User talk:MrBill3/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Charles Panati

Thanks for your work on the Russell Targ article. If you have any spare time would you be able to help on the Charles Panati article? It needs references but I am having a hard time trying to find some. Goblin Face (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"Author Panati is a former physicist and former science editor for Newsweek who 'for 16 years was taught by nuns and priests.' In addition to things Catholic, Panati provides interesting information on Jewish, Protestant, Hindu and other religions. The main focus of the well-researched and well-written book, however, is the Catholic faith." "the John Main Seminar, out of which the following book grew"

MrBill3 (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"In his book, Panati's Parade of Fads, Follies and Manias, Charles Panati says the popular children's building set was invented by John L. Wright, son of architect Frank Lloyd Wright."

"The mystery of mistletoe can be found in Charles Panati's handy reference book Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Things." "As for the evolution of the rosy-cheeked, roly-poly Santa, Charles Panati credits 19th century cartoonist Thomas Nast for establishing the prototype for the modern Santa Claus." "'It was in America that Santa put on weight. The original St. Nicholas had been a tall, slender, elegant bishop, and that was the image perpetuated for centuries,' Panati wrote."

A review of his book The Geller Papers appears in Hyman, Ray (1989). The Elusive Quarry: A Scientific Appraisal of Psychical Research. Prometheus. pp. 300–. ISBN 9781615927593.

An article Panati wrote for New York magazine Better living through chemistry

"Euphemisms reign supreme in the language applied to death and discontinuation, where we have a tendency to stave off intimations of mortality with some linguistic sleight of hand. Panati's Extraordinary Endings Of Practically Everything And Everybody (Harper & Row, $14.95), compiled by Charles Panati, provides an extremely entertaining anthology of notable demises.

Panati casts a wide net, lingering fondly over some of history's more bizarre wills - George Bernard Shaw's specified that his tombstone not 'take the form of cross or any other instrument of torture' - and highlighting many of the superstitions that mark humanity's errant progress toward enlightenment. His discussion of castration, a once commonly practised but now extinct phenomenon, is a particularly fascinating example of his research into obscure but important areas of our checkered past."

"this text identifies the sources of pithy maxims such as 'the devil made me do it' or 'no pain no gain.' Panati's choice of sources is eclectic, including the Bible and the Declaration of Independence [...] cartoonists, songwriters, and comedians" "Chapters typically include a definition of the chapter topic and collections of quotes on the subject by notable people" "An entertaining browser; recommended for public and academic libraries where there is interest in the topic."

"Few books in the theological literature are simply fun to read and this is one of them." "an informative and entertaining book on the origins of religious ideas, sacred items, worship practices, holy symbols, and holidays." "discusses wonderful puzzlements such as why Jews don't eat pork [...] also explores the origins and history of more pressing, controversial, present-day concerns such as the bans on homosexuality, married priests, and birth control." "a few shortcomings [...] advertises itself as a book on world religions, the emphasis is mainly on Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, with only a smattering of other faiths." "lack of footnoting [...] unhelpful to serious scholars [...] minor complaints pale next to the wealth of information provided"

"I've devoted the past decade of my professional life to writing about the origins of things, from comets to condoms. Recently I published Sexy Origins and Intimate Things: The Rites and Rituals of Straights, Gays, Bi's, Drags, Trans, Virgins, and Others. I know something about monogamy historically -- and personally: I've lived with the same man for 25 years."

Some discussion of his work is in Kelsey, Morton T. (1997). The Other Side of Silence: Meditation for the Twenty-First Century. Paulist Press. pp. 154–. ISBN 9780809137008.

A couple of book reviews in Psychic magazine "book reviews". Psychic. Vol. 6–7. Bolen Company. 1974.

