User talk:Wanderer57/Archive 3

Criteria for consciousness

This interpretation, attributes the process of wave function collapse (directly, indirectly, or even partially) to consciousness itself. However, it is not explained by this theory which animals, living creatures, or objects have sufficient consciousness to collapse of the wave function ("Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?"). It is also not clear whether measuring devices might also be considered conscious, though generally measuring devices are considered to be in the same indeterminate state as what they measure until observed by a conscious entity. Some even suggest that some beings have a "higher consciousness" and therefore more capability to collapse the wavefunction, whereas others believe all conscious entities have an equal capability.

For example, does the word "Here" at the beginning serve a purpose?

Are the bits in parentheses necessary? Is the "consciousness" of microbes and amoebas important to the discussion? If so, these points should be taken out of parentheses. If not, can they be left out altogether to simplify the thing a bit?

Can the sentence about measuring devices be split into two sentences or more? There is a lot in that one sentence.

What would it mean to say a measuring device is conscious?

How might a ruler (for example) be considered a "chain of observations"? The language used here defies belief.

A sentence with the word "also" used twice is distracting.

It is difficult to make nonsense understandable because it is, well ... nonsense. If it were explained clearly and accurately people would suddenly realize that this hypothesis is completely untestable and untenable. They overwhelm you with a mountain of garbage hoping that somewhere in there there might be something of value. That's why this article is full of references to people and institutions that lack credibility and to pseudoscience like What the bleep do we know and The Secret. Dr. Morbius 20:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If an article cannot be made "reasonably" clear, can it be deleted? Wanderer57 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well ... you can try but the proponents (I wanted to use the word crackpots but that would be insulting) of this "hypothesis" will just put it back. Dr. Morbius 23:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A mackem

A mackem is a person who is from sunderland and speaks the regional dialect and your welcome. --Sunderland06 10:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Wanderer57, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 01:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"Unparliamentary language" on History of IBM

Bwa-ha-ha! Great description. Trevor Hanson 20:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

New try at homeopathy intro

To all involved: please see "My two cents" edit of homeopathy intro here

Friarslantern 22:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy POV tag

Please see: WP:NPOVD#What is an NPOV dispute:

“ In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. ”

Whig 00:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Tim Vickers 01:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put a note on the user's talk page link asking if he wants to clarify what he wrote. Let's leave this up to him. Tim Vickers 01:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, higher is what I intended. I believe insisting on peer-reviewed publications from certified experts is too restrictive. While it is a defensible position to take, we should always work -- & explain -- the usefulness of experts who don't have the relevant certificates. However, saying that we should accept certain sources only because they do not have the needed certification is not a convincing argument, IMHO. -- llywrch 03:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it was "the other side" which people found confusing. Each group of opinion read this as referring to the group of people who held opposite opinions to themselves. I could see where the ambiguity came from, but objected since I think allowing other people to edit RfC comments to change their meaning sets a very bad precedent. Tim Vickers 03:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

If you do not want to be dealing with your own RfC, I suggest you try to restrain yourself. Thanks for AGF.--Filll 02:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What the heck? I just came over here to leave a comment, and I see this threat here. I think this should be added to the RfC that is ongoing. Whig 04:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

- - - - - - - Text copied from "Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Whig 2" - - - - - - - -

[1] Filll left this threat on Wanderer57's talk page. Whig 04:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What's that got to do with you? Oh, NOTHING! And it wasn't a threat, Wanderer's harassment of other editors has gotten out of hand. But you are getting very funny. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, what harassment of other editors? I could just be missing it, but I don't see any. -Amarkov moo! 05:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at Wanderer's edits and they looked fine. Whig 05:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[2] This is the immediately preceding edit by Wanderer57. Cause and effect? Whig 05:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It has a chilling effect on the process when participants are threatened with RfC's for their participation. Whig 05:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Cautioning people and starting RfCs are supposed to have chilling effects on uncivil behavior and disruptive and tendentious editing and edit warring etc. This is the purpose. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not engage in endless nonsense. --Filll 05:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What were you referring to, Filll? What did Wanderer57 do? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to discuss Wanderer57 here. I just want Wanderer57 to avoid the situation Whig finds himself in here, given some problematic behavior I have witnessed which I hope does not get worse. --Filll 06:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It is directly relevant to your attempt to chill participation in this RfC. Whig 06:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What on earth?--Filll 17:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

- - - End of text copied from "Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Whig 2" by Wanderer57 17:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - - - - -

Do you have a comment on this Wanderer? Whig 17:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I do have a comment. To be brief, I reject the suggestion that I have harassed other editors.

I did make a statement in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Whig_2 (Civility) about one editor’s rudeness to another. If what I did counts as harassment, Wikipedia is rife with it. Wanderer57 18:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I did note this incident in the RfC proper, as well. Whig 18:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Winnipeg General Strike

Hi Wanderer57,

Just thought I'd pass on a quick link for you. WP:WARN gives you a complete list of warning templates for situations like this. I just noticed that you were ad-libbing your notes to User talk:142.26.149.2. Nothing wrong with that, just thought you might find the templates helpful. Cheers, --Bookandcoffee 19:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Process or Pattern

The Introduction section ends with: "which had held it since 1929, culminating a process of political alternation that actively had begun at the local level during the 1980s."

I have read this several times and have a vague feeling that there was something wrong in it. I think political alternation is not a "process". I suggest the word "pattern" instead. Wanderer57 22:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC) (I am not making a change to the article as I don't know anything about Mexican politics. My comment is based only on my understanding of the meaning of the words.)

I think you brought this issue not long ago. I don't think "pattern" of political alternation is appropriate; in fact, a "culmination" of a pattern of alternation would imply an end of the alternation, and hence the dominance of a single party which is the exact opposite of what is being said. On the other hand -and depending on your definition or understanding of "political alternation"- it can be either a process or a simple event/occurrence, but the latter is the most extended use of the meaning, in which case, the sentence does need to be reviewed. May I suggest "culminating a process towards political alternation at the federal level that had occurred at the local level during the 1980s". [changes in italics]]. I would even suggest the "process of democratization", but that is open to diverse interpretations. --the Dúnadan 00:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is tricky. "culmination of a pattern of alternation" implies the end of it. "culmination of a process of alternation " also means an end of it. I'm going to think it over some more.

(I did ask about the sentence before. Then I was wondering about the word "alternation".) Cheers, Wanderer57 02:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my proposal and all my comment? I am proposing "culminating a process of democratization, and now that I think of it, I also suggest "process of electoral reform"..." (this time, italics and bold mine). I will repeat my argument again: Taking into account that alternation can be understood as an occurrence in time, political alternation is now (in my proposal) defined as the culmination point (a change of the party in power) of a process, distinct from the end result itself. Should you wish to label that distinct process, I suggested process of democratization, and now that I think of it, I also suggest "process of electoral reform", since it was a slow and gradual process of electoral reform that led to political alternation at the local level and finally (i.e. culmination) at the federal level. --the Dúnadan 18:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long on this. I'm still thinking this over because the wording is very tricky. I'm handicapped by not knowing the history.

If saying "process of democratization" or "process of electoral reform" is reasonably accurate, that is much better than saying "process of alternation" because it is more specific.

This is what I do not know: during the time period mentioned, did Mexico move from a "one party system" to a multi-party system? OR was it a matter of going from a multi-party system with one HUGE party and a bunch of small ones, to a multi-party system where more than one party had a chance to win an election??? Wanderer57 06:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

See what you think of this suggestion: "..."which had held it since 1929. The change of government became possible through a gradual process of electoral reform that began at the local level in the 1980's and later reached the federal level."

0

Electoral reform as described in Wikipedia is quite broad in scope. Does the term fit reasonably with what went on in Mexico? Wanderer57 22:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... no, I wouldn't say it was a "change in government"; the word would indeed fit if Mexico were a parliamentary republic. Under a parliamentary system a change in "government" implies political alternation, since each newly elected executive heads a new "government" (which is the equivalent of the presidential administration). The phrase, "change in government", in the Mexican context, being a presidential republic, however suggests a change in its form, which was not the case.

I really don't see any problem at all with the term "political alternation", which I believe is the phrase that is causing noise. In fact, it perfectly describes what the sentence is trying to say; political alternation is defined as: "is the change of parties in power after an election". [3].

Regarding electoral reform, I think the term does describe quite accurately the process in Mexico, in fact, almost every thing described in the first paragraph of that article actually happened in Mexico over the course of a decade.

--the Dúnadan 01:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "change of government" certainly comes from my experience of a parliamentary system. You are also correct that the term "political alternation" is what seems strange to me. I'm not sure I can contribute any more to this, except perhaps to read your wording and tell you if it seems excessively confusing. Cheers, Wanderer57 01:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I took another look. Aside from the wording that we discussed, it is a very long sentence. "Elections held in July 2000 marked the first time that an opposition party won the presidency from the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional: PRI) which had held it since 1929, culminating a process of political alternation that actively had begun at the local level during the 1980s." It might be better divided into two.

Vandalism

Hey Wanderer, thanks for the compliment on my name! You're right about 216.56.42.62 vandalizing articles; however, it looks like he or she has only vandalized one talk page recently, and he or she also reverted that edit. So you can see it, I've put {{uw-selfrevert}} on their talk page, under the October 2007 heading. You can report obvious and persistent vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Before posting there, a final warning in an escalating series should have been posted to the user's talk page (for example {{Uw-vandal4}}, {{Uw-spam4}} or {{Uw-speedy4}}), and the user must have vandalized within the last few hours, including after the final warning was given him or her. Various warning templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Your block request is unlikely to be acted upon unless you follow these steps. Cases that are not simple vandalism can be reported at WP:AN/I. Of course, in conjunction with warning against and reporting vandalism, you have the ability, mandate and are encouraged to revert all instances of vandalism you find yourself. So, in the future, if you see IPs or users vandalizing consistently, make sure that they've gotten a final warning, and if they keep vandalizing, you can go ahead and report them. If you have any more questions, feel free to contact me! GlassCobra 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Usual warnings

NPOV not required in Talk?

NPOV not required in Talk? (copied from Stephan's talk page

Is it true that NPOV policy does not apply in talk pages?

If the people who like to vandalize Wikipedia find out that no one is supposed to change a section title after it is created, they can have a lot of fun.

Thank you, Wanderer57 20:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wanderer. See WP:TPG, especially the section on "Editing comments". There are exception, and of course plain vandalism can be reverted under WP:Vandalism. But it is generally strongly discouraged to edit comments (both yours (!) and other's) that people have already replied to, as it changes to context of these replies. And no, WP:NPOV does not apply to talk pages. From the summary on that page: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view" - that does not include the talk pages. The talk pages are where we hash out the different POVs. Also, of course, NPOV is not the same as political correctness. This particular header is rather stupid - something I gladly admit - but it is part of one contributors rather stupid POV. See it this way: Do you want to give extra weight to his POV by making him sound more reasonable than he is? --Stephan Schulz 20:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stephan: Thank you. That makes sense. Being new to Wikipedia, I'm still learning as I go. Cheers, Wanderer57 18:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

cardinal-nephew

I don't know what to tell you about the talk page. Generally that is used to resolve editing disputes, and that wasn't really an issue with this article.

Yes, there were some cardinal nephews who were sons. See List of cardinal-nephews. Savidan 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mimicry development

Not sure exactly how long, but wheat has been harvested since neolithic times so there has certainly been plenty of time for it to happen. Introduction of purple coloured crops lead to purple weeds within years in India, so it can happen very quickly. Richard001 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Growing liverworts

I have seen liverwort growing in an old greenhouse. Can you tell me, is deliberate culture of liverworts practical? Thanks, Wanderer57 20:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For many species, yes, it is practical. Damp potting soil works for species of Marchantia and Lunularia. There are some liverworts harder to grow, though; there are many species and they have varying needs for growth and health, just as other kinds of plants do. Some need to dry out periodically, some need running water, some grow on bark. However, if you found the liverwort growing in an old greenhouse, then it probably needs exactly the environment where you found it growing. --EncycloPetey 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Help please

While looking at a diff page, how do I get code that I can paste elsewhere to let other people go to the same diff?

I have a lot of problems finding things in the help system. For example, I searched for diff code, and found pages, but not the answer to my question.

I found Help:Diff, which told me how to code a diff URL, if I know the page numbers of the two pages. I know there must be an easier way.

So, 1) how to get the diff code when viewing a diff. 2) how to find things in help pages.

Thank you, Wanderer57 16:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(PS I tried to look up the template to ask for help by searching for help template. That found me a help page explaining templates, but not the help template code I need. The two I used above are guesses. I was lucky on the second guess.)

Just copy the address or URL from the Address bar. You can then use that as you would an external link. :-) Stwalkerster talk 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Can I get a bit more help please?

Any ideas about finding stuff in Help? I really looked. Wanderer57 16:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Go to the History, select two edits in the list using the tickboxes
2. Click "Compare selected versions" - this takes you to the "diff" page between these two versions
3. Copy and paste the url from the address bar of your browser at the diff page - this gives a link to the diff

Hope this helps, Tim Vickers 20:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. Was there anything else you were trying to find in the help pages? Tim Vickers 20:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter morrell message

well remember you can always email me if you wish to conduct a more private exchange of views. cheers Peter morrell 06:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of AN/I comments

I do apologise. I have no idea why it happened, I certainly didn't do it deliberately. Looking at the timings of the edits it looks like it could have been a combination of of edit conflicts and something going awry. If you look at the last edit I made and the one immediately before it, it's a duplicate the only difference being the time stamp and your missing comment. It looks like the server has received 2 copies of my message with yours sandwiched between them which in effect deleted yours. Weird. ---- WebHamster 02:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed

I understand that their stage names are offensive. They are a band, a black metal band. Their job is to be offensive. That doesn't mean people get to be offensive to each other, especially on a respected site such as Wikipedia. Navnløs 18:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Subluxation Theory a Straw Man

(I brought this question here from Talk:The National Council Against Health Fraud#proposed version, which was the wrong forum.)

