Welcome to roadip.com on July 5 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

User talk:WhatamIdoing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Please add notes to the end of this page. I'll probably reply here unless you suggest another page for a reply. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk)

I have recently removed several hundred pages from my watchlist, including more than 100 user talk pages. If I haven't responded to a discussion or a question you left for me on another page, please leave me a note.

Archives
/Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3


Contents

[edit] Question about sourcing

Hello again. I have another question for you. You have helped me in the past. All through the current month (May 2009) I been engaged in a major overhaul of the school violence entry. A few days ago, Alarics joined in the effort. He wrote the following: "As regards external links to academic journals, etc., I thought the policy was not to include them if they weren't accessible to everybody, i.e. don't put it in if you can only access it with a library card, but I've just looked at WP:ECITE and apparently that doesn't apply to links in references. I don't like it but I bow before the supremacy of the WP rules!"

I thought it was important to cite the appropriate sources regardless of where they are. For example, if a relevant article is found in the Journal Personality and Social Psychology, I should cite it. A reader who isn't a college student or an academic can access it from a public library. Can you enlighten me on this matter? Everything I write includes citations from the appropriate literature. Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The question was just resolved. Alarics wrote me back to say he/she meant that we should not use web sites where readers have to pay to obtain articles. But thanks anyway. If I have another question, I will get in touch with you. You have been helpful in the past.Iss246 (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding much sooner: Any editor that refuses to allow citations to scientific and professional journals because they aren't free is entirely wrong. Reliable sources do not have to be freely available to be useful and appropriate. This line of reasoning would result in banning nearly all recent books and magazines from Wikipedia, which everyone can agree would be nonsensical. Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Links_and_ID_numbers seems to be the relevant standard; furthermore, WP:CONV encourages linking to non-free sources (because adding a pay-per-view URL to a proper full citation (author, title, date, publication, etc.) does not make the citation any less useful than listing all that information without the URL).
If this becomes an issue in the future, you can always get help at WP:SCG or WP:MEDRS; all the editors there will be very familiar with this problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help me with the links and works

If I made an error about the wrong person which had the similar name or any other mistake, then that should be removed, not the other relevant links that were right, I can see how I made a few mistakes since I am new and wasnt paying attention, but most of my edits was right, so must I now comment on every site about her, which is quite a large work in order to make the work I did be replaced? Should I contact you on your page or can you see this mess! Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] St. Brigid

Thanks for your very patient help - I was not at liberty to have an extended discussion concerning linking policy at that time, and the Meta spam filter link is quite impressive - I had no idea there was so much spam on a single saint. I also have no idea why s/he contacted me in particular, but the timing was a bit unfortunate - your explanation seems to have made some progress. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm happy to help, and glad that you'll be able to respond as well. I hope that she(?) gets some responses at the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article Assessment

Hi What, I see you've been tagging large amounts of articles in WP:ANATOMY with WP:MED to them. Please remember that WP:MED's scope only covers disorders, conditions, ect. Not actual anatomy. Just want to give you a fair warning, as I'll be scowering through most of the articles to make sure they are correctly assessed and tagged. Thank you very much! Renaissancee (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at the dates on those WPMED tags. Generally, I haven't been the person placing the tags -- just assessing the articles that someone else tagged -- and these articles were very much supported as being part of WPMED 'way back when (when the scope included "anything taught in medical school"). The change has been very recent (guidelines amended three months ago), and we've made no effort to retroactively remove the tags. When I run across them now, I usually replace them with WikiProject Anatomy tags unless there's a non-trivial amount of clinical information in the article.
You might want to be a bit more familiar with the ongoing discussions on this subject. The "consensus" to exclude anatomy articles is both recent and not very strong, although I believe that we are inexorably moving in that direction. I suggest that you read this, this and this for a sample of conversations at the doctors' mess; consider also this (and most of what follows it) at the assessment/tagging page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
One more thing to consider: Anatomy will once again become part of WP:MED if this proposal to merge WPAN into WPMED as a task force succeeds. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for your opinions. Just out of curiosity...how long have you been with WPMED? You seem to be quite active and hopping around making sure things work well. Renaissancee (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, because I started reading the doctor's mess before posting to it. I think I started doing assessment work in October 2007, and I've done (vastly) more of it than any other editor in the project. I have probably assessed about two-thirds of the articles in the project (some of them repeatedly). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CITE