Well that's what I could find, not a lot of encyclopedic content but a little addition to the references section. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Well done, thanks for this I will add some of them in. Goblin Face (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice and help. Is there any chance you can look at the Targ article again? I am not sure what to do as Targ keeps adding original research or deleting references. Goblin Face (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Olive skin

Hi,is not vandalism my contribution in the Olive Skin page .I will revert .Is relevant put a picture of a person with olive skin.I will use STiki in some of your posts as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DasherRubber (talk • contribs) 02:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted edit on Teaching English as a foreign language

Hi MrBill3,

You recently deleted my edit to the China section of Teaching English as a foreign language, due to it not being constructive? I would have to disagree with you, as the information in the China section is not entirely accurate, as it is. I was simply trying to update the information to show current salaries offered to teachers of English in China today. Please inform me as to how that is not constructive information. If you are referring to the external link attached in the reference connecting to a TEFL provider's job information page, then how do you explain the Reference #7 and #16, both linking to online TEFL course websites? Thank you in advance for the clarification. TaiwanEFLTeacher — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaiwanEFLTeacher (talk • contribs) 11:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~. The content you added was WP:SPAM. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Thank you for your contributions. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's Five Pillars. MrBill3 (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Russell Targ

There may be an issue here, look what he is doing off Wikipedia asking people to come and edit his article - [1], shouldn't he blocked for this? Goblin Face (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There should possibly be a WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents report about it. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks!

MrBill3, thanks for noticing one of my recent edits. Do you think moving from the infobox style like |label1= |data1= to Template:Infobox organization or similar templates is helpful for ease of editing? I tend to boldly edit without asking on Talk unless I think to check for recent discussions, and usually avoid the more contentious articles. Kjtobo (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

In short yes. I am a fan of citation templates and infobox templates seem to provide many of the same advantages. I support bold editing in particular improving formatting and increasing consistency. The full and specific set of parameters in the better infobox templates gives editors guidance on what should be included and presents content uniformly formatted. Even contentious articles (sometimes especially) need some work on format etc. I say edit on, if someone has a problem they can revert and start a discussion. If you don't watchlist the pages you edit you may want to put something on your talk page (or your edit summaries) to suggest people post there. Thank you for your contributions to WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the welcome message

Hello MrBill3, Thanks for the intro message! This is my first time editing, and I'm interested in making improvements with good quality sources to back them up. I've been doing some reading on various pages related to alternative health and in various currently cited sources to educate myself before getting started. I see on the talk page for the Rolfing article that there has been some confusion about how to edit, and what counts as a quality source. My hope is to join in a very constructive manner from the start. I appreciate in advance any guidance in that regard. --Karinpower (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing and continue to contribute. A review of some of the policies and guidelines linked to on the welcome message is a good place to start. Unfortunately I have reverted your second edit to Rolfing, don't get discouraged there is a pretty steep learning curve. I posted a message on the talk page of the article with an explanation and links to the appropriate policies and guidelines. Alt Med and Fringe subjects can be quite contentious. While I encourage you to edit where your interests and passions lead you, might I suggest trying some basic edits on less controversial articles. I am willing to help out with pointers to and some explanation of policies and guidelines. You will find I am a strong advocate of policy compliance and willing to argue my position, I hope my conduct is received as WP:CIVIL. I particularly don't want to bite a newcomer. In editing alt med topics a good understanding of the neutral point of view and verifiability policies will serve you well in addition the WP:MEDRS guideline is important as is WP:FRINGE. The WP:Teahouse is a new user friendly place to get used to editing on WP. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Excuse me, sorry for the bad reference format but did you take out the pART i wrote in the YCIS page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manutd1020 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. The entire article is promotional and requires a rewrite with secondary sources. Something other than the website of the subject itself. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome!

Hello and thanks for the warm welcome message! Contributing to Wikipedia certainly is a learning curve.

You mentioned an edit I made to "Elliot Abravanel". The link I added there was to a new article called "The 25 Body Type System" that has not been reviewed yet ... is that the problem or did you see another issue with the link? BTW with your interests in science and medicine, you might find that article interesting.

This is my first article and I'm still trying to learn and understand the process so that I can contribute more. I think the article I created today is now available for review but I don't know how to be sure about that. If you have any quick tips for me that would be awesome!