I would like to pick up on Fyslee's point: "the foundational vertebral subluxation theory is nonsensical, unproven, and not accepted by mainstream medicine at all". Without disagreeing with that statement, I think subluxation theory is used regularly as a straw man for attacks on modern chiropractic, not all of which depends on that theory. I would be interested in people's thoughts on this. Wanderer57 23:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. No doubt about it. 90% of what chiropractic treats is musculoskeletal for pain and injury using techniques that mainstream medicine now considers reasonable, but by concentrating on the least provable feature, adversaries can make the entire profession appear to be borderline quackery. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 01:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty loaded request with several elements, complicating factors, and assumptions (said and unsaid), so I'll resist the temptation to fill your talk page and several archives with what I know and what I think - some of the contents of my unpublished book on chiropractic.....;-) I basically see chiropractic and chiropractors as two different things. I even know a number of chiropractors who don't practice "real" chiropractic! But while I'm here I'll take the opportunity to let you know that Dematt is a subluxation based chiropractor, and yet (amazing!) I consider him to be one of the finest editors I have had the pleasure of working with here at Wikipedia. It is thanks to Dematt's hard efforts and especially his diplomacy, civility, and devotion to NPOV (telling the whole story about chiropractic, even the part that hurts), that the chiropractic article is in such fine shape. Even though we don't agree on everything about chiropractic, we disagree agreeably. (So if you really want to know more from me, you'll have to email me.) -- Fyslee / talk 03:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As the Vice President said to his hunting buddy, "I didn't know it was loaded!" Wanderer57 03:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect you to know, and I'm sure you didn't intend anything. I have studied this subject for so many years that I can read into things far more than is intended and can see potential pitfalls that were never intended far before anyone gets near them. This is old stuff for me. -- Fyslee / talk 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

To be fair (to me!), I will place the whole sentence here (so others can work with all the facts while I leave), and so others can see it is not my idea (alone):

• "The PBS response backs up Baratz' conclusions regarding the key disagreement - that the foundational vertebral subluxation theory is nonsensical, unproven, and not accepted by mainstream medicine at all."

No need to focus on me (let's face it, life is unfair to chiropractic), just focus on the content. Here is the source material so the whole situation can be checked:

• In 2002, the president of the NCAHF was one of the participants in a PBS broadcast of Scientific American Frontiers that was critical of chiropractic. In a letter to PBS, the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) criticized them for the views presented in the show and for the show producer's use of the NCAHF, which the ACA described as lacking objectivity in terms of chiropractic. Both the producer of the show and the NCAHF responded to the criticisms.

To sum it up (as regards chiropractic's subluxation theory), there is agreement on its status as unproven and nonsensical in the scientific community (elaborated by PBS), PBS itself, NCAHF, reform chiropractors (represented by John Badanes in the show), Alan Alda, and myself. The ACA obviously takes another position on the matter. -- Fyslee / talk 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

But don't you see, that is exactly what Wanderer57 means. By calling me a subluxation based chiropractor, you plan to take away some of my credibility, when in reality, you know exactly what I do. That really was not his question. Which makes your argument a strawman, see what I mean. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 18:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dematt. I just discovered your response here. Hmmm. This rather surprises me, probably because I had written without anticipating any particular reaction. I hadn't thought ahead. If I had been talking about any other chiro it would have likely been a slur, but when describing you, it was just to inform Wanderer of your background. I truly am sorry if it seemed improper and I apologize. It's true I don't believe in the existence of vertebral subluxations or the terminology that usually accompanies it, but that's just my opinion (which is shared by the above named parties). But I wanted Wanderer to know that it doesn't get in the way of my being able to respect you and hopefully he will also respect you and learn to trust you. Sorry about screwing up yet again. Friends? -- Fyslee / talk 04:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee: I much appreciate your introducing me to Dematt, and also for taking the time to reply to my question.

Hello Dematt: I much appreciate hearing from you on my question.

Here is where I am coming from in this discussion. I have been a client of chiropractors for a long time. I have extensive experience of two chiropractors, and brief experience of a few others. The first one of the two is about 60 now, so his training was a long time ago. He was consistently helpful to me with the problems I took to him. Whenever he explained what he was doing (on spine-related matters, so to speak, because I also saw him with other problems) the answer was in terms of subluxations. I never totally understood the explanations. Since the treatments were always helpful, the explanations were secondary and I went to him a few times a year on average for years.

The other chiropractor is now about 30 or 32, a graduate ten or so years ago from the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College in Toronto, Canada. She also has been very helpful in treating me every time I have gone to her. Her explanations of diagnosis and treatment are in terms of the interaction of bones, muscles, and other tissues. She never used the word subluxation in my presence until one visit when I specifically asked her about it. Her answer then was in terms of the history of chiropractic.

I am a skeptic, to the extent of being skeptical of my own symptoms; I have two degrees in science; I am aware of the placebo effect. I went for treatment with specific problems. I was not being lulled into falsely believing that I benefited from treatments I was given.

In summary, two chiropractors with training about 30 years apart. Very different training. Training on a very different theoretical basis, I think it is fair to say. Both very competent and able to treat the conditions I went with (and ready to send me elsewhere if it was something they could not treat.)

If the older chiropractor and his approach are criticized on the grounds that subluxation theory does not make sense, I would say it did not make sense to me, but it worked for me nevertheless.

If the younger chiropractor and her approach are criticized on the grounds that subluxation theory does not make sense, I would say that her training and the treatment she gives have essentially nothing to do with subluxation theory.

That is where I'm coming from in this discussion. Wanderer57 06:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good description of the situation, all of which is relevant today. Chiropractors are trained differently depending on where they get their degree, but even then, what they actually do is often pretty much the same in many ways, at least as far as using spinal manipulation as a central treatment method, with various other methods also used depending on the chiropractor's preferences. A major objection raised by skeptics is directed at the theoretical basis for using adjustments (treatment of vertebral subluxations which supposedly affect total health). IOW many chiropractors will interpret and attribute their treatment success (and their patients will do the same) in terms of the correction of subluxations, while other professions (MDs, DOs, PTs) will explain the success based on other factors. They see something else going on. Many chiros also see other things going on that can be just as likely explanations, and they won't use a subluxation rationale to explain things. What is being done - manipulation, mobilisation, stretching, deep tissue massage, exercises, all of them are contributing to helping the patient, regardless of whether the chiropractor is subluxation based or reform, which explains why you got help from both chiros. That's why you will never find me saying that chiropractors don't help people. They certainly do. I just wish they would drop the subluxation stuff. It is a huge liability for the profession and some leading chiropractors agree (see below). -- Fyslee / talk 16:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Subluxation repudiated

This section placed here by Fyslee, related to above discussion. (From here. Originally written to chiropractic editors here.)

Good question. The first part ("never been proven") is a falsifiable comment. Of course what is deemed acceptable "proof" in this case means different things to DCs on the one side, and MDs/PTs, etc. on the other. The medical world is not yet convinced by the chiropractic claims of proof. To make it worse, so many aspects are mixed up in the differences in definitions of the same word that it gets pretty hard to explain or "prove." That's why I think that the chiropractic use of the word "subluxation" is a confusing misuse of the term that creates many more problems for the profession than it is worth. Keating and others (like Carter) say basically the same thing. Ronald Carter, DC, MA, is the Past President of the Canadian Chiropractic Association.

Carter's basic message below (and in the whole article) is that adherence to "subluxation" is the "silent killer" of chiropractic:

It appears that a small segment of our profession, with some elected leaders, appear intent on answering this crisis with only the 1910 chiropractic subluxation model. Their approach is not only wrong, but it prevents what is right from being done. Dr. Darrel Ladell stated it so well in his report on the Radiology Issue: Beware of the enemy for he is us.

Subluxation, though a vital part of our history has been described as the Achilles Heel of our profession. When you review the available literature and combine it with knowledge of our history, it quickly shows where the subluxation model has failed. This model has cost us years of positive growth.

This paper proposes that there is no need to beat our profession up again, punishing us with a misdirected allegiance to our dysfunctional history....

Today, the molding of the future of chiropractic in parts of Canada is being shaped by some elected members and volunteers who appear to have an obsession with only the subluxation model of chiropractic while being blinded to the many other very positive options. To challenge this philosophical position one should review the wealth of evidence from our past that indicates this model is not only ineffective but, at times, has been extremely damaging to the profession. Subluxation, unfortunately with a great deal of truth, has been referred to as the “Achilles Heel” of chiropractic....

The direction of this paper will now examine and discuss the chaos “subluxation” has created in different contingencies of the chiropractic profession. It may well be the silent killer of the chiropractic profession. Understanding this threat will enable you to know our enemy. (Beware of the enemy for he is us.)...

Certainly how we define one word, subluxation, should not create these emotions which divide the profession. Its more than a word, it represents belief systems, different philosophies, it challenges our ethics, it provides the different factions an issue to fight about. Our own justification of this word allows us to keep, and observe our peers breaking, the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not take advantage of the sick.....

..... [Left out a long and interesting passage about NACM, NCAHF, Duval, Slaughter, Homola, Keating, etc..]

Reformist Samuel Homola, D.C. has noted that the orthopaedic subluxation is an obvious and detectable entity (presenting obvious local symptoms), while the chiropractic subluxation is theoretical, elusive, and primarily an imaginary process to which the chiropractor has attached the primary cause of disease.

Reformist Peter Modde, D.C., has pointed out that if chiropractic subluxation theory were correct, people with scoliosis would have every disease mentioned in chiropractic “nerve charts” and quadraplegics could not live. Joseph Keating, Jr., Ph.D., an out spoken chiropractic educator, considers the philosophy subluxation a “holy word” that has outlived its usefulness and “will become an increasing embarrassment.” But Craig F. Nelson, D.C. another outspoken educator recently lamented that “the number of chiropractors who are animated by 19th century pseudoscience seems to be growing rather than shrinking, and these chiropractors will abandon their philosophy when hell freezes over”

Haldeman also states that minor misalignments of vertebra “are normal and not necessarily a sign of trouble”...

“There is a picture developing. Those who would choose success will see the picture early and understand it. Remember the laws mentioned earlier which govern our lives. You either get it, or you don’t was the first law with a strategy of becoming one of those who get it.”38 In the last 100 years we have being telling about the big picture, the subluxation. The public hasn’t got it, the scientific community hasn’t got it, many chiropractors haven’t got it, and the government and health care planner haven’t got it. Who has got it are the 15% of those who profess to be straight or principal based chiropractors....

The evidence for subluxation is almost non-existent in peer reviewed data, however, “... manipulation/adjusting is well established in more than 30 randomized clinical trials studying the effectiveness of spinal manipulation. There are eleven studies on the effectiveness of manipulation on chronic low back pain. There are seventeen studies looking at the relative costs of chiropractic. There are numerous studies that show an overall reduction in costs in work time lost. All studies have looked at the degree of patient satisfaction in patients seeking manipulation or chiropractic care have demonstrated much higher patient satisfaction scores compared to other forms of treatment and other professions.”...

Those attempting to push the subluxation model while believing in professional isolation can no longer be tolerated.

It is now time for the silent majority to make their voices heard. Remaining silent increases the division, dulls our focus and weakens the science of chiropractic to a point of potential collapse. The subluxation story regardless of how it is packaged is not the answer.

-- Subluxation - The Silent Killer, A 2000 commentary by Ronald Carter, DC, MA, Past President, Canadian Chiropractic Association in the Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association

If chiropractic is to survive at all, then its "killer" (the chiropractic vertebral subluxation) must die.

I hope these thoughts from the inside of chiropractic will inspire you all to make changes within the profession. These are just might thoughts here, and certainly not for the article. -- Fyslee 13:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

END OF OLD STUFF -- Fyslee / talk 16:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wanderer57, thanks for the warm welcome. I think you have a unique perspective that neither Fyslee nor I can claim. We have tried to illustrate it on the Chiropractic article; that chiropractic has experienced a metamorphosis of sorts especially over the last 30 years, so it was good to hear your experience. I assure you that things are not as dire as Fyslee makes them sound :-), though I think his heart is in the right place. I would be glad to explain anything I can, so if you have any questions, I'll do my best. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

References:

Copied from User:Gleng

(I copied this here as a reminder to myself. Others are welcome to read it. And to add comments below, if they wish. Wanderer57 02:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Gareth Leng [4].

-- Goodbye --

I am leaving Wikipedia. I have learned a lot, so thanks to you all. I expect to make no more contributions to articles or article Talk pages. I may write some pieces here, anyone can use whatever if they wish.

I am an academic, I teach medical students and science students, and a lot of what I teach is about the process of science, and how to critically interrogate what we think is true or what is said to be true by finding and analysing the evidence objectively. what I teach is, find the facts, eliminate from your mind what you "believe" to be true, and start from what you can "show" to be true.

This, for me, has been an exercise in “practise what you preach” I became involved lately in two articles chiropractic and vitalism, subjects on which I had acquired the popular prejudices, and started to listen, read, and hunt down the sources to find what was actually said and done.

The exercise was for me a practical demonstration that there is no alternative; being a scientist is about being a conscious determined, relentless skeptic – most importantly about the things that you believe are true. If you do not play this game, if you do not engage in the intellectual hazard of refuting what you yourself believe, then you are not playing the game of science.

-- What is wrong with Wikipedia --

One thing I dislike about WP, is the willingness of editors to judge the edits of editors by the presumed POV of the editor. Whatever the policies of WP, which are I think well judged and well considered, in this they are simply ignored. Judge the edit not the editor is a mantra, but one shamefully neglected. Every time I see a comment on the Talk page that suggests that a comment can be ignored because it comes from an acupuncturist, or a chiropractor, or a “professional skeptic”, or Jew, homosexual, marxist, conservative, whatever, I cringe and wonder what I am doing here on these pages lending authority to the collective thoughts of people who judge by what they think others are, or what they think they believe, rather than on the merits of what they say.

