay for the sole purpose of (mis)using it as a tool to get out of a sticky spot. To speak very plainly, I don't entirely approve of either your extension of this essay or your apparent motivation for doing so. Your additions take the essay further from what seems to have been the original point, which was to encourage voluntary mentorships.

IMO, ArbCom-imposed mentorships are essentially useless. Speaking very generally, without saying a single word either for or against yourself, when editors get as far as ArbCom in a dispute, especially one involving patently idiotic choices like persistent edit warring, then the problem is almost always bigger than WP:Mentorship can handle, and has a lot more to do with an unrecognized lack of WP:COMPETENCE on the part of at least one editor. Incompetent people are sincerely unaware of their incompetence: a personal belief in one's own competence is as unlikely to be a useful measure of one's real skill level as a drunk's decision to drive a car is likely to indicate whether he's actually a safe driver.

If you're having a problem with ArbCom, I think your energy might be better invested in other activities, like what the computer geeks call "error detection and correction". You can't fix ArbCom's problems, but you might be able to stop making mistakes yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow

I am very very impressed that there is actually one who is doing anything about category tagging - I would gladly make sure I never touch a med cat with the odd usage - hey very many good wishes of the christmas season to you - and I wish there even 10 other like you in wikipedia - the whole WP project seems devoid of those who see red when the talk page indicator shows no project assigned - everywhere and in every place there seems a lack of an interessted personages - and you are too civil - I can understand how annoying to have an incorrect term to bugger up a script. Thank you for your advice SatuSuro 23:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

One issue - when tagging I tend to put in default tags (assuming the default is the basic form) - that is with no extra text inside the tag - you have added an extra class= material - is there a valid functional reason for that that I might have missed? SatuSuro 23:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi SatuSuro,

In the category and Wikipedia namespace, I believe that the template (WPMED's plus any others based on Template:WPBannerMeta) figures it out on its own. The somewhat simple-minded script doesn't figure it out, and it always includes the parameters, so I usually fill them in.

The overall purpose for the parameters, of course, is to help out the WP:1.0 team with assessments.

Do you do a lot of project tagging? If so, perhaps you'd be interested in this script. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother but I suddenly freaked when I re-read this - but pages tagged with one of the redirects are frequently out of date or shouldn't be WPMED tagged at all - oh hell are you saying there actually cat talk pages in wikipedia/project/category space are a nuisance as opposed to a benefit? I always thought a comprehensive taagging in a project was the best way to go.

In answer to your question - its the purple bit [15] Which script do you talk of? SatuSuro 00:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensive (but not truly "excessive") tagging is excellent. It's just I've got a good statistical correlation with "people who get it wrong" and "people who use WikiProject Medicine instead of WPMED" -- and, as I said, the script is a little simple-minded. If you were tagging pages that you shouldn't, I would have removed the tags and told you in plain, unmistakable words, like "Please don't tag pages like ____."

The script is at User:WhatamIdoing/Temp.js Are you familiar with scripts like these? You have to edit your monobook page (mine's at User:WhatamIdoing/monobook.js) and tell it about the script -- which you do by pasting in the long middle bit that you can see in mine. Name the correct template for whichever projects you're likely to be tagging for (remove any you don't care about), and be careful about the punctuation, which is different on the first and last lines of the main list. In the last couple of lines, set the default project (I chose WPMED) and default priority (I chose Low, but most people choose Mid) to whatever you want.

The script puts an alphabetized (by template name) pop-up list at the top of your page so you can select one project's tag and the priority (leaving this blank is an option). Then click the assessment class (is it a stub, start, C, B...), and it will add the template to the talk page and give you a standardized edit summary. It mostly plays well with the banner shells, and it tries to place the banner immediately after some other template (occasionally resulting in a very strange placement, but you'll get a chance to preview it before you save the page).

The script doesn't know about Categories or Project pages -- but maybe we could figure out how to add them. (Usually, I type them in by hand, because it seems odd to have the |class= parameter sitting there empty.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear excessive - I'd be interested to see your explanation or clarification of the pathology of that one :) You are very generous with the explanation - thankyou - may your generosity serve you well SatuSuro 00:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You will find my views on this issue here, here, and (for WPMED specifically) here. It happens that I wrote most of the relevant sections in the WikiProject Council Guide.  ;-)

As a short summary, "excessive" usually means slapping every single possible tag on an article simply because the project might do something sort of related to it. Listing a dozen tangentially relevant projects isn't nearly as helpful as adding one truly relevant banner. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case - very pleased to have met you :) - and I assure you in that the purple bit identified - the discretion that I practice is acute considering my academic training - I think my error rate is minimal ( I am sure no one will ever bother to really trawl my category tagging to verify that - but they are most welcome ) and I am always pleased to have any errors pointed out so that I can revert any of my mistakes - it is indeed an immense relief to find even one editor who is au fait with the issues - there are so few that I have ever encountered - you have made my day - thank you SatuSuro 01:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

OK have had a closer look at the links given above - (its all part of my current practice - which is reassuring) - very impressed by the med guide - I can think of some issues at a later date in relation to a range of subject areas that need to be clarified in relation to spatial/geographic project overlaps but - hey enough to do for the moment - thanks for your responses SatuSuro 01:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

special education

Hi. It looks as if we may have a case of butchering first, ask questions later with this article. There's been too many changes and too much empty talk on the page, no? Jim Steele (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I think you were a little hasty in your most recent comment there. Dahlia's an experienced editor, and I'm sure she's sincerely trying to help, within the limits of her time and knowledge.

I'm not really sure how to convince her that UK professionals do use terms that she hasn't heard herself, or that she's making a Law of identity logical error when she declares that a thing described in US terminology is different from the same thing when it's done in the UK, but I wouldn't wish to have her upset. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to convince her either. But in the meantime the article should not be changed haphazardly. I've read some research from educators in the UK who mention the terms (inclusion, resource room, etc.). There seems to be some variation, as you noted, but the concepts remain intact. Neville Jones has authored a lot on policy. For starters, there's this: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0="Jones Neville J."&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=au&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&objectId=0950019b80085186&accno=EJ293958&_nfls=false. But as I've said, special education in the US is more my field, and I would expect an experienced editor to add sources to back claims up. Reasonable, no? Jim Steele (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Advice/suggestion required

Med project category pages are fairly consistent for their content - but there is the doctors mess at B class (not on any of the other pages)- would you suggest removal or putting in all of the project pages for consistency sake? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:B-Class_medicine_articles

• catmore1|Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine
• cat class2|topic=medicine|sort=Medicine|class=B
• Articles rated B-class on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment#Quality_scale|quality assessment scale of *Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine|WikiProject Medicine

• questions? see the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine|doctors' mess

• Category:Medicine articles by quality|4
• Category:B-Class articles|Medicine articles

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated - thanks SatuSuro 06:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like an editor provided the optional text description of the purpose of the category. This is usually encouraged for proper content categories (especially if the name of the category might be misinterpreted), but it seems less important for project categories. (Regular readers won't usually look into these categories.)

I'd probably leave it, but I'm not sure that adding this text to all of the others is really worth your time and effort. I'd probably add it if I were already editing the page, and not bother if I weren't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Ret.Prof (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Breast cancer screening

Was trying to refer to both clinical breast exam screening and self breast exam screening. Both the yearly palpation of the breast that is part of may healthy person exams and the self exam are not supported by evidence as far as I am aware.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

None of the named sources address clinical breast exams. If you want to include it, then it needs a source (and perhaps its own paragraph). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks :-) Just rereading it and noticed that no evidence for or against clinical exams presented. Will add some.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It was there with a reference to the 2003 Cochrane paper and refered to as “physical examination”. Sorry not very clear. Will work on this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

WT:IUP

Response summary: how do you address WP:EDIT which states "... fix problems if you can, flag them if you can't..."? This is all that is being stated here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not "all that is being stated here", and furthermore, it doesn't apply. But let's keep the discussion on the other page, okay? 08:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

resp on page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 10:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be of some help

Of somebody with a good knowledge of med tagging to have a look at this rather nice category - and where it belongs in the scheme of things - I do know you have directed me to the marvellous guidelines - but it would be helpful to have a word - just as a double check - cheers Category:Deaths_from_digestive_disease thanks If its just plain old WPMED class=Category importance=NA - thats fine - it just that it smells of possible variants or other items SatuSuro 08:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't tag it as WPMED at all. "Somebody who happened to have a disease" is on the list of things that are outside the scope, and that seems to be the contents of this cat.

BTW, I fixed the link to the cat for you; you have to add a colon (:) at the beginning to get cats to show up as links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian

I noticed your post on her. She's a big problem. Doesn't follow her own rules, frequently wrong, high-handed, short fuse, self-righteous. Do you think it's worth pursuing? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what "pursuing" means. She's clearly failing to 'win friends and influence people', which doubtless is distressing to her. (People usually don't deliberately set out to spend their days in a series of angry disputes, after all.) But I'm not sure that Wikipedia can help her be more effective in dealing with other people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ring: the project needs less Wikidrama, not more. Ikip 01:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ikip, I agree that Wikidrama is unhelpful, but perhaps the long-term solution to Wikidrama is to remove editors that seem to provoke it. Here are a dozen examples of Collectonian's edit summaries during (just) the last week: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]

In your personal opinion, do these edit summaries suggest the positive, friendly, helpful attitude that is the hallmark of an editor who is well suited to Wikipedia's collaborative environment? Or do you look at these and wonder, as Ring Cinema apparently does, whether Wikipedia might be best served by addressing this editor's apparent problems, perhaps through an RfC/User? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am torn, and not in the reasons you probably think. I will get back with you on this.

BTW, it just popped up on my watchlist that this editor is at ANI, not quite sure all the details about what the argument is all about. Ikip 17:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

First, no I am not "distressed" over the idea that I am not "win friends and influence people", as I have in fact made several friends here and have had many good cooperative experiences here. Rather disappointed that you seem to have made a decision about my "competence" and are talking about me without so much as a courtesy notice, with someone who has had just as many problems with incivility[28] and who is far from neutral in speaking about me considering the on-going polar opposite of our views as he is the strictest of inclusionists. With over 90k edits, and my length of time here, having enemies is par for course, but I find it rather odd that you, whom I have had no conflict with that I know of, seem so open to the complaints of two editors who have had conflicts with just as many, if not more, than I. Further, if you are going to evaluate me on a handful of edit summaries, I'd suggest you also look through Ikip's actual posts (as he tends to avoid edit summaries). I've gotten along find as an editor with most people in the nearly five years I've been editing here, and have never been blocked for incivility. Four blocks in five years for mild edit warring, usually over issues of borderline vandalism than true edit warring, and all but one of which was later reduced in length after further discussion and review. If you, WhatamIdoing, have a specific problem with me, please have the courtesy and courage to address me yourself, rather than this rather rude back and forth disparaging my character and claiming I am incompetent when my lengthy edit history says otherwise. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You and I have had no significant conflicts; I know you only by reputation and by what any person can see from your contributions. My acceptance, as a neutral editor, of Ring's concern should tell you something about your reputation, although it's probably relevant to remember that socially incompetent people are unaware of their social incompetence.