Thanks again mykewolf9 Mykewolf9 (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to include the content with a link please add a source for the content (secondary, independent). - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Milan Puskar Health Right

MrBill3, I just came across your superb article for Milan Puskar Health Right! Have you considered nominating this article for DYK at Template talk:Did you know? Let me know if you need assistance with this, and I can nominate it for you. Job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

• Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
• We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
• Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
• Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
• To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–invite}} ~~~~
• To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–welcome}} ~~~~
• You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! Diptanshu^Talk 12:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The Socks

Bill, I tried to keep the socks talking in the hope that they would provide some useful information that could be used against them in your sock puppet investigation. I’ve noticed that 101.117.28.73 prefaces his signature with a double dash. 101.117.108.195 prefaces his signature with a double dash as well. So does 101.117.110.209, 101.117.57.43, and 101.117.58.97. These are presumably all the same person, and he claims to be using a dynamic IP address. [[2]]

The thing is that Anselm doesn’t sign that way. Anselm just leaves a space before his signature. The only people who are involved in the deletion discussion for pseudoscientists who sign with dashes are yourself, 172.251.77.75, and Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan and 172.251.77.75 consistently sign with double dashes, but don’t leave a space after the double dashes. The suspicious IP editor consistently leaves a space after his double dashes.

The point is that I don’t think that the IP is Anselm. He might be Anselm’s meat puppet, but he seems unlikely to be a sock. Either that or Anselm is just pretty good at socking. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:MEAT, "for the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Please watch that you do not violate the 3RR brightline rule. Binksternet (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thought you could help answer a notification question

Hi. I haven't posted anything anywhere for several weeks. I just got notified that apparently two days ago, someone named DragonflySixtyseven reviewed my account. Can you tell me what that means? Do you know who that is? Is this something I need to do something about? The notification goes nowhere, so any info you can provide is most appreciated. Thanks. Sbwinter2 (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand this is just a basic check to see that the account is not purely promotional or used for vandalism. I have had my sandbox pages reviewed (by the same user), that was to check that I didn't have inappropriate content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just about to write that I actually think I figured it out by looking on that user's talk page (it is hard to look up policy on wikipedia sometimes). Apparently many people ask that same question on his page. It is something routine. Thanks for getting back to me! Sbwinter2 (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "slanderous statements". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 05:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio on Autism Research Network?

Odd, with the amount of edits you've done,t hat the entire thing is now flagged as copyvio. What's the problem? Guy (Help!) 16:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Some of the text was cut and past from the autism.com website and I didn't want to muddy the waters of 3RR. I will just cut/paraphrase or put into quotes. FYI my edit process goes, 1)Read the article 2)Find and format the references 3)Verify the content using both the existing references and some research 4)Raise issues that are problems on talk page, join existing discussions 5)Research the subject 6)Change, add and or remove content with new and existing references. When I was verifying the content I found that some of the material was cut and paste from the source. Thanks. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

GS?

Purely out of interest, do you belong to the Guerilla Skeptics organisation? Feel free to respond that you prefer not to say. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Expedia

Hi MrBill3,

I have seen your work on Wikipedia and your copy-editing skills are spot on and very accurate. I would like to ask you if you could make edits to the page of Expedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedia), as there is some information missing from the page. Would you be willing to make edits to the page so that it's complete? The main areas that I think needs more information are the infobox on the top right, and external links.

To be specific, I think the infobox at top right needs more information, and fields more in line with other global travel brands like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TripAdvisor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivago or and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vodafone_Hutchison_Australia. The infobox also needs to change URLs to be within 'website' (at the bottom) rather than 'Web address' (at the top), and it needs to include links to Expedia ccTLD: US, CA, UK, AU & NZ (in that order) in the same shape as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivago In regards to external Links, I think it should link to Expedia ccTLD in the same shape as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TripAdvisor with the same links as on #3.

Let me know, I would highly appreciate your assistance in this matter.