There are some editors who I would be proud to have as academic colleagues, who have been remarkably true to V RS, and objectivity, who have listened and learned, and talked and taught, and have brought to their own areas the discipline of science as objective cool skepticism anchored in scholarship and good sources.

There have been others wearing the "mantle" of support for science who do science, as I understand it and practise it and teach it, a disservice. They give legitimacy to accusations that what is paraded as science is, in fact, mere prejudice, buttressed by false authority, full of double standards and hypocrisy. If we don’t take such charges seriously and eliminate any just cause for them, then we have only ourselves to blame if science does not have the authority we would like it to have

-- What is right with Wikipedia --

I have met on these pages many editors, from many backgrounds, who I would love some time to drink with, laugh with; lively, interesting, intelligent people with knowledge and wisdom to share. I will have missed the chance of talking more with many others also; but life is too short.

-- So what should be done here? --

I came to see an experiment in democracy. Democracy requires faith in the goodwill and intelligence of the people, and it requires also an acceptance of a duty, a duty of intellectual engagement in the issues on which you express an opinion.

Will that lead to some biased articles? Maybe. Bluntly, there are a lot of those anyway (everywhere). There is something that has been learned on the best articles (and there are many very good ones), and is being learned on others –

That on any article, if you believe that one interpretation of the facts is true, then it is in your best interests to show the case ‘’for the opposite position’’ as strongly, clearly, and honestly as possible from available V RS, as well as the case for your own position. If you do not accept the need to “write for the enemy”, then the article will not ultimately have credibility, and anything you do write will accordingly be a waste of time.

- - Comments - -

Boilermaker!

Hi Wanderer57: It's actually the first—somebody who makes boilers. The name was applied (derogatorily, I might add) by Notre Dame University fans back in the late 1800s, during a football game between the two schools. This was back in the days before leagues (or even proper rules) and some of the players for the Purdue team had been hired from the local boiler making factory. The Purdue fans decided they rather liked the nickname, so it stuck! And I think Purdue might have won the game... :) MeegsC | Talk 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:NPOV disputed tag on Whitby Library article

Wow, I just had a flashback :-) I placed the {{NPOV}} tag not because it was written by a librarian, but because it was written by a librarian who worked there. That violates WP:COI. And, yes, I think it was solved satisfactorily. Happy editing! --Agüeybaná 22:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and of course I wouldn't tag a science-related article just because it was written by a scientist; that's ridiculous. We actually encourage that kind of thing. Who better to write an article about a specific topic than a person who studies it? :-) --Agüeybaná 22:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mexican Eagle

Hello again! Thanks for the info on the "Mexican eagle". That answers the question about the flag, but unfortunately, the one about the national bird is still wide open. As I said in a message to Supaman89, about half the sites I checked said it's the Golden Eagle (Aguila Real, in Spanish), while the other half said it's the Crested Caracara (which is also widely known as the Mexican Eagle). So who knows! :) MeegsC | Talk 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had already posted a question to the Talk:Mexico page—I figured that's how you'd discovered that I was trying to find out the answer! Unfortunately, nobody there has a definitive answer either; Supaman89 admitted that if there was a national bird, he was unaware of it. Hmmm... Almost sounds like there might not be! MeegsC | Talk 13:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Searches of ANI

Q & A from Wikipedia talk:help desk.

The "Administrators Noticeboard Incident" search that shows up on each ANI archive page is apparently not searching achives more recent than #235, which was archived Spring 2007.

Can you please tell me if there is an alternate tool, or who can "fix" the current tool?

Thank you. Wanderer57 06:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Try http://www.google.com/custom?domains=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'

--Fuhghettaboutit 12:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

AIV report

Hello. Thank you for your report[5] at WP:AIV. For your information, the relevant policy is Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(The deleted information was: ) From Template:Reflist: "Using {{reflist|2}} will create a two-column reference list, and {{reflist|3}} will create a three-column list."--Straightpress 03:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

SPOV NPOV

Thanks! It's supposed to be a tough one. I ask it because I think it cuts to the heart of the meaning of NPOV and how Wikipedia is supposed to work. As an historian of science (i.e., as someone who studies science from a humanist perspective), the relationship between scientific knowledge and whatever other sorts of knowledge people have or think they have is central to what I do, and to my mind it's sort of the central question of practical epistemology. So the answers give a good window into how sophisticated an understanding someone has of the basic core of the project. I've found that it serves voters well, if not candidates; answers that please me will raise red flags with other Wikipedians, and vice versa. On that note, you might find my exchange with ScienceApologist interesting. --ragesoss 05:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, I heard about your trip to Mexico, so where are you going? are you going to Cancun or Acapulco? or to some colonial town? if you can, you may wanna go north to see some Norteño culture like in Monterrey, Chihuahua, etc. by the way every winter there are snowfalls in Chihuahua, it would we pretty weird to say "I when to Mexico to see snow ~.~" ok take care, just don't drink to many margaritas lol, good luck. Supaman89 19:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Mojitos? that's gotta be a new one, it seems like they create new drinks every year lol, anyways people in those areas are pretty friendly, I’ve a friend from Cabo and he’s like the funniest person ever, just stay away from the wet-t-shirt contests XD, or maybe that's just on springbreak. Supaman89 20:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Pro Milone

Hi Wanderer57.

In regards to your question, I'm going to give you the answer you were expecting - of course it was :)

The reason for the confusion as to the delivery of the speech is actually explained in the article, but I'll make it clear: the fact is that the surviving work was NOT the exact version that was delivered by Cicero in court. Because of all the Clodian supporters in the court room (who had a history of violence if things didn't go their way), the pressure exerted by armed guards in the courts set up by Pompey's special decree, and all the damning evidence against Milo that the last 4 days had brought up, Cicero actually delivered a very reduced version of the Pro Milone for the actual court case.

We don't know precisely which bits were missed out, though educated guesses can be made. It's even said that much of Cicero's speech was drowned out by shouting from the Clodian mob.

Hence the humour of Milo's statement, having received a copy of the full, unabridged speech after the case was closed and he'd been exiled in Massilia - something along the lines of "If you'd delivered that version of speech in court, I wouldn't now be enjoying this delicious red mullet" - i.e. if Cicero had been more daring and given the 'proper' version of his speech, Milo would have been acquitted (red mullet was a regional delicacy of Massilia (modern day Marseilles) at the time). If we had an extant copy of the actual speech he delivered that day, we might be able to make a more informed opinion as to whether there was any truth in Milo's quip - having studied the speech in detail I can say that it's definitely the best and most convincing of Cicero's works that I've read - as well as one of the most grammatically challenging!

Hope that clears it up for you. Say hi to Moreschi for me! Davers 13:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mestizo

Hey thank you for your message, actually I'm not in Mexico right now, I'm studing in London, Ontario (how did you think my English got so good? lol) but I'm going back in like 6 months or so, (I can't stand the cold weather) just kidding actually I'm going back cuz I wanna study law down there, and also because I just can't stay away from my homeland, so in a couple of months I'll be editing Wikipedia from Mexico City, oh yeah. Supaman89 04:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello, Wanderer57--

Regarding your comment to me on my talk page...

Thanks for catching my typo! I can't believe I said "decent".. I didn't even notice that! I'll get to fixing it immediately.

Hmm...? When you click on spontaneous human combustion, it goes to spontaneous human combustion? I don't understand. It redirects to the same thing, you mean?

By the way, thank you for the compliment- I didn't expect I would get any positive criticism, considering it's a bit more simple, and not as detailed as some. Thank you so much! ^^

Mizu onna sango15 05:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wanderer57

Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?

(Just to be clear. Some candidates wondered if my question was "aimed at them". I'm asking all candidates the same generic question; it is not aimed at anyone.)

Thanks, Wanderer57 November 2007

Wanderer, others have been chided (and had questions removed) for pasting in other people's questions. Don't worry, though... elections don't start for a while yet.--ragesoss 15:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Using Images

Copied from Infrogmation's talk page

Hello Infrogmation:

I found my way here by looking for messages about fair use of images. I haven't tried to bring any images to Wikipedia, but in editing text I have seen enough to realize it is tricky.

I would much appreciate if you would answer a couple or three basic questions, OR point me to the right place to find the answers.

I understand about copyright, in general terms. I don't understand the process of verification related to images.

1) If I take a photograph that may be useful in a Wikipedia article, HOW DO I TELL/CONVINCE/PROVE TO WIKIPEDIA that (a) I actually took the photo and (b) that I'm making it freely available? (I know that I am honest, but Wikipedia doesn't know that.)

2) Same question except suppose the photo was taken by my brother-in-law? (he is actually a photographer.)

3) Suppose the photo is from a website outside Wikipedia (say www.xyz.com) and they send me a e-mail message saying their photographer took the photo, and it is fine to use the photo in Wikipedia. I sent a request to www.xyz.com, and they replied, and I have their e-mail, but how can I prove to Wikipedia that it is a bona fide e-mail and not something I edited?

Any help you can give on this would be appreciated.

Thank you, Wanderer57 01:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm. The general starting assumption is of good faith, but don't be offended by other users doing spot checking or asking for more information about your photos. For your own photos, give full honest information on the photo description page (I'd suggest it would be better to include a bit too much info than have too little). If, say, the photographer is your brother-in-law who doesn't care to upload his photo himself but is giving you permission to do so, make sure you get explicit permission and that he understands and consents to the free licence to be used, and include credit to him and that info in the photo description. This is just some informal advise from me; for the actual policies, please review Wikipedia:Images, Wikipedia:Image use policy, and Wikipedia:Copyrights.

"Fair use" of non-free licenced material is something that should only be done in narrow circumstances when there is no free licenced alternative material. (There is a bit too much of it on Wikipedia at present and are efforts going on to cut it back.) See Wikipedia:Non-free content.

For showing permission to free license and upload material from elsewhere, see Wikipedia:OTRS.

Take some time to look over the pages linked above, and if you can't find an answer to something you need to know, please ask. Hope this helps, Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

re: I'm back

Hey what up man welcome back, two days ago it was kinda snowy here in London but not too much, I need to go get a tan myself (~.~) anyways good to "see" you again, did you get any pictures? Supaman89 (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova's Answer

Question from Wanderer57

[edit] 32

Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?

Thanks, Wanderer57 01:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In terms of actually resolving a dispute I'd recommend article content requests for comment over user conduct requests whenever possible. A good content-based request shifts the focus from personalities to the subject at hand and often brings in enough unbiased opinions to break a deadlock without putting any individual on the defensive. Conduct-based RFCs have the opposite tendency; that's the nature of the beast. Sometimes they're useful in terms of demonstrating that a large number of people agree about a conduct issue and sometimes that results in improved behavior when the obvious next step would be arbitration or a community sanction. A greater number are little more than grudge fests. The success rate is low. Durova 04:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your question...

... has an answer :)

It's here, and it's fairly detailed. Please read, and let me know if you have any follow-on questions, either on that page or privately as you wish.

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Sorry for that, the two comments were posted just before I've made my reply to the afd tag issue and likely have stomped and annulled previous edits before. This happens quite often when you edits a page on its current version while multiple users are also doing edits to it at the same time. I had never removed intentionally removed or touched those comments. --JForget 15:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Maser Fletcher talk page for my reference

I was an IP edito for a few months, but finally decided to register an account after reading why I shoould register. Though I did edit articles related to Family Guy most of all, I began to get interested in anti-vandalism, as I find it annoying when I see vandalism. Is there any efficient way to revert a vandals actions, and where can I find vandalism? Maser Fletcher 04:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad you are interested in fighting the good fight (against the vandals). There are a number of things you can do. First of all, monitor the Recent Changes. There are several edits every couple of seconds. Just check the diff's for each edit.

As far as far as tools to help fight vandals, there are a couple. I would recommend Twinkle. There is information about it on that page. Hope this helps. If you have any more questions, feel free to re-add the helpme tag. - Rjd0060 04:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Tools such as Twinkle and popups are useful in fighting vandalism. You can check the diffs at Special:Recentchanges and use your watchlist to find vandalism and keep track of articles. -- John Reaves 04:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Maser, and welcome to Wikipedia!. Wikipedia has a wide variety of policies and guidelines covering all aspects of editing, including vandalism, and what is not vandalism. I've actually written a guide to help new editors learn these things, and you're welcome to read it, as I think you'll find it quite informative. You can find the guide here. Let me know if you have any questions! Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 04:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I've never seen someone so hogwild about fighting vandals. Well if you need any help, you can check out my userpage, I have many many helpful links on it, including Recent Changes, the Block log, Articles for Deletion, and many other useful links. So check it out, but beware, you'll be entering Canadian waters! Cheers, eh! Tyler Warren (talk/contribs) 06:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm a local Niagara Falls Ontario Canadian. I'm re-adding the block log, recent changes, etc icons to my page. Tyler Warren (talk/contribs) 06:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Level of Arbitrator activity

Hi Wanderer57,

you asked how the level of arbitrator activity can be gauged. There might be lots of private stuff going on, but I look at the RfA page, where arbitrators discuss accepting or rejecting cases. I also look at arbitrations. Not all arbitrators work on the Workshop pages, but all should be casting votes (and some crafting language) on the proposed decision page. And those are where I've looked, and I've found some arbitrators always there, some usually there, some at 50%, and some much less. One arbitrator seems to have disappeared without a word (see Newyorkbrad's answer to this question). Jd2718 (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Internal link to a closely related term?

(Copied from Wikipedia:Help desk)

Currently Wikipedia has no terms volatile sulfur compounds nor its abbreviation VSCs. At this time I do not wish to start them either.

I only want to internally link the words volatile sulfur compounds with the existing term organosulfur compounds.