Based on your comments here, it appears that you are satisfied with creating "enemies" and experiencing an endless series of conflicts. I don't think that is the inevitable outcome of editing Wikipedia, or desirable result for the overall project. Being a successful editor at Wikipedia requires far more than technical competence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but accepting his "concern" without actually looking at the history seems like a complete lack of Good Faith. Did you bother to see what the history was behind it? And you can believe what you like, but I am neither "socially incompetent" (and who is your calling me such civil in any fashion?) nor do I care if I "create" enemies through the proper application of Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and consensus. Many admins could be see as making "enemies" and dealing with an "endless series of conflicts" by tackling socks. Are they all "socially incompetent?" As for Ring, we first interacted in May when he was edit warring at No Country for Old Men (film). I welcomed him after he joined the film project, then later gave him warnings about edit warring and encouraging him to discuss his disputes over the plot on the article. This did not seem to be the cause of his current anger, though, as in December he asked for my help on the same article.[29] and we had a nice, civil, useful discussion over the issue at the style guide (in which he even quoted things I said to another user in backing up his own position. He has not actually said anything to me about having a personal issue with me, so I can only guess his "concerns" came when I did not support his proposed modification to WP:MOS-FILM, instead agreeing with our lead coordinator that the proposed versions was not an improvement of the original. Quite frankly, I'm rather surprised at his message to you at all, as the issue seemed to have been dropped and he he hadn't really edited here at all between that discussion and his message to you. If he wants to hate me because I agreed with Erik, I'd say I was not the one who is "socially incompetent" to use your apparent meaning o the phrase. And, to be honest, are you really a "netural" editor when our first and only interaction, until now, was in your disagreeing with those who were reverting your modifications to WP:ORG because they appeared to have no consensus per another revert, and then you choose to ignore WP:TALK and tried to restore comments removed from my talk page that I removed, as is my right. If that left you feeling bitter, again, that is not my issue, but that certainly does not make you "neutral" in this non-issue. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "application of Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and consensus" is not truly "proper" if your methods consistently produce as much friction as yours seem to be doing. Wikipedia's standards firmly discourage the behaviors I linked above, from replying to politely worded messages with insults to the expletive-laced edit summaries. However, based on what I've seen of your interaction with other editors on your talk page during the last week, I don't expect you to be able to hear what I'm telling you.

Ring (and other editors) have a decision to make: Do they choose to avail themselves of the rather limited options in Wikipedia's dispute resolution in an effort to improve Wikipedia by discussing the difficulties your needlessly abrasive style creates? Given what they know about both you and WP:DR, is an RfC/User likely to be productive, or a waste of everyone's time and energy?

Neither of us need to take any action here, since we aren't the editors that will be deciding whether to file an RfC/U. (The equivalent option for you is WP:Editor review, of course, but I doubt that you will think that appropriate.) If, however, you want to continue providing examples of your style of interaction with editors on this page for the convenient consideration of the several dozen editors currently watching this page, then as far as I'm concerned, you are welcome to do so. I only wish to be perfectly clear that whatever you say, whether here or elsewhere, may be, as it were, "taken down and given in evidence," if these editors ultimately decide to file an RfC/U. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's see, one of the FIRST steps of "Discuss with the other party" - Ring has never brought any dispute with me to my attention. As already noted, my last interaction with him was not what anyone would read and go "OMG, what a dispute" but what was a simple project discussion that, as far as I was aware, caused no tension. Yet, I'm somehow "abrasive" and not interacting properly? I didn't even know he had some explained problem with me until I saw his note above. If that is somehow grounds for RfC/U, then by all means, go file one, but such matters usually do require one show that you actually attempted to solve a dispute, which would first require bringing ones concerns up WITH the actual editor, not randomly and seemingly out of the blue throwing a critical message on someone else's talk page and start planning how to get rid of said editor. And yes, an RfC/U would be a complete waste of time, though not for the reasons you are probably presuming. I'd never do an Editor Review either because both would be derailed by 2-3 people who are far more uncivil than anything you've pointed out in those few editor summaries, and who have apparently made it there mission to try to drive anyone they consider a "deletionist" away from the encyclopedia through long term harassment and baseless accusations. If I want opinions on my editing style, I'll ask actual neutral people myself, who are not harboring pointless grudges and who do not have their own agendas. And, as you seem quite willing to just presume I'm some horrible person, yet support people basically running around and gossiping without ever saying a word to me about having a problem with something I've said or done, then really there is nothing left to discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume that your last interaction with Ring is not his/her cause for concern. There's no rule that says Ring can't informally request outside opinions, or that such concerns must always involve the most recent interaction.

I would be very pleased if you would go to the trouble of asking neutral editors to read this conversation and then look through your talk page's history or other evidence of your contributions. Perhaps you would consider choosing several people from Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active that you don't know well, but who seem to have a positive reputation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We haven't had ANY negative interactions that I am aware of, and, again, he has never brought forth any such concern to me. I've already pointed you to our only interactions. If someone you've said hi to twice came up to you on the street and starting saying the same things, would just presume that you must hbe a horrible person and should have five random people on the street decide so, or would you actually expect them to have the courtesy of at least airing his grievances with you. If Ring has a personal beef with me, he is more than welcome to actually come to me and discuss them, in a civil fashion, as per WP:DR. I can only presume he is still bitter with myself and the five or so other editors who he was in a conflict over the plot summary of No Country for Old Men (film), which eventually he seemed to concede he was acting inappropriately by demanding that everyone should get is approval before changing "his" summary, which contained WP:OR. I was not the start of that discussion, only one of several project coordinators who responded to a call for assistance. Funny how that always ends up biting you in the ass, huh? I'm evil because I attempted to help defuse the situation. Looking back further, he got very abusive with myself and others, but I'd forgotten it. If he hasn't after six months, then really, what can anyone do for him. Asking for an outside opinion on a non-specified dispute that is not evidenced by the actual editing history is really neither civil nor conducive to a cooperative environment at all. Anyone, I'm done with this discussion as you have clearly already made up your mind and have no real intention of "discussing" it, only throwing out the insults and claiming I'm the one with the problem. Such is your choice. *shrug* I don't believe in wasting time arguing with a brick wall, so I'm going to get back to what we're supposed to be doing, focusing on the content and improving the encyclopedia. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your hypothetical question about a stranger on the street is inapt. With a stranger on the street, I can't click on Special:Contributions/Collectonian and see past behavior for myself (which I did, before replying to Ring).

As it happens, I don't believe that you are a horrible person. I do believe that you are the person that has produced the dozen examples of undesirable behavior that I linked above in the space of one short week, and I believe that this is an excessive number of undesirable behaviors, but I don't believe that these examples are a complete representation of you as a person, or even everything that you do on Wikipedia.

I have no reason to assume that Ring's complaint has any connection to any direct interaction with Ring. I'm clearly capable of seeing problems between other people, both here and in the real world, without being directly involved in the problems; I see no reason to believe that Ring (or you, or anyone else) is any less capable of this basic human skill than I am. I would, therefore, suggest that you invest less effort in unfounded and unkind speculations about whether or not Ring is holding a grudge, and more on whether your behavior shows you as the kind of person that you personally want to be. If you believe that the dozen links above show you off as an ideal contributor on Wikipedia, then you really have nothing to worry about, do you? And if you don't think that your behavior is absolutely unimpeachable, then perhaps you would like to improve your behavior -- regardless of what I, or Ring, or anyone else thinks, and simply because every thoughtful and good person wants to fix any failings that they perceive in themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, maybe I could say a couple words here. Collectonian, you are a very busy editor, so I hope you won't take offense when I mention that your recount of our history is pretty good but not perfect. If it's somewhat tendentious, well, aren't we all and I think that's sort of expected.

True, you and I have had some productive efforts. I'm glad you too remember that we had some good interactions, yet I do think that your evaluation of my draft of the guidelines was ad hominem. (Of course I may be wrong.) Still, your editing on No Country..., well, you were not at your best. From my perspective it was positively perverse to be accused of warring when you were the offending party and putting in inferior content (imho, naturally). But come on that was a long time ago. You have your own take on it and I respect the difference.

I think it's fair to say that as an editor you're a little high handed, though, so maybe you'd be a better editor if you took that into account. I don't bear you any grudge, but expressed myself to WhatamIdoing simply to see if there could be value in an exchange of views. I don't question your good faith. And you are responding to criticisms, which speaks well of you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

I thought that I would take the time to wish you and your loved ones a Happy New Year. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Deprecated template

Since you undid my replacement of the deprecated Template:MedportalSA with the advised replacement Template:WPMED I have for the time being removed that template from the talk page of Evolution of sexual reproduction alltogether. As soon as you work out the issue and find a non-deprecated template that you would like to use, go ahead. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care how that article is tagged, or even if it is tagged by the portal. I have very little interest in the portal. I only insist that the article, which is not within the scope of WPMED, not be forced into WPMED's list. If someone at the portal wants to get rid of a template for their own convenience, then s/he will have to do it in a way that doesn't conflict with the primary purpose of their preferred replacement template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. My involvement in this is also sidewise: I try to keep Category:Pages using deprecated templates empty. Debresser (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"such as the United Kingdom"

Since edit summaries are so poor at communicating complex rationales, I've opened a discussion on the talk page of WP:IUP. Perhaps you would like to comment there? Apologies if I wasn't responding to the point you were making, I'm a bit lost on this one (and obviously missing some of the history too). Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

question

Hello. Thanks for your input regarding my changes regarding the special education page. I hope I wasn't too bold in my changes. Both inclusion and mainstreaming still need work, but I'm adding sources and information as I go along. I'm wondering how I go about changing the resource room page from "stub" class to something better. I understand this shouldn't be done unilaterally. As you can see I've been polishing it. the wikiproject education seems as active as a bridge game in a senior citizen home. Any and all input would be appreciated. Jim Steele (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Short of edit warring, I'm not sure that "too bold" exists in these under-developed and under-watched education articles.

The usual standards for article assessment are here. (Some projects have their own standards, but not WP:EDU.) Any editor can make quality assessments from Stub through B-class. If you want a simpler rule of thumb, try this for non-list articles:

• Less than about ten sentences: Always a stub.
• More than ten sentences, plus both at least one decent source and at least one section heading for content (==References== and similar appendices don't count): C-class.
• Too long for a stub, but no refs and/or no sections: Start-class.

Note that the rule of thumb I describe for C-class really is the absolute minimum, and many editors follow a rather higher standard, so if there's even the smallest doubt in your mind, choose the lower rating. Another, slightly squishier, way of looking at this is:

• If the article is tiny, it's a stub.
• If it's embarrassingly incomplete, it's start.
• If it's just enough to give someone a basic idea, it's C-class.
• If it's all the way to useful, it's B-class.

Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It helps. A lot. Thanks again. Jim Steele (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Attention

I have answered to your concerns at the attention talk page: I might have copied too much from the original Sholberg and Mateer text, but what that book you found does is much worse: it has copied full paragraphs and structure from at least 3 different articles. Maybe something could be done about it. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I saw your message at Talk:Attention#Copyvio.3F and will reply. Let's keep the conversation there (and let's keep it solution-focused: anyone can make a mistake, and, besides, it's all my husband's fault anyway. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Thanks for the heads up. I was answering a Discussion point on a Talk Page today which some time. I will address the RfC issues in the next two days, as there is quite a lot there. Many thanks.

Asgardian (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

From my perspective, there's no rush and no deadline: Participation is voluntary -- and I'm not in charge anyway. I just wanted to make sure that if you didn't respond in the end, that it was a deliberate choice, and not the accidental result of a busy holiday schedule or some other factor.

I hope that the discussion helps resolve the dispute. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

External linksearch, namespace-restricted

Hi - I remember we'd talked in the past about the utility of being able to restrict an external-link search to a specific namespace (e.g. to get all the links to fda.gov from articlespace only, without all the talkspace and projectspace links). I've come up with a hack that adds an option to Special:LinkSearch allowing you to limit search results to specific namespaces. It's still got a few minor kinks, but it works OK for me so far.

Anyhow, if you want to give it a shot, you can go to User:MastCell/monobook.js and append its entire contents to User:WhatamIdoing/monobook.js. If you don't like the results, you can just revert your monobook.js to the previous version. I'd be curious to get some feedback on whether you find it useful (and whether it works for you). If you're not really up for cutting and pasting a huge amount of text into your monobook.js file, I'll probably spin it off into a separate file that could just be imported with importScript at some point. Anyhow, just thought you might be interested. MastCell ^Talk 23:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm interested, although I haven't acted on it. Are you willing to share this with a wider audience? User:Hu12 might be interested, as might anyone at WP:WPSPAM or WP:EL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your response. Yes, I'd be happy for anyone who wants it to use it. I think 2over0 (talk · contribs) has already started using it. You should be able to simply add the line importScript('User:MastCell/el-namespace.js'); to your monobook.js, refresh your browser cache, and it will work. (Probably easier than cut-and-pasting the whole thing). There are a few minor kinks - I think the only significant one is that the wikilinks don't quite work on the secure server. It's an easy fix, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. MastCell ^Talk 01:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi MastCell,

The script won't play with me. I pasted the importScript line into my monobook, and reloaded. I get (yay!) a pop-up list of namespaces, but the 'Search' button is grayed out, and I can't get any search results.