Erexkiss (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly my area of interest. The whole page looks too much like an advert to me. The external links (ELs) don't need to be excessive (just because other articles have too many ELs doesn't mean they all should). Can't you get to most of that from the main website? The article desperately needs third party independent reliable sources. Sounds like a good project for a new editor ;). If you are associated with the subject, make sure to declare a conflict of interest on the talk page before editing. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks MrBill. I noticed you sent a message to me on my talk page. You mentioned that I have previous contributions, which I don't have in relation to Expedia or any other entity, so I'm not sure how you came to this:-) The reason why I reached out to you is because I want to avoid any conflict of interest, and ask a third party contributor to make edits to a page. I hope this clarified it, if I'm mistaken about anything please forgive me, I'm not a seasoned Wikipedia Veteran like yourself:) Erexkiss (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. Looking at your edit history I see you have not made edits to articles. You are approaching this in the correct manner. If you declare your conflict of interest on the talk page you may make proposals for changes. If you can find some good independent third party sources to support them they are likely to be accepted. Again, sorry, to my knowledge you have not made any inappropriate edits. I encourage your participation on WP. I will leave the welcome message as is because it has some links I think will be useful in your case, unless you object, then I will remove or modify it. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not a vandal

The afrikaans word "skiem" is very real, and derived from the english word "scheme", which is listed on the same List of South African Slang words. Google shows many examples of usage by us Afrikaans folks: https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=skiem&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gl=za#channel=fs&gl=za&q=skiem+afrikaans&safe=off — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordFoom (talk • contribs) 14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Look at the full edit diff. See the random junk added to, "bloutrein" quite possibly just an error. Please provide sources (not Google searches) for content you add. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2014 (

Whoops, error indeed - source for slang is difficult, but I'll have a look

Nigel Cawthorne

Nigelcawthorne (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)I am the author Nigel Cawthorne and I am trying to correct the numerous mistakes on the wikipedia page about. Every time I try to make alterations, I am accused of vandalism.Nigelcawthorne (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I understand that, as the subject of the page, I am not allowed to make changes. I do not have time right now to submit a draft article. But would it be possible to correct some of the grossest errors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelcawthorne (talk • contribs) 15:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Propose a set of changes on the talk page of the article (Nigel Cawthorne) with sources. That is the best way to proceed. If the changes are not made by another editor in a timely fashion you can put a notice on the WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. You can leave me a note here when you have made the proposal and if I get a chance I'll take a look. Best wishes. If there are unsourced errors in the article now, put a notice on WP:BLPN and they should be deleted immediately (this will likely be straight up cutting out of material not corrections). - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Mycenae

Thanks. I see you removed my comment. No problem as I had not figured out the talk page yet and was moving my comments there anyway.

Trusting that an editor will get back to me eventually with some useful communication!

Regards Sanzanipolo (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest doing some research and improving the article yourself using reliable sources. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources Complaint

I'm a bit confused with the source complaint. My information came from the first citation in the article, which is a source, so what's the complaint again? TTTAssasinator (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Give me a link to the article and a diff of the change I made then I might have a clue what your talking about. If I reverted content you added stating unsourced, might I suggest a footnote referring to the source. If you feel the content was fully supported by a source present in the article by all means revert my revert (preferably adding a footnote). As I say above I work pretty fast with STiki and make mistakes on occasion. If my changes are not an improvement undo them. A diff here will help me see and understand, perhaps improving my use of STiki. Thank you for your contributions and thank you for bringing this to my attention. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_to_Kill_%28gang%29 is the article in question. As you can see from the edits, my information is backed up by the 1st citation. I apologize if it was not clear.TTTAssasinator (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I formatted the reference with a name and an sfn anchor. I am guessing you have the book in question, if you could add page numbers that would assist an editor or reader seeking to verify the content. As I said if you feel confident your content reflects the source go ahead and add the content again. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

False vandalism warnings

Hello MrBill3. In future please do not falsely accuse me of vandalism, as you did here, simply because I made an edit that you disagree with for whatever reason. By the way, although you stated that I made "unconstructive" edits on talk:HIV/AIDS denialism, and that my edits there were reverted, a quick look at the revision history of that page shows that no edit I made there has been undone. Were you trying to accuse me of vandalism because of an edit that I made at Denial? It's irritating if you can't even be clear about which page you're falsely accusing me of vandalizing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk)