How do I make such a special internal hyperlink to an existing Wikipedia term that is not identically worded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zymatik (talk • contribs) 22:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zymatik. What you do is make a piped link like this [[organosulfur compounds|volatile sulfur compounds]]. The text on the left side of the pipe (one of these: "|") tells the software what to link to and the text on the right of the pipe tells the software what to display. For more on linking, see WP:LINK. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think what you want to do is redirect the alternate wordings to the article. To do this, create an article under the alternate wordings with just

#redirect [[organosulfur compounds]]

as the content. This will direct anyone who goes to those pages to the article. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The technique worked like a charm for the article Finings. I wound up using the technique to at least 4 other articles. I'll save the tip in my Wikipedia tips files (Notepad files; on my PC) for future reference.--Zymatik (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Statistics on Editing

(copied from Wikipedia:Help desk)

Is there somewhere to look at statistics (or a graph) on the level of editing activity on Wikipedia?

Why am I asking? - Based on my little watchlist, I get the impression the current (this week) level is low, and I wonder how to check.

Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe Special:Statistics and Wikipedia:Statistics may be of use to you. Interestingly, my watchlist has been more active this week than in weeks past. NF24^{(radio me!)} 00:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Thank you for your questions. I have however decided to withdraw my nomination as I do not think I am ready. Thank you however for taking the time to ask me a questions. Regards, LordHarris (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

re:Two things

I use IE7 because it works faster than Firefox. I think Firefox clashes with some other software on my PC and it loads pages really slowly as a result. Which box/es are out of place? This is roughly what it looks like for me:

  _______________________________________________   ___________________
  |                                              |  |                  |
  |                                              |  |                  |
  |               advert                         |  |                  |
  |                                              |  |                  |
  |______________________________________________|  |                  |
                                                    |     vandal info  |
                                                    |                  |
________________________________________            |                  |
|                                       |           |                  |
|                                       |           |                  |
|                                       |           |                  |
|                                       |           |                  |
|               automobiles box         |           |                  |
|                                       |           |                  |
|                                       |           |                  |
|                                       |           |                  |
|_______________________________________|           |__________________|

Sorry for hogging your talk page space, you can remove it if you like :) James086^{Talk | Email} 13:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and regarding the edit stats mentioned above, try User:Dragons flight/Log analysis. It's very interesting I think. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's worse than I thought. I thought that they would just get pushed beneath one another. I'll see if I can rearrange so it works for everybody tomorrow, I'll find another computer which works with Firefox and sort it all out. Thanks for pointing out the craziness. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I've never met or heard of anyone called Shiela except for in movies/tv/jokes etc. I doubt there are many people actually named Sheila although I would imagine it to be a distinctly not-classy name. It's probably most commonly used to make fun of people from other countries because they expect us to use it! There are a lot of Aussie stereotypes which everyone here knows of, but we don't use them in common circumstances. Mostly they are used in jokes about tourists ;) James086^{Talk | Email} 14:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I'll separate the boxes around the page so that they can't overlap with each other. But at the moment I feel the urge to sleep. It's 23:45 here (Perth is UTC +9) so I must be going. Nice chatting with you. :) James086^{Talk | Email} 14:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

=Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Outreach/Newsletter December 2007 edit

No not at all - it is one of those things I keep making mistakes on - after 50 years of mistakes it is hard to start getting it right. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied on my talk

I did. GRBerry 20:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Winnipeg_General_Strike

I have semi-protected that page to prevent further IP vandalism. If it continues (what a strange choice for vandalism!) please let me know on my talk page. - Philippe | Talk 01:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Help request

{{helpme}} please

I just put a note at User talk:LeContexte.

I cannot get my note to appear separate from the previous note, which is a barnstar, so the barnstar appears to be part of my note, which it isn't.

What have I done wrong? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The user before you who added the barnstar forgot to close out the formatting with a "|}" which caused all messages posted after the barnstar to be absorbed into said barnstar. I fixed the formatting and your message looks normal now. It was not anything you did, you were just in the wrong spot at the wrong time! Regards.--12 Noon 19:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiLove

Joy

-- Levine2112 ^discuss hopes that you are joyful! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the Wikilove by melting the clouds of sin and sadness that weigh down someone else. Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

07:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes reverted in Book of Mormon article

I just wanted to make sure you got this; feel free to reply at Talk:Book of Mormon. You reverted a lot of my changes without cause. Please don't do that again.

Reviewing a batch of changes is actually very easy. If you go to the history page you can select the differences between any two versions, including the one before my changes and the one after. That should allow you to review the changes perfectly easily.

I'm going to do you the favour of not immediately re-inserting my changes (except for the one you thought was 'uncontroversial') but if I haven't got a reply from you soon I will do that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you edited the talk page, so you've seen my message; however you have still not suggested anything that might be wrong with the edits I made, and which you reverted. Please restore my edits, or I will do so myself. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(section title inserted) Wanderer57 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You've done this again today. Please realize that the status of an article as a controversial topic (as in the "controversial" notice on the talk page that requests significant changes be discussed on the talk page first) is not a blanket permission to revert all undiscussed changes to an article, even a large change. At the very least, you should give an actual reason for the revert in your edit summary, as the undo button should never be pressed unless you believe something good will come of it. Remember, courtesy goes both ways. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Good eye. I can't catch them all. Happy New Year. ZeeToAaa (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you help? I am still too new....

I found your name in the history as someone who is better versed in the use and editing of Wiki than myself. I wish to report Cumulus Clouds for using Wiki to promote his/her own personal opinions. He/she has been repeatedly informed that he/she has acted heavy-handed in his/her editing of the Paris Hilton article and he/she still insists on making continued edits in violation of protocols and guidelines. This is someone who acts without waiting for consensus. Could you look into it? More pointedly, please review the various talk pages where this person is repeatedly scolded for acting out-of-hand. What can be done? Thank you, L.L.King (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wish I knew more....

Thanks for the advice and the help. Careful now that we've exchanged ideas that he does not accuse you of be my puppet as well. You advice was extremely helpful... and now I am sorry I ever mentioned my problems with this guy to anyone... as I suspect a few associates and neighbors in my apartment complex are now on Wiki and giving him a rasher of shit, though they aren't admitting it to me. They support me and now I'm a puppeteer... Sheesh. I'm gonna love when the checkuser shows these users all originated from my apartment's local IP network. The good side is that except where they deal with him, their contributions... though narrow in scope... have all been worthy of Wiki. Again... thanks. - Leon. L.L.King (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC you may be interested in

here. Please don't feel obligated to participate, but I thought it should be brought to your attention. —Whig (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Also my RfC is discussed here. —Whig (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikimess

A

B

Wanderer57 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there!

Thanks for the advice about the userboxes...I took a look at what you did with the spacers. Honestly, I'm SO new to this coding stuff that such a thing never would have occurred to me....glad to have the input!

Yeah, I've read a lot of RfCs, RfArs, and the like...they're generally just so doggone SERIOUS. And--maybe it's my life-experience talking here, but: it's an ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA. If every one and zero of it, mirrors and forks and backups and the works, disappeared tomorrow, the sun would rise the next morning, in the east, on schedule. Yeah, lots of time and energy would be lost, but the sum of human knowledge would remain the same. Wikipedia is important, sure--but not THAT important. I have no tolerance for real-life drama; online drama is a whole separate class of nematode, and the main reason I read it is to learn how best to avoid becoming involved in it. If I can generate any light to balance out the heat, I try to; if I can defuse the tension, I try to do that as well.

Thanks! Take care...see you around WP!Gladys J Cortez 02:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My personal POV, if the power went out tomorrow and civilization itself came to an end, the sun would still rise. Still, it wouldn't be a very good thing for us. —Whig (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

True enough, as I'm sure a fair number of New Orleanians can attest. But all the same: if the power went out tomorrow and civilization came to an end, there would be some who would not survive, and some who would survive, and possibly even some who might thrive. I would imagine inclusion in the latter two categories would involve, among many other variables, a sense of perspective. (I have several acquaintances I'm thinking of as I write this--people who would fall into a state of irremediable anguish the first time they realized that never again would they buy a Frappuccino, charge their cell-phone, or read Perez Hilton.) As I said--maybe just my own personal experiences talking here, but my list of Things Without Which I Could Not Happily Survive is nearly-primitive, and while it's surely nice to have and a joy to edit, Wikipedia ain't on the list.Gladys J Cortez 15:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Mexico

Hi there, here is a poll link Talk:Mexico/Archive_2#Poll, was 1 year ago, also you can find several discussion between a few users after and before such poll, as you can see there is no mention of Middle America, however I'm agaisnt of it use as long Mexico be considered part of North America and not or which is what Corticopias is trying to implicate. Cheers. JC 19 January 2008 14:14 (PST)

The factual points are not in dispute nor is the result of this poll (at least by me), but this poll deals with the lead and doesn't justify the extra wording you keep trying to (re)insinuate in the geography section -- nor does anything since. Corticopia (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

archiving test 1

when will it be archived? Wanderer57 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

archiving test 2

when will it be archived?

Wanderer57 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

gghfghfhghgf

Book of Mormon

I probably erred in suggesting it; rollbacks are much more difficult to do unless there is something grossly wrong with a series of edits by a single editor. However, in this case there are a number of editors that have participated. My concern is objectivity. The article has evolved more into a religious tract rather than an encyclopedic article. Given its controversial subject, it is difficult to find the balance. However, we need to ensure we distinguish between beliefs and historical fact. As long as we do that, it is easy to write an article regarding a religious topic that is done professionally. Whether we revert or not is not really the main objective. At this point, I wonder if we should not just use a brief outline and then fit the information in the article into it. Thoughts? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Should any of you need help, I offer my services. I know a vast amount about the subject, however it is difficult for me to remain completely NPOV, so I will refrain from making any large edits myself (I am what's called an Apostate, or Ex-Mormon, in the LDS culture). But rest assured, I will be reviewing it and making comments when I notice things that should be changed.Rettet181 (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

Thanks, I just couldn't resist the pun on civility! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

.

Religion and war

Religious Preference, Religiosity, and Opposition to War Jerold M. Starr Sociological Analysis, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Winter, 1975), pp. 323-334 doi:10.2307/3710520 This article consists of 12 page(s).

This study finds religious preference to be significantly correlated with opposition to war among a sample of over 900 college freshmen. Even when controls are applied for frequency of religious attendance, sex, father's education and family income, those with no religious preference are most opposed to war, followed somewhat closely by Jews. Protestants and Catholics are close in their degree of opposition to war, but rank well below Jews and the non-religious....

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038-0210(197524)36%3A4%3C323%3ARPRAOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2 - - - - - http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=474

For more material, google the words church opposed to war. (not in quotes)

(date added) Wanderer57 (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Princess Consort

"It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title the Princess Consort when the Prince accedes to the throne.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Text-of-the-Clarence-House-statement/2005/02/10/1107890349201.html

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/mediacentre/pressreleases/announcement_of_the_marriage_of_hrh_the_prince_of_wales_and__167.html

List of Royal Consorts of Canada

A royal consort is the spouse of a ruling king or queen. Consorts of Canadian Monarchs have no constitutional status or power, but are members of the Canadian Royal Family, and may have significant influence over their husband or wife.

In the United Kingdom, all female consorts have had the right to and have held the title of Queen Consort; as Canada does not have laws laying out the styles of any Royal Family members besides the monarch, they are accorded the same title as they hold in the UK as a courtesy title. Prince Philip, husband of Elizabeth II, does not have the title of Prince Consort. Victoria (a widow) and Edward VIII (a bachelor) reigned without a consort.

As Wallis Warfield Simpson married the Duke of Windsor after his abdication, she was never Queen Consort of Canada. Though Camilla Shand will technically become Queen Consort, Clarence House has stated that she will be styled as Princess Consort due to public opinion regarding her relationship with the Prince of Wales.

(date added) Wanderer57 (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Proposed decision

You may want to look at the history before assuming I was talking to myself. Someone requested more information while accidentally logged out. The edit was oversighted for their privacy. I was replying to their (now deleted) request. --B (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

I will take the information and your suggestion under advisement.--Filll (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

bad link on your user page

Here's a better link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScienceApologist&oldid=172803462#Archive_from_WP:VPP. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Even my fleas are unimpressed.

Wowsers. What a steaming morass THAT whole deal's become. In situations where I have no stake, I generally think I'm pretty good at cutting to the core of the issue--taking the debris and all the emotional stuff out, in other words (not trying to ascribe to myself any sort of wisdom, 'cuz I ain't got none) but in this case, just trying to keep straight all the who-said-what-about-whom-on-which-talk-page is making my eyes cross. I used to be a junior-high teacher, and this reminds me of trying to sort out the issues behind various girl-fights amongst my seventh-graders. I'm pretty sure EVERYBODY'S wrong in this case, to some degree--your comment about the RfC being evidence that everybody still needs to cool down was the most salient point I'd seen in pages. There's a rule I live by: It's best not to stay in a room when people start throwing spaghetti, unless you want sauce on your shirt. I don't believe I'll be stepping into this particular food-fight. Gladys J Cortez 05:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Page layout coding (copied from Help desk)

Where should I look for information on coding of Wikipedia page layout? E.g., how to keep images from overlapping the text. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! For non-specific editing help, you may want to try How to edit a page. For specific image help, take a look at Help:Images and other uploaded files. From those pages you may be able to find more information regarding your specific problem. If you need more help, please add a link to the article where you are having difficulties. Hope this helped! --omtay38 21:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You might find these templates of use: {{clear}}, {{Clearleft}} and {{Clearright}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And WP:BUNCH might be useful. If you have a more specific case, just post the link and i'm sure someone can help. The image and infobox flow is a complicated thing that can often be stubborn and difficult to deal with if you don't know the many quirks of HTML and CSS (still the basis of all wikipedia formatting of course). Even if you do know them, it can be a painful experience btw :D. There is unfortunately no real guide that helps prevent it for all articles and all browsers. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I will look into this coding more deeply. The immediate problem is a image box on top of text. I went exploring based on Omtay's note, and found code that seems to work. Is this edit likely to mess up the layout in other browsers? I appreciate if someone will check it. (I made the edit, then reverted it.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Leo_XIII&diff=188891884&oldid=188888048

The problem image is the B&W photo of Pope Leo VIII, in his article. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, that is definitely not the way to solve it :D I have made a few changes that repositioned the images. I thought that these would be better places for them. A couple of quick tips.