(In case it might matter, I'm running Mozilla Firefox 3.5.7). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's odd... I tested it with Firefox 3.5.3 on a Mac (running Mac OS 10.4, but that shouldn't really matter). I wonder if it's conflicting with one of the other scripts in your monobook.js. I made one small change - if you don't mind, try refreshing your cache again (shift "reload" button in Firefox) and try it one more time. If it's still grayed out at the start, let me know and I'll go back to the drawing board. The button is supposed to gray out after you click it - momentarily - and then re-enable once the query has completed, but it sounds like it was grayed out right off the bat for you. MastCell ^Talk 21:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've switched computers for the moment, so I'm on 3.5.3. At least in this version (and/or with your change), the button isn't grayed out until after I click on it. I haven't managed to get any results yet, and I've switched to a test case that I know is in the mainspace. Is it perhaps exceedingly slow? I've only been letting it run for about two minutes before giving up and reloading the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, shouldn't take more than a second or two (it's basically as fast as a page load for me). Since it happened on 2 different computers (including one configuration that seems to work for me), I bet it's an issue where my script is conflicting with another one that you're running. That is, the problem is more likely specific to your account/monobook than to your computer. Let me think about it... MastCell ^Talk 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My department

Hey WAID. I am attempting to get my entire department to start contributing to Wikipedia along with all the students / residents who pass through. Need to get a few things in order however. These are the first 20 pages we will be looking at working on User:Jmh649/Sandbox9. Most deal with signs or symptoms and the approach to them from an emergency medicine perspective. I have proposed added some guidance on formatting for this type of page and would appreciate some input. [30] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's talk at MEDMOS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks

I thought your revision concerning books read on the internet was a most elegant solution to what I saw as an obvious absurdity. Now if you could only apply that clarity throughout the other ambiguities and contradictions I keep running into.... Nah, too much to hope for, lol.

Georgejdorner (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Improvements to pages like that often require tiny baby steps taken over very long periods (years, even). In the end, I hope that clarity will be achieved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Neutropenia

An article that you have been involved in editing, Neutropenia , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Spiral5800 (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

if

If this persists .. please consider a blacklist request. It has been reported before for other links, they have quite a bit of stuff. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that problem is quite a bit bigger than I expected. Thanks for being so thorough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

New sections / categories

Several of us editors have been working on two new sections within the list of cutaneous conditions. The sections are next to each other, with the first being the palmoplantar keratodermas, followed by pregnancy-related conditions. Would you mind looking over these new sections, before we go through the effort of categorizing them, and give us any feedback you may have on the talk page? Regardless, thank you for all your help in the past. ---kilbad (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

MH 34 RFC/U

Hi WAID,

I was wondering how you noticed the RFC/U on Michael H 34. I contemplated adding notification to a couple pages (you, Jack-A-Roe and 2over0) but don't want to bombard people. Right now it's languishing, and it would be nice to have a few more comments if people feel comfortable.

Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean the overall RFC page? 'K, thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Michael H 34 is on my watchlist. So are WP:RFC and WP:RFC/U and other related pages, but they seem less relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you add it, or have you auto-watchlisted all subpages for RFC/U? I'm mostly curious 'cause I don't know if you can do something like that. And if you've got a lot of experience with the RFC/U, I was thinking of pointing some people who have dealt with Michael H 34 before to the page (Jack-A-Roe, 2over0 and yourself were the three I know interacted with him on parental alienation syndrome and a couple other pages back in the summer). I would think it's a WP:CANVASS issue, but acceptable. In the past I have also made a point of alerting people who may be on the "other" side, or inviting the other editor to do so. In this case, I can't think of any. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I manually added it, but I suppose that you could bookmark (not watchlist) Special:RecentChangesLinked/Template:RFCUlist to get a similar effect.

I think that a brief, factual note (e.g., "I have helped file an RfC/U") might be acceptable under CANVAS. A single note to a relevant WikiProject might be more efficient, but I'm not sure which project(s) would be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts as well, thanks. Since it's about an editor with a very narrow focus within any wikiproject, the only way you have of getting any input into their behaviour is by inviting those with contact to comment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Message for you

Hello,itis immunize.There is a message for you at the talk page of treatment of non hodgkin's lymphoma.Immunize (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Fever

Hey WAID this is not what the ref behind what I wrote said. Hyperpyrexia is any very high temp. Fever is a change in set point. Hyperthermia is a temp above the set point. The three terms are different.

From Uptodate Hyperthermia — Although the vast majority of patients with elevated body temperature have fever, there are a few instances in which an elevated temperature represents hyperthermia. These include heat stroke syndromes, certain metabolic diseases, and the effects of pharmacologic agents that interfere with thermoregulation. In contradistinction to fever, the setting of the thermoregulatory center during hyperthermia remains unchanged at normothermic levels, while body temperature increases in an uncontrolled fashion and overrides the ability to lose heat. Exogenous heat exposure and endogenous heat production are two mechanisms by which hyperthermia can result in dangerously high internal temperatures. (See "Severe hyperthermia in adults: Heat stroke and malignant hyperthermia".)

The source I was using might be wrong... Let me look into it more tonight. Cheers.

Hyperpyrexia — Hyperpyrexia is the term for an extraordinarily high fever (>41.5 ºC), which can be observed in patients with severe infections but most commonly occurs in patients with central nervous system (CNS) hemorrhages. Although antipyretics reduce the body temperature in hyperpyrexic fever, cooling blankets and cool water sponging are recommended to accelerate peripheral heat losses. However, peripheral cooling with cooling blankets can be counterproductive in the absence of antipyretics since cold receptors in the skin trigger reactive vasoconstriction, thus reducing heat loss mechanisms.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Much of what we had was not based on any references at all. Just trying to add some refs. Thanks for looking it over. Will be working on it further over the next few days. Started a template Template:HumanTemperature Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is what the ref says "Hyperpyrexia, or extremely high fever, may also be due to sepsis, but as the temperature rises, the differential diagnosis widens and includes less common conditions such as neuroleptic malignant syndrome and heatstroke" PMID 11476402 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The confusion doesn't surprise me; I remember it being difficult to sort out the sources the last time I looked into it, and some sources (including nearly all patient-grade sources) are shamefully lazy with their word choice. I remember seeing one textbook that listed the same condition as "fever" in the text and as "non-fever/hyperthermia" in a table on the same page.

But even accurate sources are complicated. For example, the ref you quote immediately above defines hyperpyrexia as an extremely high fever (which is true) -- and then names heatstroke as a possible differential diagnosis.

We could look at this somewhat imperfectly expressed source and conclude that heatstroke is a fever (except that you and I both know that heatstroke is never a true fever, by definition). Alternatively, we could conclude (correctly, and doubtlessly what the author meant to say) that heatstroke should be considered as a differential diagnosis. That is, that heatstroke is not hyperpyrexia, heatstroke is truly different from hyperpyrexia, but that the medical sign (severely elevated body temperature) that we initially attributed to a true fever might be caused by other, non-fever medical conditions (such as heatstroke). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Also: if you look carefully at the first sources above, you'll see that they don't support a claim that hyperpyrexia is "any" very high body temperature, but support the claim that hyperpyrexia must be a true fever.

'Hyperthermia' at Uptodate doesn't mention hyperpyrexia, and the other defines hyperpyrexia as "the term for an extraordinarily high fever" -- not "any extraordinarily high temperature", but "an extraordinarily high caused-by-an-elevated-setpoint-temperature-true-fever". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent)

1. Have come across a fascinating reference that refers to fever as "controlled hyperthermia". Than calls what we define as hyperthermia as "uncontrolled hyperthermia".Axelrod YK, Diringer MN (2008). "Temperature management in acute neurologic disorders". Neurol Clin. 26 (2): 585–603, xi. doi:10.1016/j.ncl.2008.02.005. PMID 18514828. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
2. From further reading it appears to be any elevated temp "Hyperpyrexia by definition is core temperature of 106◦F/41◦C [6]. The basic mechanism is a disparity between conservation and dissipation of body heat. Inadequate heat dissipation is often the cause. The various syndromes of hyperthermia are heat stroke, drug induced hyperthermia, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, malignant hyperthermia and endocrinopathy [6]." From this 2005 paper Recurrent familial cerebellar syndrome

associated with pyrexia. Ref 6 refers to Harrisons. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay have read harrison's and have concluded you are right. It is due to a change in set point. Will add a ref to confirm this. Thanks again for the review.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you've found a really solid source.

What do you think about mentioning the loose/incorrect use of the term in the section? I'm not sure I could produce a source that directly says "some authors are sloppy" (although examples aren't hard to find, as you've discovered), but some readers might appreciate a brief alert about the confusion -- perhaps "Strictly speaking, hyperpyrexia is a severe fever..." or "Occasionally, an author will use this term loosely to refer to severe hyperthermia rather than a severe fever."

I could go either way, so whatever you choose is fine with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

vandals

The battle continues. There is a frequent vandal who has been editing special education. Jim Steele (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Two events in two months at one article isn't usually what Wikipedia considers "frequent", but if you're seeing problems with other articles, we might want to consider leaving a note at WP:AIV or WP:RFPP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WT:MED

I posted a new comment about condition variants/subtypes at the main medicine talk page, and would appreciate your thoughts if you have a moment? Regardless, thanks for your help in the past. ---kilbad (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I replied back on the med talk page. ---kilbad (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:MED will always be on my watchlist, so notifications aren't actually necessary (and I wouldn't want you to go to needless work) -- but, having said that, if I'm being slow in responding, a friendly ping is always welcome, because sometimes I mean to comment "after just one more thing," and then get distracted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

wp:citation needed

hello,

just curious, why the "essay" flag at wp:citation needed? I'm concerned that it might undermine the level of trust that people will place in what is otherwise uncontroversial advice; and that it adds another feature to an otherwise clean page. That being said, I've seen you around the encyclopedia a lot and I trust your judgment, I'm just curious to know why the sudden change.

I'd be very grateful if you put any response on my talk page, as I am not on WP very frequently these days.

cheers,

Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 04:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Victims of old vandalism

See Talk:Brain tumor#Causes; I indirectly indicated a statement of yours. JoergenB (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian

There's new evidence that Collectonian is continuing in her quasi-abusive, high-handed, anti-intellectual, dismissive, not very smart style. She's really a pox on Wikipedia. Perhaps it should be revisited since she seems to have responded poorly to a reasonable suggestion that she improve her practices. But then maybe you're not up for that, which I also understand. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to whinge on my talk page, then that's (usually) okay with me, but have you considered the options at WP:Dispute resolution?

It doesn't look like you've ever been involved in a user RfC, so I have a practical suggestion for figuring out whether this forum seems like something you'd want to consider in your dispute with Collectonian: Try one out.

Specifically, please go read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Michael H 34, look at the behaviors discussed there, and describe what you see (your "view") on the RfC/U page. It's a fairly quiet page, so people would be (very) grateful for any outside editor's willingness to spend an hour giving them a fresh, unbiased opinion and any advice that seems appropriate. It's also not terribly drama-oriented, everyone's being pretty civil, and the identified patient seems to be on a wikibreak, so it's kind of a safe one (and it might be pleasant for you to see editors disagreeing without being rude). Post your view, and watch the page for a week or two. See what happens, and see if you can help resolve the dispute. During that week or two, look over other RfC/U pages, and see what you think about how they're run. Then come back here and tell me what you think. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to ask...

Was this a joke? Swarm^(Talk) 08:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No.

That problem needs to be addressed. It cannot be effectively addressed by WQA. They therefore need to file the RfC/User and proceed through that level of dispute resolution, even though Ratel and Gamaliel know that it is highly likely to be tedious, time-consuming, and unpleasant step.