There is no accusation of vandalism in the diff you provided. There are extensive sources including one quoted that discuss the psychological concept of denial and HIV/AIDS Denialism to argue otherwise it tendentious. The psychological concept of denial although based on Freud is not limited to his ideas and is part of modern psychology this is also extensively sourced. So much so as to make contentions that it is considered pseudoscience tendentious. HIV/AIDS Denialism is discussed literally as a textbook example of denial in multiple textbooks. Again I made no accusation of vandalism and I provided a link to the page I was referring to. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"Unconstructive editing" is another term for vandalism. There is no sense in being euphemistic. I'm afraid that your reply is rather confused, and that I can make little sense of it. I noted on the talk page of Denial, and I can only repeat, that you provided not a single source to show that Climate change denial, HIV/AIDS denialism, and Holocaust denial have any connection at all with the main subject of Denial, which as noted, is Freudian psychology. The inclusion of those links at that article is thus quite unjustified and inappropriate. They should be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

From the article Denial, "Many contemporary psychoanalysts treat denial as the first stage of a coping cycle. When an unwelcome change occurs, a trauma of some sort, the first impulse to disbelieve begins the process of coping." From Nattrass 2010, "his claim that HIV is harmless reinforces the normal process of denial most people undergo when faced with traumatizing information" This source was provided on the talk page of HIV/AIDS denialism, then that specific quote was given sounds like a case of WP denialism which is unconstructive. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks:)

MrBill3, just wanted to leave you a message that I really appreciate you adding some citations to the article I am working on. It it most appreciated . I am a good researcher, but my editing skills are still very much in their infancy :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaflyrobby (talk • contribs) 04:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Internal Communications wiki page

Hi Mr Bill,

I just saw that you'd removed the ref I placed on the wikipedia entry for Internal Communications page, where I included another IC association. I checked the ref you sent as to why it had been removed and this sentence stood out: "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article." I hadn't included any puff in my sentence which said "Melcrum is a global IC organization that offers training and research" as it is a global rep for IC and should really be there if the article is to be an accurate representation.

Thanks!

Luke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Dodd (talk • contribs) 10:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes ~~~~. You placed an external link in the content of the article, that is not appropriate please see WP:EL. The section of the article is "IC associations and accreditation". You added content about and a link to a company not a professional association nor a recognized accreditation body, it was not appropriate content. Please see WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:ELNO and the conflict of interest policy. Thank for your contributions to WP and thank you for taking the time to bring this to my attention. I hope you enjoy editing and continue to be a Wikipedian. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, MrBill3! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and   Tentinator   06:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's Go.... Mountaineers! West.andrew.g (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Adding current content. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

On Russel Targ from Juan Riley

Thank you. I stand corrected. Odd way of doing references though eh? But my fault. Juan Riley (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

What are commenting on as odd? Two cites at the end of a sentence. I think that is highly preferable for readability. The sfn format? I used that as the papers are in his list of publications so they don't need to be repeated in the ref list. Thanks for your understanding, and thank you for your contributions. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

My recent correction in the entry for Marvin Gaye's birth surname

Hi Mr Bill,
I felt obliged to correct Marvin Gaye's birth surname from Gaye to Gay.
This is factually correct:

• In this entry in the first sentence of Early Life his father's surname is stated correctly as Gay.
• Later in this entry, in the second paragraph of Early career, there is a reference to the fact that Marvin changed his surname from Gay to Gaye for a number of reasons.
• Just to be sure I double-checked this fact with the German version of this entry.
• In the article on Marvin's personal life this is stated correctly as well.
• Not to mention that as a fan of this man and his music I knew about this from every other source covering his biography.