1. In general, use the "thumb|left" or "thumb|right" notation for images, without specifying a particular size. People can simply click the pictures to get larger versions, or define a "larger" default for thumbed pictures in their preferences.
2. Also in general try to keep most of the images aligned to the right side of the article, since this does not break the "flow" of the article as much. Now in this particular case you have a problem.

The problem is that the entire rightside of the article is already as good as filled up. You have the Infobox, the styles box, and the articles series box. This takes up a lot of space. So for now, i have left aligned 2 of the images, to at least provide some room. Personally, I would consider proposing to change that "article series" box in a Navbox, which are easily place at the bottom of articles, and don't limit article layout as much. But that might be something you would best discuss with a few other editors involved with those topics before you do that. Now to understand how the flow works, just experiment a bit by editing the page and previewing the article (instead of saving).

1. Images are top aligned to the paragraph of text that follow their inclusion point. So if you look at my diff you will see that i put the image "Leo-xiii-sm.jpg" just above the line "Leo XIII was the first Pope of whom" and that it now aligns with the top of the paragraph that this specific line starts. This is alway the case with both left and right aligns.
2. New paragraphs do not start under the image of the previous paragraph, but next to the image for as long as there is space to put text. This can be undesirable at times and then you have to use one of the templates: {{clear}}, {{Clearleft}} and {{Clearright}}. These force everything that follows it, to stay clear of any pictures, infoboxes or other "floating" elements. They work for both pagesides, just the left side, or just the right side respectively.
3. If you put multiple images in the text after eachother, they will also follow eachother in the article. They "stack" on top of eachother sorta speak. In general do no stack more than 2 or 3 images. If you stack than the position of the images start where you inserted them in the text, but the positions of all the lower images will basically "free flow" depending on the width of your window. It is better to insert the images in the part of text to which they apply, so that they will "anchor" to that part of the text.

Red Link Removal (copied from Help Desk)

If I find red links on disambiguation pages, should I remove them or leave them alone? Eg, James Simpson page has three. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Red links. You can try a Google search to get a quick indicator of possible notability. The entry "James Peter John Simpson, Genius, 1991 to present" looks strongly like vandalism and Google gives nothing [6], so definitely delete that. "James Simpson (government official), Federal Transit Administrator for the United States Department of Transportation" sounds serious and plausibly notable so I would leave that. As I expected, a Google search [7] is promising. Per the manual of style, a blue link to Federal Transit Administration could be added. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The misformatted "[[James Simpson (musician)|www.simpsonsound.com]], Jazz, Funk, Blues, Soul, Gospel; organ, drums, production" looks like a failed attempt to add a spam link by somebody who doesn't know or care how Wikipedia operates. I might delete it without even making a search or looking at the attempted link target. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The same editor who added the unknown genius James Simpson also added a "Gary Peters, Systems teacher", who is equally unknown according to google.

While checking on Gary P, I found this website. Can you possibly tell me the purpose of this?

http://www.aarongershfield.com/wiki/wiki.php?wiki=Gary_Peters

Wanderer57 (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a joke live "mirror" of Wikipedia which changes the order of internal letters in some words. It varies each time it's reloaded. I have seen a study saying that most people can read normally or almost normally if a word has the right letters in some order, and the first and last letter is in the right position. I guess the author wanted to demonstrate that. See also Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Remote loading. I suppose it should be reported at meta:Live mirrors. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, the notability barrier for leaving a red-link is a little lower than that for having an article, but it must be plausible that the target might either have an article one day, or could usefully be redirected to an appropriate article. Bovlb (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Biting Question (copied from Fuhghettaboutit's talk page)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit:

This relates to your answer on S's talk page. When I saw what MER-C was doing to S's edits, I asked a question on MER-C's page.

I'm going to copy the gist of it here, and hope for an answer from you, partly because MER-C is offline, and also because I think it's important.

"== Treatment of Newcomers ==

"On the evidence I see, I object to your reverting of the links that User:S put into the Paris Hilton external links section.

The two links are definitely relevant to Paris Hilton.

I see you also reverted other links by the editor.

Maybe there is some factor I am not aware of in this situation, but I think the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers policy applies here. Seems to me that removing most if not all the links placed by a new editor, here for only three days, is defying that policy.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this. "

(I think the situation was aggravated by the fact that the first message posted on S's page was the bot warning about an image, the second was the message from MER-C about links. I added the welcome message later when I first saw the situation.)

Feedback please. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

While it might be that posting a standard spam warning in response to the link might be a little bitey, since it's not clear that the user is spamming per se, the links are inappropriate and have to go, and not after some good grace waiting period either; inappropriate content is removed as we find it. Thus, the focus on the speed of removal is misplaced. As I said, if there is anything bitey here, it is the tenor of the standard warning left on the user's talk page regarding the links, because of the assumption the warning contains about the reason they were added. That is not to say that I wholly agree that the spam message is out of line. A user who posts multiple links to a single site and little else is following in the shoes of the multitudes of spammers who we deal with on a daily basis. If you're looking for a don't-bite-the-newcomers-situation to champion, I assure you you can easily find much more clear cut instances to focus your energy on than this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll think about this. I'm not planning to go on a DBTN mission. I just happened upon this one because I think the Paris Hilton article is a good one on which to learn and practise NPOV & BLP.

But out of curiosity, how might one be likely to find the clear cut instances you refer to? Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Go hang out at AfD. Some amazing examples present themselves at times.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note

Hey! Thanks for helping out at User talk:Singaporeano. Just a friendly reminder, when helping users who have placed the {{helpme}} template on their page, you should replace the template with "{{tnull|helpme}}" after you have helped them. This removes them from CAT:HELP and prevents other users from mistakingly thinking they need help. Thanks! --omtay38 19:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 6	4 February 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV	Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Adding citations
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of colour in Wikipedia (copied from talk for "how to edit an article)

how can i change the color of text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradox King (talk • contribs) 02:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

<span style="color: red;">like this</span> or <span style="color: #0f0;">this</span> MilesAgain (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Is changing the text color of articles a good way to get in trouble? Wanderer57 (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For general text, yes. Color changes are for user pages and discussion pages (to highlight some text, for example, though this is rare). The goal for articles is to make sure that formatting doesn't get in the way of actually reading the article; coloring the text anything other than the normal color is disruptive.

The exception is for tables; there it's normal to use coloring of text to convey information (though, for accessibility purposes, that's not supposed to be the only way that information is conveyed). For example, you could say put the text "Smith (R)" in red, and "Jones (D)" in blue, indicating Republican and Democratic candidates. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Late reply to your Help desk question

I added a late reply to your Help desk question:

• WP:HD#How to Keep Track of Answers

which should eventually archive as:

• Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2008 February 7#How to Keep Track of Answers (that's a red link now, of course, but check it again in a week or so)

I'm letting you know in case you had stopped monitoring it for answers. --Teratornis (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barnstars

Thank you very much for your very kind message. It is always nice to be appreciated. I may make a push for admin sometime in the spring or summer. If I can ever be of any help to you, please let me know. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha!! That is a good story! All the better 'cause it's true, and what she said makes sense. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Artifacted

.jpeg artifacted is a quality issue that is sometimes caused by having a lower-quality camera, sometimes by bad post-photo processing. Please see WP:WIAFP/Examples_of_technical_problems for a visual reference of artifacts and some other common photo quality problems.

As far as the specific image, I saw artifacting most stronly among the trees in the lower third of the picture. That is usually the type of artifacting caused by a lower-quality camera: there's so much detail in there it can't accurately render it all. Hope this explanation helps. It took me a long time to figure out what people meant by "artifacted" when I first started taking pictures. I would say, "what are you talking about? It looks fine. It's something that after you see the good and bad compared, you have a clearer idea of what to look for. Cheers! Clegs (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Syntax of user page names

Hi. I have moved User Wanderer57/draft messages to User:Wanderer57/draft messages to comply with Wikipedia's standards for syntax of user page names. I have listed the former (which is now a redirect) for proposed deletion. As soon as you acknowledge the page move I made, please replace the entire contents of User Wanderer57/draft messages with the tag {{db-rediruser}}. Thank you. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV reporting

Hi there! I just wanted to drop you a note about your recent AIV report. In the future, please try to properly format reports; also, remember to adequately warn the vandal in question before you report them. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My Paris Hilton edit comment

I'm assuming you got the "blank mind" part. ^W - Control-W - is the "word delete" keystroke in TENEX and in many Unix-like systems, and caret+W is used to signify a deletion when you're saying one thing and then jokingly "correcting" it. Guy Harris (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Paris

Ah, I see. Yeah, saying "Barron" is sufficient. As for whether or not he's notable enough for his own article, probably not, a redirect to Hilton family would probably suffice. --Golbez (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

user getting blocked quickly

What were you referring to? Cheers, Enigma (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Incarcerated categories

FYI: my request/intention to fork the category. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

After further consideration, I thought it would be best to go through the Categories for discussion process. Please feel free to add your thoughts to the debate. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Paris Hilton

I understand your rationale about Paris Hilton as a Norwegian American, but her genealogy bears it out; it is factual. In fact, if she is removed, then so is Nicky, Barron, perhaps Conrad, who were already listed. What constitutes a Norwegian American? 1 generation from immigration?

I belong to a Norwegian American groups including the Chicago Torske Klub -http://www.torskeklub.org , Vesterheim http://www.vesterheim.org and the Norwegian American Chamber of Commerce. It is not like an Indian tribe where one has to be 1/8 of their tribe to be a member. The lineage is very thin for some. If Paris were to state her lineage, I suspect she would say Italian, German and Norwegian.

That is my rationale for adding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsonk (talk • contribs) 06:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Paris Hilton

I would agree that her ancestry is an interesting footnote to the article.I'll research that more. Ken L (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Absurd accusations

(Some absurd accusations by Supaman89 against Wanderer57 have been moved here so as not to impede progress on Talk:Mexico page.)

Yeah! FIVE nationals, FIVE patriots. To start with, this, by itself, is very suspicious for the integrity od the article as a whole. --User:Mhsb 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You know what!? I am sick of it. For now, I am pissed off. Let's see what you guys can bring to the discussion. I will be out for a couple of days but I'll be back. Remeber: Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia, not private. Everybody can contribute, including mexicans and non-mexicans. Cheers. --User:Mhsb 01:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, I just want to comment about my edit to the U.S. article, I'm sorry if it wasn't the most appropriate thing to do, I just wanted to make a point, anyways regarding your accusations: "FIVE nationals, FIVE patriots" let me tell you, the only patriot here is me, and I haven't even really been involved in this discussion, Dunadan (American) and Wanderer (Canadian) are just users who have contributed to the Mexico article for quite a while I can assure you they’ve always had a very neutral opinion towards Mexico, so I would suggest to you to stop making accusations just because they/we don’t necessarily agree with you. User:Supaman89 03:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

¡Hola! Supaman: You can forget about that bottle of tequila I promised. I figured I was in line for a medal of honour, or dual citizenship AT THE VERY LEAST. Then you have to go and spoil things. You can buy the tequila when we get together. And not the cheap stuff either! Adios User:Wanderer57 03:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay Wanderer you are drunk!, please finish up that margarita and come back when you're sober, JK. User:Supaman89 22:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Impuning my character again eh. I dont drink those margarie thingies. I'm allergic to salt. User:Wanderer57 01:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Wanderer57 (talk)

Deleted articles

I believe the content is available on a case by case basis from admins. You could ask one of the admins listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles for more information, but I think that's the answer TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Travellingcari forgot to add ":" to the above category (I did it now), which would make a category (or an image) display as a link, rather than as a category (or image). That's why you were added to the category, automatically. Anyway, all fixed now. Hope that helps. Regards, El_C 19:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. So much for my honorary promotion. ;o) Wanderer57 (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It was fun while it lasted! El_C 19:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what I broke, but whoops! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

An section

Let's keep it in one section, please (for ease of toc). Don't worry, we can tell it's a separate question. Thanks. El_C 18:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It was just that I started a separate section and figured they were merged by mistake. Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits in Book of Mormon article

Hi Eustress:

I'm putting this note here rather than in the article talk page since it is a technical point, not about the subject of the article.

I don't know if you realize this. Editing to change from 2 spaces after a period to one space creates unnecessary edits and complicates the edit history by inserting extra steps. It has no effect on the appearance of Wikipedia, as the software ignores extraneous spaces.

For example, the following:

Example A. (One space is used.)

Example B. (Two spaces are used.)

Example C. (Three spaces are used.)

I would much appreciate if you please do not make this type of edit.

Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I was unaware of this. --Eustress (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mystery edit

I was just reverting an editor who had removed the space between the initials in "H. P. Lovecraft." Deor (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Image of pig Salome Yokum

Dear Betacommandbot:

QUOTING YOUR MESSAGE: "Image:Salome Yokum 5-01-42.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and so on.................. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)"

If the use of the image of Salome Yokum in the artickle about Salome Yokum doesn't make sense to you then perhaps you need to get into a different line of bureaucratic work. Wanderer57 (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to include the name of the article on the image description page. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 10:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Stifle, for the response. I'd like to ask a followup question. I found the article only yesterday while wandering through some odd patches of Wikipedia. The bot note re the image is in Talk:Salomey. The image (and another one of the same character) are both gone now. Question is, can they be retrieved from somewhere to see if a rationale can be included, or are they irretrievably "gone"? Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

They can be restored. Lara❤Love 16:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've restored Image:Salome Yokum 5-01-42.png - you have 7 days to add a valid use rationale including the name of the article in which fair use is claimed, and add the image back to the article. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Aside from the lack of a fair use explanation specific to the particular article, do you see any defects in the general image documentation? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Is it just me?