I saw your comment, Bzuk and TedPavlic have a discussion going and I think they're starting to get into a WP:LAYOUT issue. Perhaps we need there needs to be a centralized discussion to accommodate the two where they begin to overlap. I'm not sure what to say. For example, Bibliography has two definitions: (1) reference, (2) works; and of the first it can be used for both: (1) inline, and (2) general. Although I've seen the it used for general citations more often. What is your take on it? ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have two immediate thoughts: The first is that there is no possible solution that will satisfy everyone, and the second is that I took WT:CITE off my watchlist because dealing with this unresolvable and perennial problem is not fun (especially since it usually comes up in the context of an editor that wants the guideline to support him/her in an incipient edit war). Here are some possibly more constructive thoughts, any of which you should feel free to share with anyone you choose:
  • The articles that I like best don't have this problem, as there are no general refs in these articles. IMO, once an article gets beyond start-class, it shouldn't be using general refs any longer. If it's been a long time since the general refs were added, and especially if the article has been expanded and rewritten to the point that no current editor is capable of identifying what sentences might be supported by them, then I would consider demoting them to ==Further reading==.
  • Articles that split their inline refs into short and full citations seem to use ==Footnotes== and ==References== successfully. It's possible that this system could be used successfully for "inline" (=>Footnotes) and "general" (=>References) citations (especially if there are no short cites being used).
  • I think that an article that has one section of mixed short cites and full cites looks fine. I think that an article that has one section of mixed short cites and full cites, plus another section that is only full cites (either general refs or the full cites for the short cites) looks strange. It's not exactly uncommon (considering only that minority of articles that use inline/non-parenthetical short cites at all), but I don't like it.
  • It's okay to mix general refs in with alphabetized lists of full citations (=the ones associated with inline short cites), at least in some cases (but see above demotion to "Further reading").
  • Parenthetical refs should not be combined with inline <ref> citations in the same article. (Inline refs used solely for explanatory notes in an article that uses parenthetical refs for citations is just fine, of course.)
  • I have, on occasion, used {{refbegin}} (etc) to combine sections of inline and general refs, particularly in articles that seem to suffer from appendix bloat. I generally list the general refs at the end in this approach.
  • Nested appendices are undesirable and may violate WP:ACCESS.
I didn't read that very long WT:CITE discussion; I just checked to see whether one existed (because if it didn't, I was going to recommend that it be started). If you think that there is a serious risk of the discussion creating new problems, then please let me know. We could perhaps attempt to interest people at WP:MOSCO if experienced editors are wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Caregiving and dementia

Hello the allmighty whatamidoing, thanks for all your hard work! :) I was looking at expanding Caregiving and dementia into something like caregiving and degenerative conditions in order to link from the huntigton's disease article and use it as more detailed coverage of that aspect of the disease. I noticed you suggested merging the article into caregiving on it's talkpage - but can't see if you opinion was addressed. Before I get to work does your suggestion still hold true ? L∴V 11:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been a long time since anyone called me omnipotent.
Yes, my concern still stands: Either caring for a person with dementia (or anything else) is significantly different from caring for people with conditions outside the scope of the article, or it isn't. If it's different, the article needs to say how it's different. If it's not materially different, then the article should be merged back to Caregiving.
As for your plan to expand it, I doubt that you will get any significant resistance. The article is essentially unchanged compared to a year ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
...the pixel is mightier than the pen...
On looking at caregiving, I agree I think it would benefit from the incorporation as c&d is better referenced and has a more general tone than a breakdown by region, I'll post a merge proposal L∴V 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your Reply Re. My Comment in "Intellectual Giftedness"

About your recent comments at Talk:Intellectual giftedness, such as this one:

It's not fair to blame me for the unverified but trivially verifiable accurate information that was added by someone else more than five years ago, nor is it appropriate to call people names. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC) (who, by the way, isn't a "Mr" anything)

I "blame" you solely for making a sarcastic and snotty remark to me in reply to my perfectly valid challenge to the information provided in the article.
As I indicate in my reply, by the way, the information is not "trivially verifiable". The person who added the information implies that it reflects some sort of widely held consensus among psychometricians about extremely differing levels of giftedness. My search revealed one psychologist who refers in any detail to the "levels of giftedness" table referenced in the article.
As for "name-calling", if you want to avoid future unpleasantness, then, to start, try not to make sarcastic, throwaway responses to serious comments. I am sure that I can find a Wikipedia policy that disallows such comments as yours, as well, but I really cannot be bothered, right now.
P.S. My "Mr." reference was solely in response to your remark about "Mr. Google". You could be a hermaphrodite, for all I care.Pernoctus (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that my response would be construed as either sarcastic or snotty by any reasonable person. Your response, however, was an inappropriate personal attack that unfairly blamed me for not having magically added a source to Wikipedia to support information that (1) I didn't add to the article and (2) was placed in the article several years before my first edit on Wikipedia.
You will be unable to find a policy that prohibits editors from suggesting that you do at least a little research before declaring information to be unverifiable and worthy of deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "Before you can really recruit editors, you need editors to know that these outlines exist"

A few others whose brains I borrowed suggested that WPOOK have an animated advert banner. So Penubag got working on it right away. Here's what he's come up with so far:

File:OOK-Ad-beta.gif

Penubag needs feedback.