So this was no experiment, but really meant to be constructive.
I am a new member to Wikipedia, this being just my second edit. Accidently one week before becoming a member I read
an article on theverge.com about the bots specially designed to aid in preventing Wikipedia from being vandalized,
and I really more than appreciate the dedication of people like yourself who invest their time and energy as part of
this important mission.
I hope you agree with me on the factual correctness of my edit, so being new to this project I would like to ask you
about the usual procedure in cases like this: Do you revert your edit, or shall I redo mine?
Thank you for your cooperation, looking forward to hearing from you again!
This was my first post here as well, so let's see if this ~ thing works . . .
Inspiredmadman (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Just to let you know how WP operates what I did was check the reference given (Simmonds, 2008). What led me to question the edit was a change in content with no new reference. The reference does indeed give his birth name as you state. Please note that WP (or German WP) is not a source, we have to use published reliable sources (you will see this called RS on talk pages). If you want to support a challenged fact always use RS. For instance I'm guessing as a fan in this case you might have a copy of a book on the subject.

Since the existing ref confirms your contention, I have self reverted. This is the easiest outcome, if I had demonstrated an unwillingness to do so, the next step would be to bring it up on the talk page of the article (see WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). In general once a change you have made is reverted the next step is to discuss it on the talk page. Since my revert of your edit was done using automated software posting here was the best step (I don't watch pages I edit with STiki) I personally have said it's OK to revert changes I make using STiki at the top of this page.

Welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing! - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this detailed information and for the welcome message on my talk page! Good to know. I hope next time I'll get it right in the first place ;-) --Inspiredmadman (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Well you actually did get it right, your edit was factually accurate and it was what the source said. The only thing you could have done better was to check the source and cite that as your support. I hope you enjoy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

what the what are you on about? just because the pole, the observer and the Sun are in alignment, does not on its own make it magnetic midnight. it does not specify the order they're lined up in!! it might as well be magnetic midday (when the observer is between the magnetic pole and the Sun) 85.210.39.192 (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The Article "Coolie"

Thank you. First of all the Category must be changed from Slavery to Indentured Worker. If a category was not created for Indentured Worker then in should be. Coolie should not be lumped in the category of slavery because it is false. Second the etymology for coolie is hired laborer or wages. And kuli in Turkish means hireling. I am from these islands and the original article so falsely misrepresents coolies. Many people of Indian and Chinese background took exception to this article because they knew that a lot of the subject matter in this article is false and misleading. Indians have land today because of the work that they did; slavery and coolie cannot be compared.

Coolies were given wages, land, and houses for their labor. Generally speaking people today are not even given this. I know this for a fact because I am from these island and the people there were indeed paid. This resulted in a lot of jealousy and anger from African slaves towards coolies and perhaps rightfully so. Indian coolies were paid about $45 dollars a day plus food and clothing.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/136194/coolie http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/indian-indentured-labour.htm http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/11/25/247166284/a-history-of-indentured-labor-gives-coolie-its-stinghttp: http://www.sahistory.org.za/politics-and-society/anti-indian-legislation-1800s-1959

80% of the immigrants who came to the Chesapeake Bay colonies were white, European indentured laborers. Indentured laborers were: White Europeans, Chinese, Indians, and other Asian ethnic groups and these people were not slaves. "Coolie" needs to be listed under a category called Indentured Worker or it should not be in a category at all. Coolie should simply not be listed under the category of Slavery because that is very false and is misleading to the public. How do I remove "coolie" from the category Slavery or get a new category created entitled Indentured Laborer? https://sites.google.com/site/rydenonushistory/home/directory-study-guides/southern-english-colonies Also the etymology of coolie is "hired laborer" or an "unskilled Asian Laborer" There are several other etymology used in the present article that is not relevant and they must be removed. Can you please remove this. Thank you for your help. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=coolie http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coolie

To me it is obvious that this article was written to degrade peoples whose ancestry goes back to Asia. Coolies and Europeans were both indentured laborers. They were majority unskilled workers and a minority of skilled workers that were paid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richey90211 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Untitled 2

You have no rights to undo, yes the page was in development for reconstruction.

The text used is copied from an unauthorized book on The Nice using an interview with an ex-road manager, who was just a driver and "humper", not part of the group. It is wrong to use it. It is misleading the public on purpose. It was meant to damage. It is unfit as an historical article.