Note that I also don't expect the RfC/U to produce a proper sense of sourcing in THF -- candidly, I'm not convinced that anything will, and a topic ban may be necessary -- but RfC/U is the next step, and it's time to move on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. One way or another, an RFC/U is in order. I just found it ironic that although THF filed the WQA, you explicitly told Ratel and Gamaliel to file it against THF. Thought it might just be sarcasm to point out that THF is actually the problem or something like that. Swarm^(Talk) 20:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Purely a practical point on my part: An RfC/U cannot be filed unless you can find two (or more) editors that have experienced and attempted to resolve the same problem with another editor(s). Ratel Gamaliel = two editors. THF by himself can't get an RfC/U through the 48-hour certification stage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship 1

Although I think that you are likely to be disinterested, I write to invite you to join others in becoming a co-mentor for me.

You may be unaware that the "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty explicitly encompasses a message on your talk page -- see User talk:WhatamIdoing#WP:V

Your experience will help remedy a deficit in the composition of a small group. The nascent status of a mentorship committee is clarified in the currently active thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Tang Dynasty. Hopefully, this mentorship experiment will prove to be more effective and less burdensome than previous wiki-mentoring schemes.

This is a time for hortatory concepts. Do you know this one?

"I am only one, but I am one. I can not do everything, but I can do something.

I must not fail to do the something that I can do."

If Wikiquote:Helen Keller#Misattributed is to believed, then I am not alone in linking these words with Helen Keller. The salient question becomes this: Does precise attribution matter in the context of a teachable moment? No – not always, but often.

What can I say or do to convince you to agree tentatively?

Core policies are the tools at hand; and if you agree to help connect the dots, it could benefit more than me. In this search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Your background causes me to share something already explained to another prospective mentor, "Among a prospective mentor's many burdens, the most difficult would involve (a) helping me discern why or when I should apologize or (b) helping me to explain why or when I will not apologize in a wiki-context" -- see diff. May I offer an on-topic writing sample? As you think about agreeing to join a mentorship committee, please review Patrick Lennox Tierney#Showa apology rebuffed.

Are you willing to look into this a bit further? I assume that time constraints will limit your participation; but perhaps you might consider making yourself available as a "non-public mentor", as an advisor to the co-mentors whose questions are likely to be different than mine?

If you please, contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Tenmei. I will consider your request for a few days, but my initial inclination is not to be a mentor.

I have a question for you: Are you familiar with the distinction between shame cultures and guilt cultures? Which kind of culture would you find more familiar or comfortable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing -- Thank you for your thoughtful response.

As you think about what you might be willing to do, please bear in mind that I'm asking you to join a group in which potential burdens or constraints will be mitigated. This is explained briefly at WP:A/R/C/Tang Dynasty#Response to Stephen Smith. If you like, please feel free to contact any of the others who are tentatively investing in this mentorship venture -- see User:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts.

Two rakan evoke a teachable moment, searching together for a focal point?

Your questions suggest a tactic which brings me closer to the perspective of someone I don't understand. Extrapolating from your lines of enquiry, the game theory focal point is shifted. I only begin to try to contrive a hypothesis derived from a point of view not my own; but it is a step in a useful direction. Thank you.

I have sent you an e-mail.

Please contact me by e-mail. I hope to build from this beginning; and I would prefer to continue this in an off-wiki venue. --Tenmei (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing -- I didn't reach out to you randomly in June 2009, nor now. I had something in mind, but your questions overwhelm that logic-chain. I can't thank you enough for helping me see a fulcrum and levers I couldn't otherwise perceive.

Sharpening the focus, I have stricken all but three sentences above; and I re-post and number them here:

1. "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty explicitly encompasses a message on your talk page -- see User talk:WhatamIdoing#WP:V

2. Core policies are the tools at hand; and if you agree to help connect the dots, it could benefit more than me.

3. I cite Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

If you please, you might better understand what I'm asking if you will review WP:A/R/C#Statement by Tenmei, especially

A. Response to Steven Smith

B. Response to Coren

C. Response to Roger Davies

In my context, your questions were valued like pearls of great price.

In thanks for highlighting "the distinction between shame cultures and guilt cultures," please accept two quotes as unexpected gifts. I hope you find them timely and arguably useful and divorced from shame or guilt.

• "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" — attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan; variants: (a) "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts" — quoted in Robert Sobel's review of Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies edited by Mark C. Carnes; (b) "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts" — quoted in Timothy J. Penny, Facts Are Facts, National Review September 4, 2003; (c) "You’re entitled to your own opinions. You’re not entitled to your own facts" &mdsh; Ellen Hume, Tabloids, Talk Radio and the Future of News, part 4 (TOC), 1995 cites this as something Moynihan said to a "1994 electoral opponent on WNBC in New York".
• "Truth is generally the best vindication against slander." — Abraham Lincoln, , responding to complaint about Montgomery Blair, Postmaster-General, in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919); John Hay, Abraham Lincoln: A History (1890)

"Truth is generally the best vindication" – full text of letter in which quote appears

July 14,1864.— Letter To Secretary Stanton. Executive Mansion, Washington, July 14,1864. Hon. Secretary of War. Sir: Your note of to-day inclosing General Halleck's letter of yesterday relative to offensive remarks supposed to have been made by the Postmaster-General concerning the military officers on duty about Washington is received. The general's letter in substance demands of me that if I approve the remarks I shall strike the names of those officers from the rolls; and that if I do not approve them the Postmaster-General shall be dismissed from the Cabinet Whether the remarks were really made I do not know, nor do I suppose such knowledge is necessary to a correct response. If they were made, I do not approve them; and yet, under the circumstances, I would not dismiss a member of the Cabinet therefor. I do not consider what may have been hastily said in a moment of vexation at so severe a loss is sufficient ground for so grave a step. Besides this, truth is generally the best vindication against slander. I propose continuing to be myself the judge as to when a member of the Cabinet shall be dismissed. Yours truly, A. Lincoln in Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, Vol. II, pp. 547-548 (1907).

If you are disinterested in a role in the cohort of ArbCom-approved "public mentors," perhaps you might be willing or able to be a non-public mentor/advisor? --Tenmei (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute RfC

I have changed the timestamp position to see if the bot processes it as discussed and it does. So we can close this point on the RfC talk page.

Since you've responded to the actual RfC instance, it's worth saying that we had already discussed all of these issues in the talk pages in the weeks before, and thought we had an agreed consensus on all these points. K just waited a week then filed the RfC to reopen these discussions again without cross-referencing these discussions. On (1) and (2) we don't have a problem adding factual text, just not hoisting these points into the first few introductory lines of the article. There isn't a single MEDRS (or to my knowledge field expert) which describes this paper as controversial, and we already cover the media generated controversy. The history section already states that WPI has set up a small laboratory prior to the opening of its new facility later this year.

Re (3) our main argument always was the WP:UNDUE issue, but K also rephrased the source to imply something that it never actually said. The text she included was "working as a bartender", but the RS said that she was tending a bar at a yacht club. I've referenced PDFs from the yacht club website concerned showing that she was actually a member of the club (and a junior commodore). It's quite common in this sort of club for members to tend the bar on a voluntary basis. We asked her under WP:V to prove that Mikowits was "working as a bartender". She refused to do so, saying the onus was on us to prove that she was not. So her wording fails WP:V as well.

Re (4), at one stage we had a bunch of "A said", "B said" sources in the article which gave a balanced if somewhat tawdry summary of this use of the press. K kept deleting all the "B said" sources because her position was that this article was about A and therefore what B said was coatracking (even though they were criticising A). Again she also converted the wording from an observation by the journalist into a direct quote by Mikovits. After discussion our consensus was that it was best to remove them all and put in a blanket statement with the references for readers to look at if they wish.

We have no problem with including balanced content that passes WP:V and which isn't shown to be factually incorrect by other RS. But we do have a problem with the tactics and editing practices that this editor employs, but as I now know these are best addressed in a user RfC. -- TerryE (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Point 3 is why I responded; that kind of detail is so obviously irrelevant that its inclusion could only be motivated by either a complete misunderstanding of the concept of an encyclopedia, or an effort to smear the scientist by association with 'menial labor' and drunkenness.

Not only do we not care who suggested she look into the company, we don't care where they met, what the weather was, what kind of vehicle she drove to the interview, or what color suit she wore. If Keepcalm keeps pushing for the inclusion of that detail, then please let me know (the page is not on my watchlist). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Richard Lindzen

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Richard Lindzen, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 12:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored

Hope my refactoring is acceptable and useful per your "yeay" vote. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 19:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC closed, now at arbitration

Hello,

Thank you for participating on the discussion page in the recent RFC/U regarding Asgardian‎. The RFC has been closed, and the case is now at arbitration. You are neither required nor requested to participate, but you may view the initial statements for the case (please do not edit that page), and you may view the evidence presented and add more evidence if you wish, or simply follow the case. BOZ (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not surprised to hear that this case has ended up at ArbCom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma

I don't understand your reverts to my edits of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma at all.

For example, if the 1982 Working Formulation is obsolete, and the 2001 WHO classification is now used, why put the 1982 Working Formulation first? And is this too complicated for the introduction? --Nbauman (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

NHL is the Working Formulation; the Working Formulation papers created the concept of NHL. So your question is, in the end, "Why should we put the subject of this article first, and why put the subject of this article in the introduction?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've lost you. The only recent textbook I have handy is Harrison's. I can't find mention of the 1982 Working Formulation, or any "Working Formulation," in Harrison's. Neither could I find any mention of "Working Formulation" in a search of the online New England Journal of Medicine. Nor is there any link to the sources of "Working Formulation" in Non-Hodgkin lymphoma or Working Formulation. What's a WP:RS for that statement?

The WP entries say that the Working Formulation is obsolete, and is only used for continuity in statistical comparisons with older data. Is that correct?

If the Working Formulation is obsolete, what do they call the classification they use now? Harrison's just calls it, "WHO Classification of Lymphoid Malignancies." Nbauman (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Wikipedia articles are correct (within the limits of my knowledge), and no, it is not reasonable to expect to find the Working Formulation in any modern textbook, or details about its mid-1990s successor (the REAL classification) in any very recent textbook, because it is obsolete. Textbooks are not generally in the business of providing obsolete information.

Classifying lymphomas according to whether or not they are inside ("Non-Hodgkin") or outside ("Hodgkin") of the scope of the (obsolete) Working Formulation is obsolete: See, for example, PMID 14744745 "For lymphomas, the first (ICD-O-1) and second (ICD-O-2) editions generally classified lymphomas according to the Working Formulation and other now-obsolete schemes."

You'll find the current classification scheme at ICD-O-3, whose implementation began in 2001. You might be interested in more history.

IMO, what's more important than the name of the current scheme is that they're in a period of splitting rather than lumping: They are trying to figure out how many different varieties of lymphoma exist, and give them individual names, rather than trying to lump them together in an overarching scheme (like "low grade" or "anything except Hodgkin"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So you don't have a WP:RS for the discussion of Working Formulation. Shouldn't we delete it from the article? --Nbauman (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem that you are attempting to address.

What "discussion" of the Working Formulation are you talking about? Do you want a source that verifies the existence of the Working Formulation? One that indicates the the Working Formulation is about lymphoma, and not, e.g., heart disease? Something else?

What actual problem are you trying to solve? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the best way to explain it would be to put a flag on Non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

My underlying problem is that the NHL article seems to me to be difficult for a non-specialist to understand WP:MTAA. I've talked to a lot of cancer patients, and even to a lot of professionals whose clients are cancer patients, and my sense is they wouldn't understand this entry. If somebody has NHL, Wikipedia is often the first place they land when they try to find out more about it, and I think we should give them an article that is easy for them to understand -- at least in the introduction. I don't get upset if the sections below are technical. --Nbauman (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's start from the beginning: Are you aware that nobody really has NHL? NHL is not a disease: it's an artificial conglomeration of several dozen different -- and in some cases unrelated -- diseases. Nobody has "NHL"; nobody has "cancer"; nobody has "heart disease". They have specific lymphomas, specific cancers, and specific kinds of heart disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware of that. What do you mean? Can somebody have diffuse large B cell lymphoma?