I've posted a few changes for him to make to it.

If you have any comments and suggestions for him, please let him know at User talk:Penubag#Chocolate banner.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left a brief note on the page you indicated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Pejorative 'Rating'

You left some sort of rating on an article (positional asphyxia) which I substantially edited, supported with references and have been taking the trouble to keep updated. According to you it is 'start' quality and 'low importance'

When I contributed, there was no mention of 'experts' coming along and doing ratings. If that had been stated, then I would not have bothered contributing. If I want my work critically reviewing then I spend time and effort writing a journal article, submit it to a journal and get it peer reviewed by someone who REALLY is an expert on that subject. My employers pay me for doing that, I don't recall you guys stating a pay rate for contributing here.

I've tried twice to remove the article but someone keeps putting it back. If you are not happy with it then why don't YOU have a go a rewriting it - that should be a small matter for you if you genuinely are an expert on the subject. If it is 'low importance' then just leave it deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.80.244 (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have responded at User talk:81.155.80.244#Comments. I admit that I'm at a loss for how an accurate rating could be construed as "pejorative". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


Pejorative –adjective 1.having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.121.22 (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Response left at - User talk:81.155.80.244#Comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 06:56, 10 June 2009 (talk • contribs) 81.153.121.22

I have responded at User talk:81.155.80.244#Response. Your talk page is on my watchlist; we don't need to spread the conversation across several pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unsolicited Evaluation of Contributions

Value of contributions: Low (Makes pejorative comments on the work of others without contributing constructively)

Responsiveness to equivalent criticism: Poor (Defensive and unresponsive to core objections)


81.153.121.22 (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are unhappy that the article you wrote, but do not own, happened to fall within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Your demand that WPMED not tag or assess the article amounts to a demand that you be able to tell other editors which subjects they are permitted to be interested in and how they are allowed to express their interest. Wikipedia does not grant this right to any editors, including yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Further Unsolicited Assessment of Contributions

Arrogance level of contributions: Very High (Contributions assume a right to evaluate others)

Simplifying the argument for you: it's not a medical article.

Is that simple enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.121.22 (talk)

I'm going to suggest that you might be overreacting. The {{WPMED}} tag simply indicates that the article might be of interest to people involved in the Medicine WikiProject - it doesn't mean that they "own" the article. It's actually a good thing, because it may spur some additional editors to come along and help you improve the article, as you've indicated you'd like. The tags are just a way of helping match articles to people who might be interested in working on them, and the ratings are useful because some people like to expand short articles ("stubs") while others prefer to copyedit highly polished articles. Nothing in the process is intended to disparage you or your contributions. We're all on the same side here. MastCell Talk 20:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Positional asphyxia (1) kills people with medical problems like Florence Griffith-Joyner, (2) gets written about in journals like Am J Emerg Medicine and Ann Emerg Medicine, (3) turns up in 46 articles at PubMed, (4) is a medical emergency, and (5) gets listed by physicians on death certificates as the formal medical cause of death, but it's somehow not a medical issue?
That sounds pretty strange to me, but even if it were true, it's utterly unimportant: WikiProjects have sole and absolute authority to decide what is, or isn't, within their scope. "Scope" means "articles our members choose to support", not "stuff that a reasonable person would categorize as being related to our name". If they wanted to, the members of WPMED are free to decide that a kind of sportscar is within their scope, or that myocardial infarction and diabetes mellitus isn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Further Unsolicited Evaluation

Ability of contributions to irritate others: High (Contributions maintain a critical and superior character)

Getting the idea of 'pejorative' yet? (It doesn't mean factually inaccurate)

Pleased to see that you have finally got around to doing the most basic - and I mean basic - level of research on the subject. Shame you could not have done that first, before you appointed yourself as an expert evaluator. Some of your arguments are weak, they wouldn't be supported if you actually read the articles, but this isn't the place for that debate.

Just repeating for you - the objection here is to your 'evaluation' of material without making CONSTRUCTIVE contributions. If I had wanted to produce a medical article I would have done so, but I am sure you are more than capable of dominating that arena for yourselves. Evaluating it as a medical article is inappropriate - and the result is pejorative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.121.22 (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The objection in the previous subsection was that the subject is not related to medicine. Do you concede that demonstrably false claim? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


Quoting from above..

"Simplifying the argument for you: it's not a medical article."

Note 'medical article' not 'related to medicine' - it is you who have stated it is of 'low importance' to medicine.