Is it just me, or do other people also find this image business hopelessly confusing? It's a wonder there are any images at all in Wikipedia.

Wanderer57 (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I found it overwhelmingly difficult when I first started, luckily I had the help of a great admin. What are you confused about? Lara❤Love 16:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Once you use it a little, it's really much easier than it seems. Everybody finds it overwhelming at first, but 90% of it can really be summed up by a few bullet points:

• Almost all intellectual materials, except for very old material, some material produced by the U.S. government, and some material that is too simple to copyright (e.g. a blue square) are copyrighted.
• To use any copyrighted material on Wikipedia, the copyright holder either needs to relinquish copyright or license it under a free license (which, while retaining the copyright, allows for the material to be re-used by anybody for any purpose).
• The exception to this second rule is material which is useful for the illustration of an article's subject and which could not possibly be replaced by a free image (because, for example, the subject is deceased).

There's much more to it than that (for example, how old is "very old" in the first bullet varies by jurisdiction), but it's possible to answer more than half of all questions on this page even if all you know is the above. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm at the overwhelmed stage. How deep is the ocean? How high is the sky?

I'll be specific about one particular question. We have a BLP article. It has a not specially good photo of the person. There are many photos of this person on the Internet. If I want to try to replace the existing photo with a better one, what do I have to do? I know I can't just copy any photo and throw it into Wikipedia. How can I tell which photos on the Internet could properly be used (if any), and which ones can't be? (Taking a photo myself is impractical.) Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the third rule says "could not possibly be replaced by a free image", and the way that this is generally read for individuals is "...because the subject is dead, or a recluse who hasn't been seen in forty years". There probably is nothing you can do, unless you can persuade a copyright holder of one of the better images to release it under a free license. If the image that's there now is really bad (defamatorily unflattering, or something), you could probably get that image removed under BLP, but you still wouldn't be able to replace it with a non-free image. Sorry. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Okay thanks. Suppose one of the websites is set up to provide publicity images for use by media, newspapers, magazines, tv stations. Can Wikipedia use those images?
• Suppose I can somehow "persuade a copyright holder of one of the better images to release it under a free license." Is that practical, or a big bureaucratic headache? Wanderer57 (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To your first question, unfortunately not. Images used on Wikipedia (besides the exceptions listed in third bullet point) need to be re-usable by anybody for any purpose. To your second question, the copyright holder just needs to send an e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org citing the filename (in the form in which it's been uploaded to Wikipedia) and the license under which they release it (e.g. the GNU Free Documentation License). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the insight. Giving permission for an image to be used by anyone in any context and for any purpose is pretty sweeping. This is just idle curiosity, but have you any idea what percent of the images in Wikipedia are here with that blanket permission? Wanderer57 (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your kind comments on my talk page. Sometimes I'm too close to the subject matter and your very non-POV comments have been very helpful in improving the Book of Mormon article. Cheers (Taivo (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

To Someone Well-deserving

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For ensuring article accuracy and civil consensus on a very controversial and important article. Eustress (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing

Hey, I saw that you made a comment on my standards page. Just wanted to pop in and thank you for noticing. Useight (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome message

{{#if:|__TOC__|}} {{#if:|<div style="background:white; border:2px Blue solid; padding:12px;">|}} {{#ifeq:|true|==|'''}}Welcome...{{#ifeq:|true|==|'''}} {{#switch:{{{cookies}}}|true=[[Image:Chocolate chip cookies.jpg|170px|thumb|right|Welcome!]]|}} <p>Hello, Wanderer57, and [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|welcome to Wikipedia!]] Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Wanderer57|your contributions]]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. {{#switch:{{{npov}}}|true=Unfortunately, one or more of your edits {{#if:|to the page [[:{{{article}}}]]|}} have not conformed to '''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV)]]''', and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.There's a page about the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|NPOV policy]] that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole.</p><p>|}} Here are some {{#if:|other||}} pages that you might find helpful:</p> {{#switch:{{{icons}}}|true=:[[Image:Crystal Clear app ksmiletris.png|23px]] '''|*}}[[Wikipedia:Introduction|Introduction]]{{#if:|'''|}} {{#switch:{{{icons}}}|true=:[[Image:C05.png|23px]] '''|*}}[[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]{{#if:|'''|}} {{#switch:{{{icons}}}|true=:[[Image:Crystal package utilities.png|23px]] '''|*}}[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]]{{#if:|'''|}} {{#switch:{{{icons}}}|true=:[[Image:Crystal khelpcenter.png|23px]] '''|*}}[[Help:Contents|Help]]{{#if:|'''|}} {{#switch:{{{icons}}}|true=:[[Image:Crystal Clear app ksokoban.png|23px]] '''|*}}[[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]{{#if:|'''|}} {{#switch:{{{icons}}}|true=:[[Image:Crystal Clear app kedit.png|23px]] '''|*}}[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]]{{#if:|'''|}} {{#switch:|true=<p>I would recommend that you get a username by clicking '''<span class="plainlinksneverexpand">[{{fullurl:Special:Userlogin|type=signup}} sign up]</span>'''. You don't have to [[Special:Userlogin|log in]] to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and has many [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|benefits]]. As a registered user, you gain the use of an [[Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames|appropriate]] [[Wikipedia:Username|username]] of your choice, a personal [[Wikipedia:Watchlist|watchlist]] to which you can add articles that interest you, the ability to [[Help:Starting a new page|start new pages]], and much more. Also, your [[IP address]], Wanderer57, will no longer be visible to other users.</p>|}} <p>Please [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|sign your name]] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Wanderer57 (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

</nowiki>

Thanx

thans for stopping mee on the whole paris hilton thing lol, sorry i dont know the date but i know it was in the UK parer the Metro and the headline was Poor lonly paris!, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whattimeisituk (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

Thanks.. we all make mistakes sometimes. I think I'm also going to rewrite it, my post I mean.— Dædαlus T@lk\^{→(quick link)} 07:43, 14 March 2008 09:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me

hey yeah, can you help me put it back in the article please, it would be a help and thank you dude xo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whattimeisituk (talk • contribs) 15:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!

So far, this has been one of the best birthdays in my life. I just joined the Wiki community a few days ago. Although I am trying to be very active, if you have any pointers or see any corrections I could make, feel free to lend constructive criticism. Thank you for the Birthday balloons. It is also Einstein's B-day, as well as Pi-Day. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 16:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this. I too thought I was being pretty clear.  :) Cheers. 75.45.104.255 (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. I'm glad I saw the interchange. Best wishes. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Rob Grill deletion

Would you be willing to restore the information you removed? / edg ☺ ☭ 02:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:I need help as soon as possible

Too right! With questions like that...and in that amount! ;-) Lradrama 13:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: What a Friend We Have in Jesus

Okay, I'll rewrite the lead.--十八 01:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Paris Hilton Citation Sources

Hi Wanderer! I am trying to remember where I saw the specific Paris Hilton article that described how hard she works on her fashion line / shoe business.

It may have been in www.msnbc.com-- or it could have been FOX or CBS...

The article was very recent (last two moneths)--

Wish I could remember more. I will try to look when I have time.

The observations about her character are my own (and I am not citable because I am not a journalist or a published author)-- But one can see what a sense of humour she has about her social station by observation of many of her public comments and appearances-- she is not always light-hearted in what she does-- she can be very serious-- but she often is very light-hearted about what she is doing. Being able to be lighthearted and laugh at oneself is, in my book, a sign of true character. Others must see this too.

I also agree that the negative press coverage of young celebrities is really sick and abusive. You know in previous generations the press showed much more self-restraint about famous people. There was a sense of kindness in reporting. Not any more! It's very sad and destructive how this has changed...

Sean7phil (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Whisky articles

Hi Wanderer- I used to be a very active user 2-3 years ago, went dormant, and in reading some of the whisky articles I have decided to come back and work on them under a new username, starting with the Islays.

The principle I'm applying here is the same that is applied to beer, wine, and other spirits. For example, Dogfish Head, Penfolds, and Smirnoff. This principle is used on some distilleries Glenlivet but not others Macallan.

Hope that makes sense and I didn't do anything wrong. Nestorius (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If only I did live near Islay... no, I'm a Canadian intimately interested in the industry. In researching more, even some of the well written wine articles are conflicted in this manner, e.g. Yquem, Château Margaux. Any ideas? Nestorius (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to add to this discussion! Regards TINYMARK 23:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

See tinymark's talk. Nestorius (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have moved our discussion to User talk:TinyMark/Scotch Whisky TINYMARK 21:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mexico Music

Hello, when i submitted the edit, i forgot to type in a summary. I think that the ones i posted are more widespread than the ones currently listed because are the most influential singers in all of Mexico, and Thalia and Belinda are really new, and as opposed to Pedro Infante, Jorge Negrete and José Alfredo Jiménez, have not influenced Mexican music in any way or form. they are not considered idols in any way.

I'm Mexican and I talked to several people about the singers that were listed and all of them agreed that Thalia and Belinda feels so disgraceful to represent Mexico as "well known singers".

Also wikipedia lists them as greatly influential and the most representating, all 3 of them, while Thalia and Belinda are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prozaker (talk • contribs) 03:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Prozaker. Thanks for your message. I expect you are right that the three singers you named were greatly influential in Mexican music. I have absolutely no reason to doubt what you say.

The music scene in Mexico is very diverse. People of different ages like different styles of music and different singers.

The same thing is true in Canada. The singers that I think of as the greatest Canadian singers are totally unknown to most young Canadians.

The Mexico article doesn't try to list the "most influential" Mexican singers. It simply set out to name some "well known" singers.

When you added the names of the three singers, I had no problem at all with that. I'm sure you know Mexican music better than I do. My problem was that you removed the names of two very popular young Mexican singers.

I don't see any good reason why the five names cannot all be included. What do you think? Wanderer57 (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP Discussion

The Merle Terlesky discussion was scattered widely. Here are links just in case you are interested to read it.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Merle Terlesky picture

and at

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Opinions Wanted

(I started a new section on the same page to try to get some other opinions.)

Talk:Merle Terlesky in these three sections, which are hopefully still adjacent.

Deleted photo

The truth about Merle

Safety issues?

Also there is a brief discussion here: User talk:Reginald Perrin‎#Re Merle Terlesky

I probably was regarded as a nuisance in these discussions. I think everyone else involved was on the opposite side of the issue.

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		I am giving you this award for your effort and help in the different language difficulties and misunderstandings. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 18:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Olsen Merge

I think this is a great idea to merge them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brycemoose (talk • contribs) 22:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Foundation issues

I am not, off the top of my head, able to authoritatively answer your question. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Calendars of 2008

Hi.

I've been really busy with exams lately, so I'm sorry that I haven't been able to contact you. I'm very glad that you have offered to fix the Calendars, as I am currently the only maintainer and will only be able to make major edits in a month or so.

Thanks again, --Munchkinguy (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AWB

Hi, I've approved you for this tool. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

re:GTM

Hi Wanderer, sorry for the delay, I checked the website but the last update was in 2006 so I don’t think they put their research in the page, I found this though “En la actualidad el OGTM cuenta con ocho grupos de trabajo: gestión, intraestructura, cómputo, instrumentación, caracterización y pruebas, ciencia y divulgación. En la página de los grupos de trabajo del OGTM se puede encontrar una descripción más detallada de las tareas de estos grupos.” It says that currently they have 8 work groups and it gives you a description of the tasks of each one, what do you think?. Supaman89 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Augustus Jones

Since you helped peer-review this article through the Biography Wikiproject, I figured I'd let you know I've nominated it for a Good Article. You can't review it, but if you wanted to help push it over that hurdle, it'd be appreciated. Cheers, WilyD 22:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Err, I've never put an article through GA before, though two I essentially authored two that were guided through by someone else, so I've seen it happen. In both, the reviewer raised a number of "minor objections", we fixed most of them and it got passed. I don't know the MOS very well or anything, so I'm not so good with formatting and the like. No worries either way, I just figured I'd notify you since you'd had some involvement. WilyD 02:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Protothecosis

Thanks for the message. The facts in the article that you brought up were all written by me and they are all sourced (although that part about Collies and female dogs is from an older text - I should see if that has held up in newer editions). I also altered the image caption to indicate that that is a histological stain from dog tissue, which is probably why it doesn't look much like green algae (also there's no chlorophyll). --Joelmills (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Purgatory

Read the Catholic encyclopedia article listed there. it's at [8]. the article itself does seem to need a little re-emphasis, but it's basically real enough. I'll keep an eye or it--it's my sort of subject also. DGG (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

BLPbot

I told it to revert a revision, but for some reason, it didn't, so I had to do it manually. Bug was fixed; the bot was given rollback. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You found me out.

I was highly amused by your post,[9]. I can't believe I hadn't thought of signing up for the account you mention so that I could give free vent to my crabby thoughts! However, in reality, long live assume good faith, say I. --Slp1 (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Genie

You did not read the extract I posted from the newspaper. Why? It shows clearly that they called her **name redacted** in the AP, and the UPI stories for several weeks. Wjhonson (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Wjhonson: Thanks for the feedback. I did read the information. I do not question for a moment your statement that this horrible business, including the child's name, was published in 1970 or so. We differ on what that means.

I believe that the information is largely forgotten now, that publicizing the name again may do harm, and that under the BLP policy we should not publicize it.

This is a secondary point, but I also think the advantage to Wikipedia of publicizing the name is negligible.

If you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to post here.