Wikipedia took an awful long time to reply to me. This article damages day by day and you are responsible for putting it back up. By law you need my consent to use my name, image and likeness but you don't have it.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

The right of publicity, often called personality rights, is the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. It is generally considered a property right as opposed to a personal right, and as such, the validity of the right of publicity can survive the death of the individual (to varying degrees depending on the jurisdiction).

Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right of publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off. United States jurisprudence has substantially extended this right.

A commonly cited justification for this doctrine, from a policy standpoint, is the notion of natural rights and the idea that every individual should have a right to control how, if at all, his or her "persona" is commercialized by third parties. Usually, the motivation to engage in such commercialization is to help propel sales or visibility for a product or service, which usually amounts to some form of commercial speech (which in turn receives the lowest level of judicial scrutiny). I confirm Wikipedia and the contributors to this article do not have my consent to use my name.

Wikepedia are not in the position to hold a trial online.

Everyday this article appears on line becomes a separate charge.

The owner of the copyright 20/05/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.21.1 (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You have no rights to undo, yes the page was in development for reconstruction.

The text used is copied from an unauthorized book on The Nice using an interview with an ex-road manager, who was just a driver and "humper", not part of the group. It is wrong to use it. It is misleading the public on purpose. It was meant to damage. It is unfit as an historical article.

Wikipedia took an awful long time to reply to me. This article damages day by day and you are responsible for putting it back up. By law you need my consent to use my name, image and likeness but you don't have it.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

The right of publicity, often called personality rights, is the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. It is generally considered a property right as opposed to a personal right, and as such, the validity of the right of publicity can survive the death of the individual (to varying degrees depending on the jurisdiction).

Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right of publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off. United States jurisprudence has substantially extended this right.

A commonly cited justification for this doctrine, from a policy standpoint, is the notion of natural rights and the idea that every individual should have a right to control how, if at all, his or her "persona" is commercialized by third parties. Usually, the motivation to engage in such commercialization is to help propel sales or visibility for a product or service, which usually amounts to some form of commercial speech (which in turn receives the lowest level of judicial scrutiny). I confirm Wikipedia and the contributors to this article do not have my consent to use my name.

Wikepedia are not in the position to hold a trial online.

Everyday this article appears on line becomes a separate charge. 80.0.21.1 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC) The owner of the copyright 20/05/2014

It would be helpful if you provided a link or some reference to what you are talking about. Regardless see No legal threats. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on Talk Page

Hello Mr.Bill. I am not sure exactly what the procedural method for this is, so I am just leaving it on your page, but FreeKnowledgeCreator seems ever insistant on resorting to personal attacks on the talk pages [[3]]. I know you are an administrator, so I wanted to bring it to your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaflyrobby (talk • contribs) 21:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Please try not to forget to sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. I am not an admin. The place to take this is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI). I regret that you have had to deal with this. If you submit a notice let me know. BTW I think the interpretation FKC made was incorrect, perhaps they need to study grammar and punctuation. Best wishes and I hope you have a pleasant experience on WP in general. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3, I believe you are giving Supaflyrobby poor advice by telling him to take this to ANI. The page is cluttered with petty squabbles between users that don't belong there, and this would only be one more of them. Remember that the recent thread you opened there about me was archived because no one could be bothered discussing your complaints about my behavior. I will to try to be more polite, but Supaflyrobby should try to grow a thicker hide. He states on his user page that he is a police officer. Given the sort of life experience one has to have to be a police officer, I'm not sure why unflattering comments about his editing should bother him. I don't myself much care what unflattering comments anyone makes about my edits. If you think that the wording Supaflyrobby used at HIV/AIDS denialism was ideal, then by all means explain why on the article's talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Need access to a source