I've seen articles in journals that referred to patients with NHL. There are subtypes, with different morphology, and more recently with different molecular markers and now DNA characteristics. For certain purposes you can say that somebody has NHL. For other purposes you want a more specific diagnosis. I thought artificial constructs were useful.

If you want to start from the beginning, a good place to do it would be in Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. --Nbauman (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can have DLBL: it is properly a disease. By "disease", I mean that there is a single type of pathology affecting a single type of cell, that produces a reasonably consistent set of symptoms, and that is usefully treated (to the extent possible under current knowledge and technology) in the same way as any other patient with DLBL -- but is different, e.g., from AILT, which has a different pathology, different cell, somewhat different symptoms, markedly different lab results, different treatments, and different prognosis.

NHL is not properly a disease; it is a category of diseases. A patient should never be told that he (or she) has NHL, any more than you would tell someone that he has "genetic disorder" as if "genetic disorder" rather than, say, Familial Mediterranean fever, were the name of the actual disease.

Consequently, your hypothetical statement above ("If somebody has NHL, Wikipedia is often the first place they land when they try to find out more about it") isn't appropriate: The patient should be looking at DLBL or whichever page describes their specific type of lymphoma (or Lymphoma, or even Cancer, if they want more general information) -- and not the NHL article, since knowing the history and current uses of the name for an outdated classification system does not tell them anything useful or appropriate their actual disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if every doctor would agree with you. I just read an article in the NEJM, "Stage IV Chronic Kidney Disease." They use the term "disease" to include a range of diseases from different causes, including hypertension, arterial obstruction, ureteral obstruction, infection, autoimmune response, etc. Is "kidney disease" a disease? Should a doctor tell a patient that he has "kidney disease"?--Nbauman (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not: Patients should be told exactly what they have (and the certainty to which this diagnosis is established), not fobbed off with vague categories. Wouldn't you rather be told that you have Goodpasture syndrome instead of "some kidney problem or another, but don't trouble your pretty little head with the details"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A 54-year-old woman with diabetes and hypertension comes in to a doctor's office. He sees from her laboratory reports that since her last visit, her urinary protein excretion has increased to 2.8g/24h. Her serum creatinine has increased to 3.1 mg/dL. Her estimated GFR has gone down from 60 ml/min/1.73m3 to 26 ml/min/1.73m3. He tells her that he'll have to do some more tests to see what's causing it. Until he figures out what's causing it, can he tell her she has kidney disease? --Nbauman (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not if the physician pretends that this is a proper diagnosis or enough information to direct treatment. IMO what the physician needs to communicate is something much closer to, "your kidneys don't seem to be functioning very well, and we need to figure out what's going on and how to address this problem" than "you have Kidney Disease". "A disease that is affecting your kidneys" is ultimately different from "Kidney Disease" as a proper noun. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The New England Journal of Medicine calls it kidney disease. Are they wrong? --Nbauman (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

NEJM does not call "it" Kidney Disease; they are obviously discussing many different diseases that affect the kidneys.

Please note the moving goalposts: Your question above was specifically directed towards the patients ("If somebody has NHL..."), not to experts that are already aware of the diversity of diseases of the kidney. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The NEJM has an article called "Stage IV Chronic Kidney Disease," which is about kidney disease of many causes.

You say NHL is not a disease, as you use the term, because it doesn't have a single pathology.

I didn't think that a disease has to have a single pathology. An example is kidney disease, which can be caused by any one of several pathologies (or a combination).

When a patient comes into a doctor's office with a complaint, the doctor doesn't always know at the initial presentation what the cause is, what the pathology is, what the effective treaments will be, much less the molecular characterization.

That's true of kidney disease and NHL.

As I understand it, at that point, a doctor could reasonably tell the patient that he or she has kidney disease, or NHL, before he has the specifics that further testing will give him.

After he gets home, the patient might reasonably do a Google search for "non-hodgkins lymphoma". If he winds up on a Wikipedia page, I want to make that page as helpful for him as possible.

I don't see the difference between "kidney disease" and "A disease that is affecting your kidneys". --Nbauman (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between providing a diagnosis of "a" disease of the kidneys rather than "the" disease of the kidneys, or "a" lymphoma and "the" lymphoma? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I will have to defer making a decision about this matter until I can look it up in the JAMA style book. --Nbauman (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I was just throwing out old files and I found an ASCO 2010 calendar, illustrated with a painting for every month by a cancer survivor. They identified two of the artists as "Cancer Survivor, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma" (January and November). This is official ASCO "Doctor-approved information for patients," reviewed for accuracy. So oncologists say that patients have NHL. I can't think of anyone more authoritative than ASCO. --Nbauman (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd take American Society of Hematology over ASCO on this point, since ASCO is primarily interested in solid tumors rather than hematological malignancies. I'd also take the World Health Organization, since they own the codes -- and have rejected "NHL" as anything other than a legacy code (for situations like "patient had some kind of lymphoma 20 years ago... but we don't know what kind it was"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is pedantic. My goal on Wikipedia is to explain medicine in terms that the non-technical reader can understand. This includes cancer patients, people who care for them, biology students, computer science majors, or anybody who is curious.

Doctors tell their patients they have NHL. The American Cancer Society and ASCO web site have pages on NHL. So somebody could reasonably come to Wikipedia for information on NHL. If the summary of the entry is so confusing that they can't understand it, you've defeated the purpose of Wikipedia.

If your target audience can't understand your writing, why are you writing it? --Nbauman (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If by "pedantic" you mean "precise and accurate", then I accept that honor. Here's what I want for the NHL page: I want the person who looks at this page to know that

• NHL is an outdated term whose use is deprecated by all authorities except those doing historical/statistical work (who don't have any other options). (N.B.: Patient-led support groups are not authorities.)
• NHL is a term for a class of diseases, not a single disease
• NHL means, in plain English, "all the lymphomas except the Hodgkin's lymphomas", which is as imprecise as "all the viral infections except the common cold".
  • This means that "your" NHL is not the same as "his" NHL or "her" NHL
  • This means that nobody has 'the 39 distinct lymphomas characterized solely by the fact that they aren't the other four lymphomas'
• This means that if the reader wants to know something about one of those 39 distinct diseases, then he (or she) is better off reading about the specific disease than about the disease class.

In short, I want readers off this page as quickly as possible, so that they can get to the correct page for the specific condition that they're interested in. A person concerned about a rare T-cell lymphoma is not served by reading a bunch of irrelevant summaries about the far more common B-cell lymphomas that overwhelm the statistics for NHL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What is your WP:RS for saying that "NHL is an outdated term whose use is deprecated by all authorities except those doing historical/statistical work (who don't have any other options"? It can't be true. ASCO and ACS use the term. They're authorities (if you want to be precise and accurate. --Nbauman (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine.
Message added 22:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MaenK.A._Talk 22:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

MOS vs MOSMED precedence

WhatamIdoing, I was going to post a follow-up on your talk page first, but the last time I tried this with an experienced editor he deleted my Q from the talk page, which is his right I suppose. So I decided that it would be better to raise this one the appropriate policy talk page: Wikipedia talk:Etiquette#Introduce WP:ANSWERQ or equivalent. What I am trying to do is to get advice and the perspective of a editor who has a lot more experience of Wikipedia than me. So perhaps you might wish to add this, and I would value this.

In terms of your comments on the WPI RfC, I suspect that you missed it but I had previously gave a detailed statement of why WP:MOS goes not prohibit the use of Dr and why WP:CREDENTIALS is a sub-point of WP:MOSBIO and doesn't apply here. At least that's what the actual words in the guidelines say. Perhaps you can give your views on this particular point on the WPI talk page? Thanks -- TerryE (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can determine, the MoS does "prohibit" the use of 'Dr' -- as strongly and directly as it "prohibits" anything -- and the only issue left in my mind is how long you're going to keep up this unfortunate wikilawyering about whether the MoS applies to mainspace articles. You may need to make a bigger effort to WP:HEAR the people who disagree with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you honest feedback. As I said on the note that I referred to above I only got into "Wikilawyering" in the first place as a defence against other editors who repeatedly use this strategy against me. The WP:HEAR advice is good and it's a pity that it's not more widely applied. The majority view here always was that the Dr form makes more sense but one editor chose to revert three other editors repeatedly on this point, which is why I resorted to the RfC, rather than repeating a revert. Now the view is 4-2 of the other editors (excluding us 2) for the Dr use. What I just find odd if that if MOSBIO sections are going to be applied outside its stated scope then why not just change the wording of the article to reflect this? Thanks again. -- TerryE (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess that we must be on different time zones. I have just added a comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#RfC on CREDENTIAL. I feel that you have misinterpreted one aspect of my claim (what mathematician's call confusing necessity and sufficiency). I am not saying that CREDENTIAL can never apply outside a Bio (which is what you state), as clearly there are times when it makes sense to do so -- for example if the article is makes multiple references to a person, then it makes sense to apply CREDENTIAL to second and subsequent references. It is the minority editor that seems to be claiming that CREDENTIAL should always apply even in non-Bios (and should be treated as a policy rather than a guideline). I am only saying that this is clearly not the case. Let me reread the wording of the RfC and clarify if necessary. -- TerryE (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Your effort to distinguish between policies and guidelines according to how often one may safely ignore them is doomed: WP:RS, for example, is 'just' a guideline. WP:TE is 'just' an essay -- and it is cited in blocking editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the point that you make, and yes WP:RS is a guideline and but it is really underpinned by WP:V. I haven't come across WP:TE because I've only read the essays that have been quoted against me. In reality these documents do form a legal framework -- that of the Wikipedia world -- and in any legal framework issues of consistency, completeness, precedent are important otherwise the system is just open to too much abuse. I am only trying to get my head around this system.

I suspect that your inference is that I am being a little tendentious myself in initiating this RfC. It must seem that way, but you should understand the background here: I and a number of other editors got sucked into a couple of articles because we felt that they were being used as attack pieces; that the content from one editor frequently failed basic verification and often distorted what the sources said. We would explain why, and get no direct response to specific points of detail; we would discuss and make changes to align wording to the sources. Then every few weeks we would be faced with a mass revert which would undo most of these changes with a random collection of these WP acronyms as the main justification; tens of hours of discussion and agreement from 3-5 other editors down the pan at a stroke. That's why I started reading these WPs; that's why I am struggling to understand how this system works and how to work within it -- because it's either that or I accept that Wikipedia content isn't about truth and accuracy at all; it's about who knows how to manipulate the system to their own ends and who they can get to support them. In this case what it is so wrong about Dr Donnica Moore or Donnica Moore, MD that an editor can wave the CREDENTIAL flag and override 5 other editors six times on this? If this is the case, then what about the other 100,000 odd references to Dr XXXX in Wikipedia. Do we have to change them as well? I thought that with the RfC I could at least get this one removed from this week's mass revert :( I guess I was wrong. -- TerryE (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your question goes the other way, too: What's so important about "Dr Donnica Moore" (who, for all that tells me, could have a PhD in English Literature from an online diploma mill) that the much more informative statement, "Donnica Moore, the celebrity physician", isn't acceptable to you?

RS and TE are, by the way, my standard examples for this point. How Wikipedia classifies pages in the Wikipedia: namespace defies any simple explanation. (The mere fact that I have standard examples for this point should reassure you that you are not the first editor to discover that it's more complicated than any reasonable person would expect.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest the use of "celebrity" sounds promotional and make me squirm. "Donnica Moore, the physician" is accurate but unwieldy. "Donnica Moore, MD" is the normal usage; it is a lot more specific and succinct, and my first alternative suggestion, but if I propose that on the article again then we'll just have another edit bout. Here we are having a civilised discussion and if this is what went on the article's talk page, then we would quickly negotiate a compromise. Each respects and replies constructively to the others point. I give on this one, you on that and we quickly move towards some mutually acceptable middle ground. But this only works if both parties do this. If only ... :(

Re what I described as Wikipedia's legal framework and your comment that "it's more complicated than any reasonable person would expect." This shouldn't be a badge of pride; it's a badge of sadness and a sign that the framework is poorly maintained. As I said on the other project page, these documents should say what they mean and mean what they say.