Wanderer57 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost everything that happened before 1995 is "forgotten" by Google, we don't however based what we publish here on what Google remembers. "Do no harm" is not the sum-total of BLP as you know, it's more complex than that. We do harm all day every day is some of the BLP's we have simply because the harmful details have been published and widely disseminated when the event occured. We cannot give the appearence of consistency while reporting with one hand, and hiding with the other, the exact same set of issues. We have hundreds of BLPs that cite situations involving arrests. We do not remove them, and yet they "cause harm" if you will. BLP does not state that we shouldn't publicize harmful details. The advantage to the project is consistency in our approach, not just with modern events but with historical events as well. Treating historical events in a different way from modern events is inconsistent. Wjhonson (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wanderer, while I sympathise with removing the names on the talkpage too, I think removing all the links is going a bit far. I think people need to be able to see the evidence and make an informed decision. We can always archive the page in a few days once this is over. Would you mind putting them back for now? --Slp1 (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw! Thanks. I appreciate it. I have subsequently removed a few more stray name refs as you had done before. Slp1 (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

thewinekone

thewinekone is this guy on youtube. He's pretty funny. Anyways, CIF stands for California Interscholastic Federation. --thewinekone (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Normative Ethics, Meta-ethics and Utility

Despite the pretentious title, I have disappointingly little to give you as an answer to your thoughtful question.

You are right about all three suggestions you make (including the mutually exclusive options). Very perceptive!

Specifically:

• I am mainly interested in the reasons a decision about Susan's article are made. Yes
• I don't mean it doesn't matter what we do as a general statement in context. Yes
• But I do believe that statement to be true. Yes

I realised, upon rereading my post that it was ambiguous. Because the it doesn't matter is followed by what matters, I'm using structure and context hyperbolically. I didn't change it, because in the case at hand I think using Susan or Genie will make very little difference either way. So I do literally believe the decision doesn't matter in this case. However, I also decided not to clear up the ambiguity because I do believe it is not what we do that matters, but why we do it.

Two more things to say. 1. At an emotional level I actually respond to real personal names in a different way to psuedonyms. If I know a name to be a psuedonym, it distances me from the person. I feel excluded, unwelcome, univited and I respond appropriately and keep my emotional distance. If, however, I have a name, I feel "in touch" with the other in some way, as though they are within reach. Beliefs regarding magic have often involved real names. The modern Hebrew conventional denotation for God is haShem = the name. I'm not some spooky freak. I'd just argue spooky freaks pick up and exaggerate something real in human psychology.

2. The more I think about it, the more I really do believe it's not what we do, but why we do it that matters. Maybe 100%. I could argue this from the Bible (and some Bible believers would disagree). But I might just be able to explain my instinct in this matter without reference to God or Bible. (a) Easy from Bible: in Genesis 50 Joseph explains to the brothers who tried to kill him that he forgives them because they were only doing God's will, which God intended for good, though they intended evil. With other readings a Biblical view is: all results come from God for good purposes though these are often opaque to us. It is our intentions we should be most concerned about. (b) Without the Bible I can only argue intuitively. Is running good or evil? It depends on whether you are rushing life-saving information to the appropriate place, or whether you are mercilessly tracking someone to rob him. If it is not the actions themselves that make them good or evil, is it the results? This cannot be, or emergency surgical proceedures ending in death would be murder.

Rest assured I think what we do matters, why we do it and the results. The reasons why we do things involves our beliefs about how things are done and what their consequences are -- but that's just the mechanics. Additionally there is a motivational level that seems rather complicated. In the case of Susan's article and Wiki, I think we can only work at the mechanical level. But wouldn't it be wonderful if we could understand and share motives with an intrinsic worth of their own?

Thanks for asking your questions, I really appreciate it. Perhaps you detected and responded to an underlying invitation to ask those very questions. That is quality co-operative communication. Perhaps I read too much into your questions. I say and think too much.

Peace friend. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Appomattox Campaign

Please, is the accent on the "po" or on the "matt"??

I think I know the answer but not being an American, I never hear the word used. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pronounced as appoMATTix. If the IPA characters weren't such a pain to figure out, perhaps more articles would use them. (So far, I've only used them in biographies of men with names that are unusual to English-speakers' ears.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people

I notice you have transcluded User:Doc glasgow/BLP watch to your user space. Given that the page has been deleted, I instead created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people. This works slightly differently, and should not be transcluded, but rather watched. But you all look to be old hands so I figure you'll get the hang of it. I hope you find it useful. All the best, Hiding T 16:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Paris Hilton edit

Huh, you're right. That's odd--AWB has been pretty good about summarizing my edits. Dunno why it screwed up there. Looks like it transposed an edit summary from a different article. Couldn't tell you why that happened.—Chowbok ☠ 01:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Texas A&M would be like totally different, man

That would be libel.

Thanks for the chuckle. David in DC (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hypocrisy

Without going into too much detail, edit summaries were used to place a personal attack. I don't want to go into details on-wiki, but if you're really curious you can drop me an e-mail and I'll explain what happened. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

Celiac ganglia

Thanks for your note at WP:WPMED about . . . Celiac ganglia. I've tried to improve the lead, but anatomy isn't my strength, so I didn't want to do much more than that. If you would take a look at the changes I made and let me know whether that addresses any of your concerns, I'd appreciate it. I hope that someone more knowledgeable will be able to further improve the article. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

KUDO 1080

Perhaps when you can tell us from memory anything at all of substance about the radio station KUDO, you may continue reverting edits to the page. What's the major controversy going on with KUDO right now? Can you name the 3 local hosts? No - don't google it - know it. Live here. Do something productive.

As it stands, there is nothing on the page that users couldn't get straight out of an FCC webpage. Pointless. Wikipedia as a sea of reformatted data extracted from a database.

I am rewriting the KUDO entry to reflect the actual station, programming and people.

Vandalism? Hardly.

Kudofan (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

e-mail address

HOW can I e-mail you, Wanderer57? You sent me a message via a WIKI site ("Genie"), and I'm sorry to say that I lost it. However, I remembered your name. I'd be happy to e-mail you to answer your query, but you are not giving me your e-mail address here. Please tell me how I can contact you without giving up my own privacy.68.72.109.121 (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cheat sheet

re:Supaman

Yeah man, you're right I meant leave not live (damn English spelling lol, jk) regarding Corticopia, he's probably taking a break or something until everyone forgets all his warnings, he's been this close to getting banned so many times that I'm surprised he's still here, but we'll probably see him back in a couple of months.

Anyways changing subject a little bit, I'm going back to university in Veracruz in 2 months, I'm organizing all the papers right now, I just can't wait to go to the beach, meet with the friends, some chicks, etc. Supaman89 (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

lol, well some bikinis can warm you up no matter what. Regarding Belize, anything from Alaska to Panama is located in the North American continent right? personally I like to think that there is only one America, but having two continents is fine too. Supaman89 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wan, I put a map in my comment to illustrate my point, hopely that'll help her, besides that everyone knows there are two continents: North America and South America but you know how some people think that everything below the U.S. is "South America". Supaman89 (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand, I know that Central America is part of the North American continent, I personally don't think she'll get confused but if you think that she will I can change that part, no problem. Supaman89 (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems like Alicia is not coming back for the answer mate. O.o Supaman89 (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Solidarity logo

Generally, non-free images are supposed to be used only in the article that specifically describes the organizations, in this case, the Solidarity article. The same thing will also be done with the NASA logo article. In short, an unlicensed image is used in at least one article, but usually only one. This is why I reduced its usage to just the article about the trade union. Hope this helps. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Bennett

Howdy Wanderer! Not sure if you caught the controversy on these pages (re: plural marriage) in the last month - one user was insisting on including the 'abortions' allegations made by Sarah Pratt in 1886 in her interview with a German anti-Mormon journalist. Since this allegation has been repeated by at least two modern writers (based, of course, on the 1886 interview), several of us tangled with the user that this was still an unreliable source. In the end, it was agreed that only a very short mention would be made. Since Pratt claims she received this info from Bennett, I am the one who added the 'balance' on Bennett so that he did not look like the wonderful, good buddy of JSJr. that the user was painting a picture of. This is why it is NOT expanded. Perhaps on the Bennett page? I have so much on Bennett that I could retire now and just sit here and write all day... Best, A Sniper (talk)

Howdy Sniper: Thanks for the background. I didn't see the previous discussion. The paragraph still seems deficient to me. After the first sentence, we have Sarah and her husband differing over the veracity of statements made by John Bennett. However there is no indication of what those statements were (except a general sense that they related to the Pratts). To me, it's just a puzzle.

My impression is that either more information is needed here or less. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Question about linking

(copied from Help Desk)

(This question is all in 'nowiki' for clarity.)

[[PageOneHundred|100]] displays "100" but provides a link to PageOneHundred.

Is it possible to provide a URL but display something else instead of the URL?

For example, [[<http://www.whateveritis.xxx>|Whatever]], where only the word "Whatever" is displayed. This code provides the link but it also displays the URL.

Wanderer57 (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[http://www.LINK.com Link] − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes. This text is displayed and this text is displayed without the external link icon. Hope this helps. WODUP 04:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

See Help:Link for the detailed instructions. --Teratornis (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all. This help system is amazing. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've never seen technical support that is better than Wikipedia's Help desk and other help pages, thanks to the pool of volunteer helpers who seem to know everything there is to know about Wikipedia (or where to look if they don't know), the power of wikitext markup, and having answers to just about every possible question already in writing and easily linkable. Not to mention our search tools ({{Google wikipedia}}, {{Google custom}}, {{Google help desk}}, {{Help desk searches}}, etc.) and the Editor's index. --Teratornis (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(signing copy) Wanderer57 (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Message on my talk page

You are probably right. Of course, that leads to the question of exactly how you think it's best to deal with a person whose stated goal is to try to claim that there are no experts on the topic of Jack the Ripper and thinks anyone who has ever written a book about the case is a hack and a crank who should be ignored so that his views on the case can take precedence? Or people whose entire history of edits on the article has been explicitly striking out at people they dislike? I've tried the ignoring them thing for months at a time, it never works. They just continually make false accusations to try to get me blocked and toss off insults. This latest flare up isn't appreciably different from how things have been for at least a year and a half. If we could get other editors to state unequivocally that:

1. ) there are, in fact, experts on the topic;
2. ) it's the experts whose understanding is represented in the article, not some guy off the street;
3. ) that no one owns the page and can declare that they have the right to control the page and undo other people's edits on a whim; and
4. ) accusations of trolling, etc., in order to try to justify mistreating someone are simply unacceptable behavior

I think Arcayne and the others will be forced to either shape up or give up. So much of their strategy depends upon trying to pretend that I am a bad guy who should be completely ignored despite the fact that I'm the one there who knows what all the experts say and can cite them that if they lose the ability to fall onto that they'd have no choice but to fly straight.

Do you think those expectations listed above are reasonable? They sound extremely reasonable, even obvious to me, but it's exactly that which has been a problem on this article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Class, but, and

Re. the Brideshead article, I hope you agree that the "but" works better than the "and." "A was X and Y" tells you that, yes, A was X and Y. But "A was X but also Y" tells you more. It tells you that "A was X and Y" and that "There is something about X and Y which makes their juxtaposition unexpected."

But I saw your question in an edit summary, and so I want to elaborate. The reason this juxtaposition works in the case of wealth and couth is that, as I said, class correlates with class. At least traditionally, in the west, the wealthier had more couth than the less wealthy. That correlation has become weaker in the modern period. In some ways that's a good thing, in some ways that's a bad thing. But there is still a correlation, and it is because of the correlation that intelligent readers "get" the sentence that "He was wealthy but uncouth." theloavesandthevicious (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Poster Text

This text is from an old poster, or, more precisely, a reproduction of an old poster.

Loden dal Brun Schio (Veneto)

Figl'ali:

Milano

Roma

Napoli

Cataloghi -- campioni gratis

Scrivere: "Loden dal Brun -- Schio"

Based on the city names, I guessed this is in Italian. The Babelfish translation site gave a partial translation as follows:

loden from brun schio (the Veneto) figl' it tows Milan Rome Naples catalogues champions gratis to write

This is not enough for me to grasp the meaning. Will someone please assist? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Loden (qv) is a greenish wooly material used for peasant style coats and the like. The poster by Achille Beltrame seems to be a sort of advert for this, presumably giving the shops / cities of avalability in Italy. Figl´ali ... would mean something like "branches in Milan, Rome and Naples", assuming that the main shop is in Venice.

A bit of a guess. Italy is the next country down South West, but I don´t speak the language since Latin went out of common use. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Loden dal Brun"

In the city of Schio (Venitian province)

Branches in Milan, Rome, Naples

Catalogues and samples for free

Write to: "Loden dal Brun" in Schio

--Lgriot (talk) 29 August 2008

Coincidence?

Hi Wanderer57, is there any reason you can think of that both yourself and a new editor would take a simultaneous interest in the state of the universe in San Francisco on August 14, 1972? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest. It was not quite simultaneous, as my interest followed from that of the other editor. They asked what phase of the moon was seen in San Francisco that night, and were told the (presumably computed) moon phase. It occurred to me that if it was overcast in San Francisco that night, the moon would not have been seen. So I asked about the weather. Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who has lived any length of time in San Francisco knows that the moon is rarely visible because of the fog that rolls in most evenings, especially on warm days in the Central Valley. (Taivo (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

Lyrical not inaccessible

Western world

Hello B9 hummingbird hovering:

This is about your contribution to the "Spiritual" section of the article Western world.

I am not so enamoured of my reading and comprehension skills or so bold as to say that the paragraph in question is incomprehensible.

However, I will say that in my opinion it is insufficiently transparent to be appropriate in the context of a general encyclopedia.

Perhaps as a starting point you would be kind enough to paraphrase "reify the polarity" in more down-to-earth language? Thank you.