Do you have full access to this source? Grove, J. W. (1985), "Rationality at Risk: Science against Pseudoscience," Minerva 23: 216-240. [4] also found here [5]. Apparently the source mentions Russell Targ. I was wondering if it describes his experiments as pseudoscience or not (it may not do). Unfortunately I can not get full access to this source, so cannot see what it says. Goblin Face (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't seem to get a hold of a copy. You might have to resort to a trip to the library. Inter library loan ought to have it available considerably cheaper than the publisher. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have some spare time can you look into the Stargate Project. A section has been added called "methodology", now the section would be useful to the article if reliable references can be found but unfortunately I am having a hard time finding any. Perhaps if you know of any you can document them on the talk-page. Thanks. Goblin Face (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hey there Mr. Bill! I wanted to inform you that there were a few questions and suggestions at Template:Did you know nominations/Milan Puskar Health Right regarding the article, Milan Puskar Health Right. Would you be able to address these comments? As the article's main author, I felt that you'd be better suited to address these questions. Thanks again for all your great work on this article! -- Caponer (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

deletion of input

hello regarding my addition, I placed a source in the regeneration section yet somehow I'm being told that my input could not be sourced. Please, is there a specific way of going about this issue that I might have skipped? thank you Alhajiishak (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bone anchored hearing aid may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• to impaired hearing.{{Medical citation needed|date=May 2014}} It has been suggested{by whom}} that some part of the cognitive delay seen in these children is partly due to their poor hearing.{{
• * Cochlear Baha 3 BP100 Sound Processor) - released in 2009 the BP100 is a fully programmable, multi channel digital sound processor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Autism Research Institute may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• General, Cleveland Clinic, UCLA, Arizona State University, UC Davis, and Columbia University.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.autism.com/index.php/about_2010_funded |title= ARI funded research

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mezangelle may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to E. Fuller Torrey may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• anti-Toxoplasmosa gondii agents (e.g. antibiotics such as [[minocycline]] and [[azithromycin]]<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8142504&
• nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8142504&dopt=Abstract [Comparative activity of severa... [Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 1993&#93; - PubMed - NCBI<!--

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Reversion using STik on IEX

Hi, I believe I spent hours reading those rules and you're doing these reversions by the minute :) I take it you're far more experienced and better equipped than I am, and I'd greatly appreciate any feedback on what I put together on the talk page of that article. Thank you! KristinaChi (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I see, thanks for your help. Should I be bold again or leave it alone for a few days? KristinaChi (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess I have my answer. I should leave this particular topic alone until others had their say. Sorry for spamming you =) KristinaChi (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Your not spamming me at all. I am glad to help guide a new editor. I think you are getting one of the important basic ideas of WP editing, secondary sources should be the basis of most content. You said you have spent some time familiarizing yourself with policy, that is fantastic! I'd encourage you to stop by the WP:TEAHOUSE. Might I also suggest doing some basic editing work on articles across a broad spectrum. Feel free to post here anytime. Welcome to WP and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You are too kind! Thanks for the encouraging words, I appreciate you take the time and reach out to help me. KristinaChi (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration on IEX article

Hello, thank you so much for the work and contributions on IEX. I have taken a look at Sophie's (Sophie.grothendieck) articles and they seem to be very strong secondary sources. In fact, I know Bill and Cliff personally and they are probably the most respectable people in the industry that have written to comment on this issue. Leaving them out in this article is akin to missing the bulk of the arguments. I also work in the financial sector and would suggest we spend some time working together to extract the correct information from those sources, rather than completely removing them from the article.

I also note that a significant portion of the narrative in this article has come from Flash Boys and IEX themselves (IEXCommunications). By removing Sophie's sources, we run the risk of writing a very one-sided article, which is non-encyclopedic. I believe having those 3 strongest points among the criticisms against IEX will help to balance the article and make this more neutral and objective.

I however agree that Scott Locklin's commentary might be difficult to fit into the context of this article.

Please feel free to discuss what changes we could make together.

Cheers Twosigmainvestments (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I put a formatted ref for the Ansness article on the talk page as well as the ref that contains the McNabb commentary. The problem with the content you have reinserted is that the sources do not say what is in the content. Further discussion on the talk page of the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You did not respond to any of the problems identified here. I have placed tags on the content and removed the completely unrelated sentence with a source with no mention of the subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)