One last note. Whatever possible useful discussion that I hoped to realise by having this RfC is spent. It makes no sense leaving it open. The project talk page seems a better place for requesting comment than the request for comment process. -- TerryE (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Donnica Moore, MD" doesn't tell you whether she is a licensed physician -- only that some (possibly unaccredited) medical school gave her a diploma. My impression is that about 2% of MDs in the US don't actually manage to pass their licensing exams (at least, not on time) and thus aren't allowed to practice medicine. Far more than that have retired from practice or lost their licenses. All of these people are still entitled to describe themselves as "MDs". It is the license that makes you a physician, not the academic degree.

Given that the company has hired her as a spokesperson, I assume that "celebrity" was considered a significant and perhaps even necessary qualification for the job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Your point "MD ≠ physician" is a good one. We do know the references in her Bio that she went to Princeton/UC Dublin/SUNY Buffalo (where she received her MD), followed by residency in Temple U and a Mem Hosp in NJ. I don't know enough about the US licensing system to discover whether and in which state she is a licensed physician, and I don't know if you would classify this as an "unaccredited school", but it seems unlikely. One of the Bio refs [31] which explains that "A long-time struggle with scoliosis and unsatisfactory doctors’ visits led Dr. Moore to study medicine — to become a doctor who put the patient first. During her residency at Temple University, Dr. Moore went through major surgery to correct her spine and was later urged by her surgeon to not continue a physically demanding medical practice." She went straight from residency into industry then media advocacy as an MD. Her RSs refer her to as an MD and that is how she seems to be widely referenced. Perhaps this is a good reminder why we should stick to wording from the RS and avoid interpretation beyond their meaning. -- TerryE (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting wrinkle, and without knowing where she lives (or last worked or trained), you'd probably have to check every single state's licensing register. However, I doubt that the source would say, "As physician, writer and NBC TV host, Dr. Donnica Moore fights the good fight for women's health" if she didn't have a license (or at least a right to reclaim a license at will; I believe some states allow a kind of suspended license for people who can't practice due to disability).

While we should stick to the sources' facts, we are not required to stick to the sources' style book: We should present their facts in our style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Desease

Obesity was a status symbol in renaissance culture: "The Tuscan General Alessandro del Borro", attributed to Charles Mellin, 1645. Well, Renaissance ended in XVI century, many years before 1645. And the identity of the painting's subject ("The Tuscan General") is not so obvious. The ref isn't an official site, we need a verifiable source. --Gherardus (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, the ref is merely intended to support "This is the name of this painting. This is the probable name of the painter. This is the year that the painter painted this painting." I have no reason to believe that this ref is inadequate for this purpose.

The ref does not say that obesity was a status symbol during the Renaissance, or at any other time: it merely reports the basic facts about the painting. If you want information about obesity as a status symbol during eras when famine and poverty-driven malnutrition were unfortunately common among all except the wealthiest people, then you might like to read Obesity#History_and_culture. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated

Given some of your recent comments on various policy pages... you may want to take a look at the current discussion concerning WP:HANDEL at WT:Editing policy and share your thoughts. Blueboar (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for advice

I didn't know it was legal to remove comments on your talk page. Many years ago I actually got in trouble for removing comments on my talk page. The policy must have changed since then. Mac520 (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what I figured. This rule has apparently existed for a couple of years, but a lot of editors don't know about it, and many people (naturally enough) assume that the rules are the same for user talk pages as for article talk pages.

IMO Wikipedia has so many rules that nobody can really be expected to know them all. Happy editing, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the repair

diff. I was attempting a courtesy restore but you beat me to it. Thank you anyway. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Given the current state of the discussion, I thought that a repair 'sooner' was better than 'later', and it sounds like you were thinking exactly the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Even though I think I'm done there. I don't think that discussion is going anywhere. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking a break, or limiting replies to once a day, seems like a good idea.

Rather than 'not going anywhere', I'm a bit worried that it may actually go somewhere -- to the site-wide blacklist, to be specific, which IMO would be an over-reaction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine.
Message added 18:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Immunize (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The doctors' mess is on my watchlist; it's not generally necessary to alert me (or most people) to replies there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

True, it is on my watchlist as well. Why have you not responded to my message there? Immunize (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Because WP:There is no deadline; because not responding instantly might encourage responses from other editors; because instant responses are not always thoughtful ones; because I was at the farmer's market -- I could go on, but I doubt that it's necessary.

Either I'll respond when I think that I have something worth saying, or someone else will, or you will correctly interpret the lack of response as an indication that you should use your own best judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So promptly responding to messages is actually discouraged? Immunize (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't say that it is discouraged; I say only that sometimes it is less helpful than a delay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent comments

With respect to your recent comments, "misrepresentation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines"? Completely uncalled for, and unfair to boot. Nothing I've said in the discussion regarding the watch link warrants such claims. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, I don't think that you're seeing your comments from an outsiders' view. You don't think this link is justifiable: I don't happen to have an opinion on this one, but I agree that thousands of links aren't justifiable (and such links should not be added).

But your comments are easily (mis)interpreted as indicating that the link is actually prohibited, which IMO (and in the opinion of most editors at the WP:External links noticeboard) is not true. One of the reasons for the confusion here is that your complaints parallel certain parts of the guideline, even though they go well beyond the usual application. You don't have to explicitly quote, e.g., "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising" or name the guidelines for reasonable people to assume that your objection to the couple of Google ads on the page are likely based on your strict interpretation of WP:ELNO#EL5. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

WhatamIdoing -- I hope you are willing to help me with what appears to be a non-standard problem-set.

1st try -- message was plausibly "puzzling" or too complicated

At best, this enquiry will serve as a tipping point which reminds you of favorable impressions. At worst, this diff becomes the sound of one hand clapping. The topic needing resolution is something to do with organizing? or structural planning? This is a draft effort to use graphics as a tool in crafting a non-verbose response to Carcharoth's diffs here and here. Please help me improve this with constructive criticism. What I construe as Carcharoth's main points are highlighted in yellow. I plan to post the following in an ArbCom thread. Can it be made clearer? shorter? better? If you please, I hope you will help resolve this situation by making a thoughtful comment at active ArbCom thread. Note: The text highlighted in beige is already posted in the thread. Arbitrator views and discussion I note the comments of a few of the editors approached to act as mentors. I would like to know (a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations); (b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group; (c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors. In answer to the question above, Tenmei's six-month topic ban on the subject of Tang Dynasty begins once the mentorship is approved. Risker (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC) This can't move forward until Risker's questions above are answered. Could a clerk please notify the editors who need to comment here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Tenmei, if you want DGG to comment here, by all means invite him to do so. As for your comments about "raising the bar", it is not unreasonable for us to ask the possible mentors to lay out here what they see as their role in all this. I count, so far, Doc James and Kraftlos (of those you list) and in addition to this, Nihonjoe and Coppertwig. The layout at User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts is impressive, but there needs to be some indication of how this will work, otherwise this risks becoming a time sink if it goes wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Tenmei, I'm supportive of you resuming editing with mentors, but please be patient and wait for other arbitrators and those willing to mentor you to respond here. I realise it must be frustrating for you, but if you wait just a little bit longer and let others speak, then we may finally get something workable set up here. We want this to work, not collapse because it was not set up properly. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC) GOOD — yes, of course "...it is not unreasonable for us to ask the possible mentors to lay out here what they see as their role in all this"Carcharoth NO -- it is unreasonable to pose ill-defined hypotheticals. Unreasonable to expect anyone to formulate crisp analysis or "answers" given that parameters of prospective mentoring issues are non-specific. The flexible role of mentors exists to address unforeseen problematic circumstances which can only happen as the future unfolds. Establishing tentative framework of organization and plan for mentoring task force is accomplished; but it was and continues to be a time sink in relation to primary mentoring objectives, e.g., addressing express WP:TLDR problems. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) WRONG "...there needs to be some indication of how this will work, otherwise this risks becoming a time sink if it goes wrong."Carcharoth NO -- No one can predict how this is going to work. The only thing to be done is to see how the teamwork relationships evolve across coming weeks and months. NO -- this is already a time sink with no observable rewards/outcomes, no difference in non-contextualized speculations, no way to distinguish "right" or "wrong", and no apparent linkages with •cohort of allegations in record •principles adduced in record •findings-of-fact adduced in record •remedies adduced in record •record of ArbCom uninvolved inaction. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) DISCONNECT? or DISJUNCTION? Further speculative planning is unproductive. Conventions of law of diminishing returns inform prudent decision to terminate pre-planning. The exercise is nothing other than a discouraging time sink. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) "...please be patient and wait for other arbitrators and those willing to mentor you to respond here. I realise it must be frustrating for you, but if you wait just a little bit longer and let others speak" Carcharoth NO -- Frustration? Frustration of purpose? I have now waited for NINE MONTHS for responses to questions about what happened in the ArbCom case. •Sept 09, waiting 3 months -- Carcharoth e-mail postpones questions with delay •Dec 09, waiting 6 months -- complaint-driven ArbCom adopts to conclusory allegations without scrutiny or discussion, ArbCom requires delay until mentors can be located •Mar 10, waiting 9 months -- ArbCom exacerbates time sink with delay NO -- Frustration = Aggravation? Making things worse? And this helps to mitigate WP:TLDR in what way? --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) "...then we may finally get something workable set up here. We want this to work, not collapse because it was not set up properly."Carcharoth NO -- the notion that ArbCom has anything to do with "setting something up" is an illustration of The Emperors New Clothes which entails adverse consequences of pointless delay. NO -- collapse or failure has little or nothing to do with ArbCom except •avoiding time sink of parsing theories and hypotheticals •ensuring that volunteer mentors receive ArbCom's support and encouragement and thanks in addition to mine •determining parameters for decision-making which leads to ending involuntary mentorship. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Involuntary mentorship is defined as punitive. •NINE MONTHS of punishment for what? teaches constructive lessons in what way? •THREE MONTHS blocked editing for what? expands comprehension or understanding in what manner? And this helps to mitigate WP:TLDR as predictable sequelae from what methods? Summarizing this record: Escalating alphabeticals, catchwords, catch phrases, etc. have overwhelmed coherent discussion with references to policy acronyms and loaded language. My seriatim responses were derided as WP:TLDR ... and delay muddied an already complicated array of facts, factoids and factors. --Tenmei (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Hypotheticals In theory, it is not unreasonable to ask hypothetical questions; but in practice, the attempt can easily devolve into a time sink. Illustrating the point with a timely issue: Is there a constructive value in examining failures attributable to ArbCom — serial incidents in which ArbCom snatched defeat from the jaws of victory? Can you suggest a better way to solicit your help in a specific context? I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My initial message is now collapsed. Mentors offered suggestions about how I could have written differently:

• diff "I would suggest writing shorter responses ... and just in general not try to summarize the entire situation ...." -- Kraftlos 19:39, 18 March 2010
• diff "I am learning to give people what they ask for. If they want more info, they'll ask for it ... [which] would be better than being flooded with information that must be sorted through. --McDoobAU93 00:40, 19 March 2010

Let's pretend I didn't send you the "1st try" message. Instead, let's assume this "2nd try" message is the beginning of an unanticipated new thread.

If you please, I want to ask for two things:

Advice. I want to ask for comments about the use of format as a device (a) to focus my comments and (b) to limit the number of words.

Action. Will you post a comment at the active ArbCom thread about a mentoring group for me?

Thank you for your willingness to help me to re-think a style of communication which is a barrier to my working collaboratively with other people in our Wikipedia venue. --Tenmei (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Insight?

I have not replied recently because I have been considering your difficulties. I am not certain that it is reasonable to hope for very much success, no matter how the mentorship is structured.