Wanderer57 (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph in question ('Spiritual' section of Western world article):

If we reify the polarity of the Occident and Orient, a historical literature review may reveal the attribution of meditative disciplines to the East and prayerful disciplines to the West. Just as the East and West are but arbitrary compass constructions of an all-encompassing Globe, so too are the disciplines of prayer and meditation complimentary, interpenetrating and essentially indivisible. The perpetuation of these cultural and historical misattributions obscures the boundary-permeable manifold experience of individuals and communities that traverse this ill-constructed ideo-geographical binary.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

self-critique: lyrical but not inaccessible...

reify: to substantialize or to make a thing of that which is gossamer or insubstantial...Occident and Orient are but constructions: cloud castles, rabbit horns... tip of the hat to Said... tip of the hat to Candrakirti

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan Combatants

Hi, I'm writing to you because of the Afghanistan War combatants list. I was trying to say, that there are 5 countries included in the list (there are 45 countries in the ISAF, so I thought that it was better to show five countries with greatest troop contributions plus link to other 40 rather than just link to the ISAF). I don't know if you're from Denmark, but I'm definitely not talking about the sacrifice of that or any other country. I think every country helping with the War on Terror makes certain level of sacrifice. Second thing is, that Denmark is not often in the combat actions. Thanks --Novis-M (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not from Denmark. I just try to take a npov approach to questions. I mentioned Denmark specifically because I noticed the Danish flag had been deleted. Then I got curious about the contributions to the force from different countries. It turned out, as I mentioned, that (based on numbers in Wikipedia) on a per capita basis Denmark has twice the number of personnel in ISAF as the USA. If I was from Denmark I might have known this up front.

I realize the number of countries in the force makes it more difficult to include them all in the lists. However IMO being inclusive outweighs the ease of formatting.

For example, NATO - ISAF: 50,700

• Flag of the United States US: 20,600
• Flag of the United Kingdom UK: 8,330
• Flag of Germany Germany: 3,310
• Flag of Canada Canada: 2,750
• Flag of France France: 2,730
• other countries: 13,050

The "other countries" number exceeds that of any named country other than the USA. Some readers might like to know what these other countries are.

Coalition:

1014 killed (US: 629, Other: 385)

3,665+ wounded (US: 2,514, UK: 900, Canada: 300+, Germany: 92, Other: 80+)

If this presentation does not put the spotlight on the "greater sacrifice" of one country over another, I'm not sure what would.

I realize that I'm not one of the editors working from day to day to maintain and improve this article. I'm not going to pursue this issue. However I do see it as an example of Wikipedia's focus on American information.

Thanks for the feedback. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Inauguration of Barack Obama

This user helped promote Inauguration of Barack Obama to good article status.

Thank you for the editorial assistance that you gave to help improve this article. Keep up the good work as we try to take this article to WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sylhet

Hi created peer review for the page for good article please try improve, thanks. Wikipedia:Peer review/Sylhet/archive1 Bangali71 (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Destructive drilling

Hello, thank you for your question. You will find my answer here. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Valour Road

Hi! I finally got around to photographing the Valour Road monument. I wanted to do it on Remeberence Day so that I could incorporate the wreaths, etc. --Munchkinguy (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The Graduate

Yes, Magnificator has a demonstrated history of large and complex edits to articles with nary a word to anyone about why. He/she seems loathe to provide Edit Summary information. Figuring out what's he/she is doing is difficult because each edit seems to be made up of a zillion little ones (one of the reasons I tend to deride "edit count" as a useful indicator of anything).

Thing is, these edits are sometimes good and sometimes terrible. Since you mentioned something in the article's History, I'll defer to you. Are you going to look after this one?

Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll watch for a response from Magnificator; then decide what to do. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

He's Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

Magnificator just dumped a bunch of unsourced, unexplained stuff into Star Trek: The Next Generation. I dealt with it but I thought I'd give you a heads-up so you could keep an eye on the articles you monitor.

Gee, I wish we could get that guy to read the rules and work cooperatively! He certainly has a lot of energy and could help out here.

Thanks again, BTW, for your work on The Graduate. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 13:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Revert

Any particular reason you felt this warranted rollback? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I just now put my reason into the Talk page. I should have used UNDO rather than ROLLBACK. That was a mistake for which I apologize. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Lamps

"The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime."

- Viscount Grey

Wanderer57 (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Book of Mormon hatnotes

Please visit Talk:Book of Mormon#Disambiguation hat-notes to help resolve this edit-dispute. DMacks (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

/* Thermodynamics for beginners */

Thread moved from my Talk page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Cuddlyable3:

I'm posting my two cents worth here rather than extending the discussion at the Reference Desk. I am frequently impressed by the high standards of the information service provided at the Reference Desk and it bothers me to see a truly minor dispute interfere.

Yes, the wording "...produces more heat than it's own input of energy..." should have been "...produces more heat than its own input of energy...". As one of those blessed with a mastery of educated English, you are able to understand what was meant.

In my opinion it is counterproductive to point out a minor and common punctuation mistake in such a way as to derail a RD discussion. If you felt the mistake needed to be pointed out at all, it would have been sufficient to write something like: "...produces more heat than it's (sic) own input of energy...".

In my opinion. Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I agree that [sic] is very useful when quoting text that contains a spelling error in the source rather than the transcription. Not all readers may be familiar with this originally Latin word and I hesitate to use it on the ref. desks where it has had very few occurrences. Also [sic] does not reveal the correct spelling. There are eight possessive pronouns in modern English: mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs, and whose (plus the antiquated possessive pronoun thine) which should cover all needs. A Spell checker can't detect misuse of "it's" which may be why it persists along with other confused homophones (heterographs) such as YOUR/YOU'RE", THEIR/THERE/THEY'RE, TO/TWO/TOO. We cannot be oblivious to such errors in the encyclopedia project and by far the majority of editors strive to write correct English. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Re-Talk:Wenzhou train collision

I tagged it since most appears to be in Chinese, so I can’t understand it, but by what I can gather the user is trying to accuse the Chinese government of a cover up. I was wondering if it was true, a political attack, off topic or just needs to be translated in to English? I put a note on the talk page to. Wipsenade (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

ur post

thankq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breachloader (talk • contribs) 01:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion re wikipedia article Radionics

I'm in an area where power was out for 2 days, so nothing could be responded to 'til now; and although your page indicates that information should be e-mailed rather than left on the talkpage, I could not find an e-mail reference on it. Other than the offensive mis-definition referenced below, the article referenced below was too far out of my range of things to follow up on (i.e., unrelated to pure science, general medicine, general topics, etc.)... so I hope the current editors can assign the necessary article clean-up to someone else who was involved on the related topics.....

---

"BASED ON WIKIPEDIA's article: . . . Radionics is the use of blood, hair, a signature, or other substances unique to the person as a focus to supposedly heal a patient from afar.[1] The concept behind radionics originated in the early 1900s with Albert Abrams (1864–1924), who became a millionaire by leasing radionic machines which he designed himself.[2] Radionics is not based on any scientific evidence, and contradicts the principles of physics and biology and as a result it has been classed as pseudoscience and quackery by most physicians[3]. The United States Food and Drug Administration does not recognize any legitimate medical uses for such devices.[2][3][1]"

and per: http://www.answers.com/topic/radionics . . . I had the following for the radionics page introducer(s):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jennylen

(cur | prev) 12:33, 19 January 2012? Blurbzone (talk | contribs)? (28,884 bytes) (undo)

I sincerely hope you'll change your shockingly incorrect opening text on the subject of Radionics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radionics for incorrect definition: Radionics is the use of blood, hair, a signature, or other substances unique to the person ...). For world members such as myself, who sat through both English and physics classes through high school and beyond, it is horrifying to find example of such a strong lack of dictionary use as a prominent feature of published media intended as [a] public (and international) encyclopaedia. The words radionic and radionics stem from the prefix radio- ... with the addition of the suffix -tronic, which usually implies electronic. A suggestion here is to start with the Collegiate version of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, or a similarly authoritative text. Please talkback if you have issues about this set of comments, but do correct the referenced contribution page first! Blurbzone (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

My sincere thanks for providing the article link. It confirms my basis of argument --- i.e., the topic contributor(s) confused a pre-defined / pre-definable word with medical processes(s) for which the word was applied. Saw talk messages which led me to conclude that other editors are just as reluctant as I to jump into it, but I'll go ahead and draft the correction into the page at some point this weekend or early next week. Blurbzone (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello there, mission is now partly accomplished....And again, thanks for the link that send me down the right track. As a joke, the word in question has been to more places than anyone's postal service!Blurbzone (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

2/2/2012: Am not at a convenient computer snd reference information is elsewhere. FYI: The Merriam-Webster reference online appears deleted, so I can't quote the edition number. You may have checked under English language category...but as I said, the word appears in more places than even I knew. Worldwide versions (e.g., science textbooks and conjecture, industry, product commercials, etc.) are as stated on the rewrite I did of the page. Blurbzone (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

2/3/2012: Don't worry about the dictionary reference as much as that there are more than four or five floating definitions out and about. One problem is that usage of the word is sometimes indiscriminately applied for applications (uses), devices, components --- as well as the physical definitions of the (per physics) forms of matter it pertains to, which is why the definition I stated in the re-write includes those derived using strict rules using the physics or nature of matter being discussed. Blurbzone (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

To me the point about no definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is important. If the term dates back to the early part of the 20th Century, it is odd that it does not appear in a late 20th Century dictionary.

The other issue to me is that (in what I found) radionics is only defined to mean an alt medicine scam using impressive looking but ineffectual electric devices. I get the impression that you consider the word radionics to have another meaning. (And I also have a vague sense that this is the case.) But in Wikipedia documentation is needed.

Maybe I'm missing something. I've been busy and have not looked into this in detail. Best wishes. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

2/6/2012: Have done more than 2 weeks research on the general topic and the add'l text and references have yet to be drafted in; so you'll have to let me handle how many definitions to include or exclude. As I said prev. there are at least 4 or 5. Since last week I've found at least 2 or 3 more, dating before or after the original coinage (can't tell yet, it would depend on whether wireless was the source of the more oblique versions). The Merriam-Webster source is the one with the original interpretation of the word as presented from the Alt Med field(s), and it still holds. A [relatively unattested] paper on Abrams has the same version as found here==> NB: Search works only with the singular 'radionic': http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radionic (someone at the dictionary company has included the word in with rhyming words---prob. on the same page as this). Blurbzone (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know...

Just to let you know that following our "conversation" about Cwm Rhondda, I have endeavoured to canvass the Welsh Wikipedians on this topic, so far with little success. Hope to give you some more insight before too long. Kindest regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

IP block exemption has been added to your user account

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Please check your email for more information.

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Computing Desk

Hi Wanderer57

Just so you know, I left a reply at the computer desk reference helpdesk for you to mull over, cheers Mrlittleirish 10:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply, I do prefer XP to Windows 7. Your best bet is probably to have a look about the internet, there will be plenty of walkthroughs and explanations on how Windows 7 works.

If you get stuck, let me know, I'll help where I can. Mrlittleirish 08:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks for your message and good wishes on my birthday. Of course, you are absolutely right... it is a clumsy and awkward section title which I will change immediately. Best wishes Jack1956 (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Climate of Australia

I'm delighted to hear that you're interested in visiting. My first tip would be to look at the Wikilink in my title.

Melbourne and Sydney are both in the blue bit in the bottom right hand corner of the map, but Sydney only just. I'm from Melbourne (nearby anyway) and I find Sydney can be unbearable in summer - far too humid for me.

Not sure where you're from. That makes a lot of difference to what you will like.

The articles on Melbourne and Sydney both have good climate sections. Do have a look.

I recommend autumn for visiting Melbourne, maybe mid-March to end of April. That's typically a time for mild, stable weather. But be aware that Melbourne has an old saying that seems to apply on some days at any time of the year - "If you don't like the climate, wait a minute." It can be very changeable.

I'd recommend Sydney a little later, maybe May, June. Being nearer the equator it's generally a bit warmer.

For both over a few days, try late April.

One weekend to avoid in Melbourne (unless you're a fan, of course) is that of the Formula 1 Grand Prix, usually in March. I'd check their website for the schedule.

To avoid school holidays, check the Victorian and New South Wales government websites for school term dates.

Good luck.

Hope you come, and enjoy. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even sure how I ended up finding this, but oh well. For visiting Sydney, I'd recommend mid-Spring, perhaps September. Sydney is popular in part due to its mild weather and low temperature variation, it doesn't have the broad swing of temperatures you might expect from some areas of the United States or Europe. Sydney's generally warmer than Melbourne, but I think May/June might be pushing it a little on the colder side. Autumn is also Sydney's wettest time of year so if you're looking to enjoy sunny weather and good beaches, Spring would be your best bet. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 04:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year, Wanderer 57

Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus, Yule,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 23:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edit on Rob Ford

Good catch Wanderer. I agree. There are many other similarly confusing and self contradictory items in the BLP, imo, so perhaps you could be giving the entire article a copy editing audit so that when the protection is removed you can contribute similar improvements. I think you could have an extremely positive effect on the Rob Ford BLP. May122013 (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Question re Categories

Help please.

The article Paeonia (plant) is included in a bunch of categories, including: "Start-Class United States articles Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance Low-importance United States articles Start-Class Indiana articles Low-importance Indiana articles WikiProject Indiana articles WikiProject United States articles"

Since peonies grow in many countries, what does it mean to say this article is a United States article or an Indiana article?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Not the article is included in those categories, the talk page is. Those categories are added by the WikiProject Indiana banner. The peony is the state flower of Indiana; thus that WikiProject considers the flower within its area of interest. Huon (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit to confirm my access

Ok. Wanderer57 (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Gib ral tar

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gibnews

Peter Caruana

[[10]]

[[11]]

Joe Bossano

Wanderer57 (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Rename

Hi Wanderer, target name ("Wanderer57") has been renamed in it.wikipedia so now it's free for you. Regards, --Gnumarcoo 23:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Based on your comments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Avoiding_harm, I am interested in having your feedback/criticism dialogue here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Guideline_for_crime_victims_of_world_wide_significanceMeropeRiddle (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

COnsideration

No problem, Thank you for the reply back.MeropeRiddle (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Flying Pig measure fixed

I think I solved your complaint with the Flying Pig Marathon distance. According to the official course certification by USATF the distance is 42.195 km. Friecode (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Wanderer57. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Wanderer57! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 20:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Wanderer57. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)