In addition to the general problems with 'involuntary mentorships' (some of which do not apply to your situation), editors who do not understand why ArbCom (and other editors) were unhappy with their work are not usually successful at changing their behavior to conform to the desired standard. It is not a lack of will, or the absence of an ideal structure, but a lack of insight, that impairs such editors. There is, in the end, very little that another person can do to provide such insight to you. Even something that feels like an important breakthrough will only take you a baby step towards a distant goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are always thought provoking. I would have thought that fostering insight was one of the essential goals of conventional mentorship relationships; but now that you mention it, I wonder if "insight" is somehow construed as being outside the ambit of Wikipedia:Mentorship#Involuntary mentorship?

I am certain that insight is a topic best discussed in an off-wiki venue, perhaps Google Wave? Google Docs? Google Groups? I will follow-up this topic in an e-mail.

Some aspects of my unique problem set are likely amenable to on-wiki development, i.e., in June 2009, FloNight restated ArbCom's objectives:

• "...style of communication is a barrier to you working collaboratively"
• "You need to focus on changing the things that you can change."
• "...finding ways to enable you to better edit the encyclopedia"

When I return to editing, I plan to adopt a short-term wiki-pacifist strategy; but in the long-term, insight becomes an unavoidable issue.

Your words are timely and meaningful. --Tenmei (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Formatting text replies can be helpful on occasion, but in general, I think that you are better off trying to communicate in plain sentences. Too much formatting (e.g., multiple colors) can distract the reader from the words.

I do not have anything useful to contribute to the ArbCom discussion at this time. I do not want to be identified as a mentor (whether voluntary, involuntary, public, non-public, occasional or otherwise) for ArbCom's purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Realised I was wrong

Hey WAID, I dunno if you still hold a ill will to me over our disagreement about cookie logins. I wouldn't be posting here again only I noticed a couple of days ago that you were in the right about what you were saying about the cookie login thing. My password is saved, I had assumed wrongly that I had saved it via wikipedia but I had actually saved it via firefox save password feature, so that was why I kept getting logged out every half hour. I happened to save it via wikipedia a couple of days ago and realised that I no longer got logged out and realised that I was wrong. I then thought the manly thing to do would be to admit that I was in the wrong. I do still think that the account was a sockpuppet though and the person that I suspected it of being was recently banned indefinitely for using a large number of sockpuppets. I suppose you can consider this as an apology for myself insisting that I was correct when I was incorrect. How you take this post is up to you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi LG,

Actually, I'd completely forgotten about that discussion. No harm done, WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of lists and your creation of the subsection "Update"

I noticed that you created a subsection in the Lists of causes of... section at WP:MED. I would like to revert it, as I feel that it may cause confusion that the subsection is on a different topic. Can I revert, or do you feel it is best for it to stay as it is? Immunize (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I created a subsection because the existing section is so large. There's no advantage to requiring editors to scroll through dozens of comments when they want to add a note to the bottom. You can read more about the common practice of creating arbitrary breaks here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Most of"

[32] Fair point! That's what I meant, of course, but it needed to be explicit obviously --Jubilee♫clipman 20:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

X at the Asian Games

I've noticed you've de-prodded some of these. I'm going to de-prod them all and re-nominate them with an AfD. Thought you'd like to know. Probably need to wait maybe a half-hour after this message until I've completed that process. Shadowjams (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The ultimate link is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahrain at the Asian Games. Shadowjams (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your Review

Thanks so much for your review of my (unfinished) article "Targeted therapy of lung cancer". I would appreciate further review after it is finished, which I expect may take about a week. I will post you here to remind you, if that is OK. I was also wondering if you would mind reviewing my article on "Combined Small Cell Lung Carcinoma". I think thast one is decent as is stands, but I plan on doing some further revisions and cleanup over the next week as well.

You can feel free to respond here or on my talk page, as you wish. Comments (positive or negative) or suggestions would be GREATLY appreciated.

Again, my thanks.

With best regards: Cliff (a/k/a "uploadvirus") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uploadvirus (talk • contribs) 22:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

OOPS ... forgot to sign. Excuse me.

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS DDF 22:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note.

Yes, please feel free to drop me a note whenever you'd like an assessment for a medicine-related article, or if you've got questions or problems with Wikipedia's (occasionally extremely) complicated way of doing things. Proper reviews, with comments, can be requested at what Wikipedia calls 'peer review' or in the doctors' mess.

If you're not familiar with them, you might like to look over our medicine-related source advice and ideas about how to write good medicine-related articles. Overall, though, I think you're doing fine, and I'm glad that you're doing this work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

CITE

If someone objects to a change in a policy or guideline, especially when it's a drive-by change, the thing to do is respect the objection and discuss on talk, not try to force it back in. It's the second time you've reverted on behalf of Sally Scot at CITE, once against Collectonian's concern and now against mine. Not clear why you'd want to do that. The guidelines and policies need to be stable to some extent, or no one will be able to rely on them. Also, this is better discussed on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"I can't figure out what changed here" does not constitute "objecting to a change": It constitutes an admission of either laziness or lack of skill on your part.

I'm also not sure how you get from "SallyScot has worked on this page previously" to "SallyScot made a drive-by change", but let me suggest that you spend less effort on worrying about whether the "right" editor made a given change, and more time figuring out what the changes are.

Oh -- and please take your own medicine: If you actually think that discussion is preferable to policy-compliant editing, then you should stop reverting and start talking. If you need help finding the policy's talk page, then you might try looking two tabs to the left of the undo button. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what's gotten into you, but please raise it on the guideline's talk page. You seem to be reverting out of principle, which isn't sensible. That same editor made portions of the guideline very complex before -- parts of it almost unreadable. I'd like to avoid that happening again, so I'd appreciate it if changes could be explained on talk first. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"What's gotten into me" is that I have, at least temporarily, reached the end of my patience with your persistent, uncollegial, reactionary ownership on this (and other) P&G pages. Reverting an apparent improvement because you could not be bothered to figure out what changes she made -- which is what you said in your edit summary -- is entirely unacceptable.

If you don't believe that it is unacceptable, then please try to imagine the likely response at ANI if I say:

"A highly experienced admin has repeatedly reverted changes made by two different editors a total of three times because exactly two changes to a whopping three paragraphs in a single section was 'too many changes' for her taste, and, besides, she couldn't be bothered to figure out the (more than usually complex) diff. She's now demanding that anyone who disagrees with her multiple reversions start a discussion -- while hypocritically exempting herself from any obligation to start a discussion. Is this the kind of good example that we expect admins to provide?"

Note that I'll accept just about any plausible excuse, including just plain "I don't like it", but "I don't know what happened, and anyway nobody got my permission in advance, so I'm repeatedly reverting it" is a really undesirable form of WP:OWNership.

Don't judge the change based on who made it: The name in the history doesn't actually affect the guideline. Figure out what the changes did: The changes do affect the guideline. If you're inclined to edit war to preserve a version that no longer enjoys consensus, then I expect you to know what you're edit warring to preserve. For example, I hope that you can identify the difference between SallyScot's change and mine (did you even notice that they were different?), and why SallyScot removed the ref groups from the example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if am wrong, but didn't SlimVirgin violate 3RR during that? [33], [34], [35]. Not great behaviour for an admin, either way... --Jubilee♫clipman 06:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

3RR is generally considered to be breached on the fourth reversion ("more than three"), but you're right that even three reversions are generally considered a poor standard of behavior. So is demanding a discussion while refusing to start one.

I'm also unhappy that SV apparently believes that her complaint about a previous, completely unrelated edit -- something that happened over a year ago -- is an excuse for reverting this (see "That same editor made portions of the guideline very complex before", to which the only sensible response is 'So what?'). Reverting today's good work because the editor screwed up last year isn't permitted by any policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the 3RR policy. It almost looks as if she has a vendetta against you, looking at the behaviour pattern, but then again I am not fully in possession of all the facts. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 18:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that SV has a vendetta against me; I just happened to be on the scene when she was giving a pathetic excuse for reverting someone else, and I called her on it. It's not fun to get called to account, but I hope that if I made that kind of mistake, that SV (or somebody) would call me on it. Making a lot of edits means having a lot of opportunities to make mistakes.

I also believe that it's possible that SV had a good (but secret) reason for the reversion. She hasn't chosen to participate in the discussion (which the other editor started, and which promptly demonstrated a consensus for SallyScot's changes, which have been re-installed with minor tweaks), so we don't know if there were any good reasons behind the reversions.

That's okay with me, though: If it's not important enough for SV to explain her reversions on the talk page, then the other editors will automatically ignore her opinion. The few editors who notice her absence will likely assume that, on further reflection, she discovered that she has no rational reason to oppose the changes, and that she has taken the efficient and face-saving approach of silently dropping her opposition rather than interrupting a productive conversation to publicly recant her initial opposition. (And I have no objection to that.) We all make mistakes -- even admins, even editors with 90K edits, even me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw the discussion establishing consensus for Sally's edits. The edits seemed to be fairly sound, anyway, so there must (as you say) be something else going on here—but I'm confounded if I can figure out what. Quiet withdrawl seems the most likely explanation, indeed. I, too, prefer people to tell me when I am making mistakes and when my arguments or logic are flawed. On the face of it, that's what SV was doing above but she could have been clearer and initiated discussion herself in the first place rather than complaining that you (reverting her, reverting SS...) didn't initiate the discussion . OTOH, SallyScot, if anyone, probably ought to have initiated the discussionbefore actually changing the text, especially since WP:CITE is such an important document, but hey... I take your point about WP:BOLD and WP:BRD in the context of WP:CONS, though: that method also makes sense at times. More edits = more mistakes... hm: was that a gentle reminder for me re the below or pure coincidence? --Jubilee♫clipman 20:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Strictly coincidental. Wikipedia tends to have a 'cult of experience' -- which is fine, in one sense, because most (but not all) highly experienced editors are less likely to make a mistake. However, even a one-in-a-thousand error rate means I'll screw up at least once a month. (I believe my own error rate is far higher than that, BTW.)

IMO it's ultimately better for Wikipedia if people identify errors as errors, regardless of who made them, instead of landing hard on a newbie's innocent mistakes and letting mine slide -- especially if my mistake is the kind that makes you think, "Anybody with her experience level ought to know better than that!"

I think it's good for experienced editors to keep our fallibility firmly in mind. Getting the previous "999" changes right doesn't mean that we won't screw up the next one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Screwing up is not the point, learning from the screw up is. But the person screwing up might not recognise their error without someone pointing it out—hopefully gently and with constructive advice on how to avoid the same mistake. My error rate is... unknown... But then again, I am only a year-and-a-bit old—or 9 months old if you consider the fact that I didn't edit for almost half a year last summer. Hopefully I'm a quick learner: I have certainly chanced upon some of the best teachers, including you, Martin, Happy-Melon, and Kleinzach (to give him proper credit where due despite his own errors of judgement) and several others, like Okip/Ikip, along the way. I own a massive debt to each of those editors.

Thank you.

BTW, I have sent this thread on a tangent: sorry about that! --Jubilee♫clipman 22:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point

Re: [36]. Count me as one of those that had forgotten that fact. I almost feel like going all WP:BOLD and moving the draft infobox over to mainspace myself, now, but that would probably not be constructive at this stage of the game... Anyway, I still don't care two hoots for infoboxes so it would be counter-intuitive. I think Andy put it best—couched as it is in irony and sarcasm—here. That appears to be what several people are saying and those people are becoming more vocal by the day, thank God ([37], [38], [39] (this last somewhat wryly ironic also, perhaps...)) Note, also, Vocediterore's measured responses to Eusebeus, the former being and "old dog" in WP terms and especially as regards classical music articles. Further note the underlying assumptions apparent in and the general drift of this discussion and note even further the complete lack of participation there by any CM regulars other than user:THD3, user:Karljoos and me: where is the supposed consensus if you factor those former two (among many, many others, I suspect) into the equation? WP:CCC indeed... Sorry if this was a rambling aside and of no interest to you... --Jubilee♫clipman 01:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear from you.

I have a lot of sympathy for Andy's pointed comment.

Voce's proposal is more measured, but it has an WP:OWNership problem; "main (past) contributors" get no special rights in a consensus-oriented discussion.

I'm not sure that we really need to "close" the RfC in a formal fashion. The problems are being addressed (e.g., in the project's advice page), and even an admin-endorsed closing statement is still not a permanently binding decision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not long read some policy or other (probably WP:CONS and/or WP:OWN) about "main contributors" etc and how they are no more or less important than any one else. Same applies to admins, bureaucrats, stewards, and even the Foundation and the founder(s) [except in certain circumstances], according to what I have read, so obviously if Martin, or even Jimbo himself, closed the debate that action would neither "decide" anything nor bind the WikiProject or anyone else to anything. Correct? That question aside, however, a relatively impartial and experienced eye (admin or no) would help cut through the forest of words to the essentials and be able to gently point out any factual/logical inaccuracies. In any case, the RfC will need to be archived at some point: sooner rather than later, probably. Whatever else is true, this has been a major learning experience for me: I have learnt about several WP processes, I have learnt the specifics of several policies I had previously only vaguely understood; and I have made stupid errors from which I am now learning. The latter include: becoming "ringmaster" and quickly resigning (yes, I know... ); making stupid/uncivil comments and quickly retracting them; and forgetting to preview my edits and having to go back over them 4 or 5 times then realising I can draft my replies in my sandbox or even Windows Notepad. In fact, each of those, taken together go a long way to explaining why my number of edits in the RfC almost exactly equals everyone else's put together! (I have performed a lot of important and necessary refactoring etc, of course, too.) Anyway, another ramble over, I'll leave you in peace... Now, where did my copy of Foundation go...? --Jubilee♫clipman 05:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excellent rewrite of Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. It's always nice to see someone pull back the curtains and explain how this ridiculous project works.--Father Goose (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Father Goose. I'm glad that you like it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

WOW! That is so much clearer than the page it use to redirect to! Thanks from me too. Now to give the new essay exposure... --Jubilee♫clipman 22:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

On the notability of lists

You may be aware of the debate about the notability of lists, where there is some disagreement between Masem and myself about what defines it as a topic (is it the lead or perhaps the title), and whether list topics are subject to some form of inclusion criteria, e.g. evidence of notability or some other form of external validation. I just don't seem to be able of reach for the right words and your input would be most welcome. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. IMO, the reason this topic is difficult is because the community hasn't actually made up its mind. That's why there is remarkably little written guidance on the subject. But I'll look into the page later, and perhaps I'll think of something useful to say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, I just wanted to say that I'm not ignoring your request: I'm just trying to read it! There's almost 50KB of text in that section, and it's slow going. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Question 2

Hi WhatamIdoing, I have a question for you regarding an external link I added on Organ_donation for DoNotTransplant.com. I am not a regular contributor, but I try to be thoughtful in my contributions. I added the link as an alternative for those who want to be on a registry of non-donors. You removed the link and referred to it as "Commercial Spam." Why did you consider this link commercial spam? Is it because there is a fee for the service? (I am aware of that.) Or did you feel it did not apply to the subject matter? Please elaborate on why you removed the link. If I have violated a wikipedia practice, please let me know so that I will not make the same mistake again. My goal was not to spam wikipedia in any way but instead to provide an alternative for those who wish to make it legally clear to family and physicians that they do not wish to donate their organs in the event they become incapacitated. Thank you. Missyagogo (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It is US-specific; Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia.

Within the US, the organization probably has zero legal recognition. I don't believe that it is generally recognized as a "registry" for the purpose of compliance with the UAGA, and the registry service that they claim to be using doesn't list them among their clients.

Essentially, the only thing they provide (at a cost of $19.95) is a piece of paper that the person could get—at no additional charge—whenever they're writing their regular end-of-life paperwork.

The sole purpose of the website is to extract $19.95 from visitors, which is a violation of WP:ELNO#EL5.

Their primary tactic for extracting the money is scaring the site's visitors: The first page hints that if they die, their relatives will be dreadfully upset over a polite inquiry about organ donation (rather than their death). Their FAQ claims that the family may be charged for donation-related expenses, and implies that the "wrong" kind of people (drug users and illegal aliens) will receive their organs. This, it seems to me, is a violation of WP:ELNO#EL2. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD getting out of hand

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryu Goto (2nd nomination)

Could you review this AfD. It seems that there is a flame war going on in the middle of it which is rather uncivil. I have collasped that section as a temporary solution. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 23:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm glad that you collapsed that section.

The article seems to be getting sourced (in ways that show the fallibility of a gnews search). I wonder if editors will keep claiming that no sources exist, despite the (current) presence of eleven sources in the article? We'll have to see what happens in a few more days. (Are you familiar with WP:HEY?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Anyway you should see the other AfD (the guys sister). Withdrawn with a blunt "f*** you world". (Same nom so you should have little trouble finding it...) Happy editing! --Jubilee♫clipman 23:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

I noticed your ping on my watchlist. I sort of lost track of that debate (I'm auditing the Music Mos's...) but I'll try to catch up and comment as appropriate. I'll be away (in Inverness) for a few days from Saturday, though, so I might not be able to say much until I return on Wednesday. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 04:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sticky prods and Pump

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for your reasoned support. Maurreen (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion–breast_cancer_hypothesis#Mixed_results_in_Lead

Would you be able to comment on a dispute we are having on the addition of a new study to the article? Its my opinion, that when the NCI workshop findings are given appropriate context the ABC hypothesis article will be near FA quality. - RoyBoy 15:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I misspoke there, however I put it this way in the mediation: binding for the present. A bit of a contradiction, but that is the goal. - RoyBoy 18:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

question 3

Hi. You have been a good source in the past on how to cite sources. When I create a page I do add a reference, but I've been getting a message I don't understand, telling me to add a tag, which I thought I had done. What am I doing wrong? If you have the time please see this [40] Thanks. Jim Steele (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

I'm always happy to answer questions like this. The problem is merely that you hadn't created the references section yet, so it didn't know where to display the citation. I've added it for you, so you should be all set. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Weird, because I thought I did for the speech and language page, which I'm working on now, and I am getting that same message. I'll try to be more careful.

Jim Steele (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to add either {{reflist}} (if you want slightly smaller than average type) or <references /> (full-size type) or <references></references> (currently least common, useful in WP:LDR) to the page. It looks like someone has fixed the other page for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been copying and pasting that, as pathetic as it is, because I can't find it on the page. If you have the time, check out [41]

I'm working on it. The list in the first paragraph of special education in the U.S. is missing about a third of the articles. So I'm trying to create some articles for these disabilities. Jim Steele (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Another one, because this is frustrating. You'll see here [42] that there are these vertical lines seperating the table and I meant to add an entry and could not find the lines so it ended up on top of the table. Looks like I meant it to stand out, but in fact the date and detail of the model is supposed to be in the title. Not that anyone will likely read it, nor care, but it's a style thing and I tried in vain to place it in the table when I was editing...

Jim Steele (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, I had exactly the same table-formatting problem once. Trying to figure it almost drove me nuts.

I've fixed this article for you. The solution is that you have to use the vertical bar (the | character) to separate cells, and the bar plus a hyphen (|-) to tell it that you want a new row for the table. If you leave out these magic table-formatting characters, then it completely loses its marbles (as you saw) and places the text in weird places.

About the 'missing' articles: Some of them might exist, just under a different name. For example, Emotional and behavioral disorders might be the same subject as the page you started on EBD (or perhaps it is slightly different, i.e., the medical term vs the legal term). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. But I'm going to ask a very basic question: where is the vertical bar located on the keyboard?

Jim Steele (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It might be one of those keys that moves around, but on my Mac, vertical bar is near the upper right corner of the keyboard, "above" the backslash (type shift-backslash), between the delete button and the return key. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Lymphoma

I have made some additional minor edits to lymphoma, including removing a long list of forms of lymphoma and generally cleaning up the article, and would like to hear your input on the matter (given I know you have been active in that article before). Please respond at Talk:Lymphoma. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Notifying you of the featured article nomination of Leukemia

I have nominated the page Leukemia for featured article status, see the page here. I am notifying you of this because I noticed that you were a significant contributor to the article. Please feel free to leave a comment at the featured article nomination page. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This article doesn't have even a small chance of passing FA in its current state. I doubt that it would pass even WP:GA. The WP:LEAD is inadequate and several sections are entirely unsourced. I suggest that you consider withdrawing the nomination. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have withdrawn the nomination, but I feel it at least deserves Good article status. Despite the unreferenced sections, I feel it is overall fairly well sourced. Immunize (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

While it might technically qualify for GA, based on the written/official standards, the fact is that the people who do most of the GA reviewing tend to have much higher standards than WP:GACR. GA reviews are a bit unpredictable, but I would not expect it to pass GA without at least one inline reference in each section -- and some reviewers will require far more than that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How can I go about nominating it to be a good article? Immunize (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:GANs are easy, but let me suggest that you first find and add a couple of good sources for those unreferenced sections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And make sure it conforms to WP:MEDRS, uses mostly secondary reviews, no primary sources, or it will get killed at FAC :) (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches.) Also, per WP:MEDMOS, some content is missing-- doesn't look comprehensive yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added placeholders for the most important of the missing sections, which should make it easier for editors to identify these gaps in coverage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Leukemia for good article status. Immunize (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Colored tables because they're pretty"

Could someone look into the work done by 7mike5000, such as the colorful, icon-filled table at Eating disorders#Personality_traits? Do tables like these represent a permissible variation on normal style, or an undesirable cluttering of the page with unnecessary formatting (or something in between)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "inquired about the decorative approach at MOS, and the responses can be read here". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As per WP:Civil, I am asking you in a polite a fashion as possible, to please refrain from making comments such as as the above as it pertains to myself or any contributions I may have made or may make. I believe most people would find that comment to be somewhat disparaging. And your comment leads to comments like: "And 7mike5000 would do well not to refer to his colleagues as "anally retentive" in his edit summaries". Tony (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC) "anal retentive" Freud coined the term not me. A comment like that can easily be construed as implying "or else".

"Yes, the "Skittlepedia" effect is distracting and unprofessional". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC) That speaks for itself.

Wikipedia is for everyone, it was not created for a select few to feel like they can call the shots for the other couple of hundred million English speakers, it is not a cabal.

Your initial comments set the stage, others follow. Constructive criticism I do not mind, to purposely make comments such as the aforementioned I do. I wrote Hemoglobin Lepore syndrome to prove a point to someone in a civil fashion. I believe I made a point with the use of exemplia gratia and and id est. I do not make comments to anyone. I keep to myself. I only respond. So to reiterate please refrain from the sarcasm, and going out of your way to dissect everything I do. Thank you. And have an pleasant day. 7mike5000 (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

My question at WT:MOS was not sarcastic, and I strongly doubt that any independent person would describe my comments as uncivil. I'm certainly not going out of my way to dissect your work: Two sentences at the most appropriate forum is hardly "going out of my way". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Sorry, but I see nothing at all WP:POINTy or WP:UNCIVIL in the above posts submitted by WhatamIdoing on WT:MOS. She was merely asking a perfectly reasonable question as far as I can tell. Specifics might help --Jubilee♫clipman 20:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, 7mike5000 would indeed "do well not to refer to his colleagues as "anally retentive" in his edit summaries" --Jubilee♫clipman 20:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Hi. You recently commented about a proposal to caution against deleting what other editors write on talk pages. You suggested narrowing the new caution to address only deletion of comments. I have done so.

I would welcome any further input from you, here.

Thank you. Maurreen (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way about these changes. I think that we need to wait for more information from SV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I am waiting to find out her objection to my latest version. Maurreen (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

NAVHEAD heads up

Thank you for putting a notice about the the Village Pump discussion on the NAVHEAD talk page. I am particularly appreciative since I know you are not enamored with the NAVHEAD concept. Your dedication to fairness sets a good example for other editors, including me. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Talk:Health care markets

blanked page

Hi WhatamIdoing, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding Talk:Health care markets. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text {{db-author}}. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the {{db-author}} tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=FrescoBot}} somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot (msg) 08:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)