To help you understand the point...

There are articles on PA in law enforcement journals, written by law or corrections officers. These are not medical articles. It would be inappropriate for me to write a letter of reply in the next edition criticising one of these on the grounds it was not meeting the criteria I would expect of a medical journal. It would be an inappropriate contribution and the outcome would be pejorative. The original author would have good cause for dissatisfaction.

In the hope that repetition will get through: it's not a medical article. If I had wanted to write a medical article I would have done so. I am objecting to your 'evaluation' - without constructive contribution - which is pejorative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.121.22 (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WPMED rates importance (to the project) based on the subject, not the current contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
That's the thing - if 81.153.121.22 would stop shouting for a moment, it would become apparent that you guys agree. 81.153.121.22 states that PA is not primarily a medical topic. WhatamIdoing's "low importance" rating underscores that this particular topic is of low importance from a medically centered perspective (it may be of high importance from a legal or forensic perspective, I wouldn't know). In other words, you agree. MastCell Talk 21:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I assure you

I am not trying to be a drama queen. I have no intention at all of messing with those articles for at least a year. Some people have enough time to write voluminous blogs etc ranting about how I have made those articles so bad. Let them come here and without me around fix them. If in one year they haven't changed much they won't be able to blame me. They won't be able to blame me anymore.--Hfarmer (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arb comments

Wondering if you have any further comments? A response to your previous remarks has been put forth by Scuro. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Somehow, the page wasn't on my watchlist, and I'd forgotten about it. Today's not actually the ideal day for me to focus on this, but I'll see if I can find enough time to read and react to the comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] random question

I've been trying to update an article that has seen a single editor and (probably) his sock repeatedly revert and claim ownership over w/o discussion. Is that considered vandalism? Is there a way to deal with it so I don't keep getting my work deleted? Thanks for the advice. Fuzbaby (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nurse anesthetist? I'd start with a note over at WT:NURSE to get an extra pair of eyes. Sometimes, having an additional person is valuable. (WT:MED is your second choice, if you don't get a response at the nursing wikiproject).
Right now, you have an WP:Edit war, which means that you need to stop editing the article. Remember: WP:There is no deadline, so whether your changes get included this month, or next month, or next year, is unimportant. Right now, you need to be chatting on the talk page about the smallest possible changes that you could agree to make in the article. Pick one little thing that you think everyone can agree on, rather than a dozen big changes. Explain why you think it improves the article -- does it correct an error? does it clarify something confusing? does it help the reader place the information in context? -- and what reliable sources you have that support it. After that change is fully discussed and either agreed upon (and in the article) or rejected and you're completely done with it, then proceed to the next-smallest change, and work your way through them that way, one little change at a time. It will take a couple of weeks, but the process is easy enough when you set your mind to it, and incrementalism works. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] TFD

I just wanted to say "thanks!" for doing that TFD ... I've been swamped, and I really appreciate that you took the time! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalizing TMWWBQ

This is a first warning to stop vandalizing the article and to stop making personal references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarlieB (talk • contribs) 19:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverting unsourced claims about controversies, POV-pushing, and outright errors is not generally considered "vandalism" by Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


[edit] dyslexia and writing systems

Hi WhatamIdoing

the problem with all of the issues that have arisen recently have been cuaed by a great deal of miss understasnding, and a lack of willingness to discuss the issues and to learn from documented research. There is a great deal of resarch which I have been discovering as I have been editing the dyslexia article, I have been reading research paers now for over a month now, just to clarify the existing content of the dyslexia article. There is documented evidence that for some dyalexics writng systems can be a crucial factor, due to the varying orthographic structures, most common of the research in this respect has been to compare orthographies from the same Writing system usually the Latin Alphabet system, which we are now using as English is in that system. However not much research has been done until recently to compare dyslexic issues between the different writng systems, and the research that has been done has not been well publicised as it does not support the needs of the dyslexia industry. So the problem with the RFC was that the research was being ignored by all, but their ill infomed opinions counted for a great deal more.

In the UK dyslexia is mention by the governemnt in its legislation, and the governement are actually comittee investigating dyslexia and the the learning support needs, as part of a wider review of Speach and langauge and communication provision within the UK education system, which in turn is part of the even wide Special Educational Needs provision review, which started 18 months ago. The Bercow the review/report is the rewsult of the first stage of this long term Review. (Bercow can be googled and you need to download the longer report)

because of my communication disability I prefer not to have to type and write too much I much prefer to do the support resaerch, but the editors on the Dyslexia project who did the writing have all jumped ship, and in desperation I have had to do the required editing on my own, which was not my intention, WIKI poses many problems for me for using its own langauge or code, I have problems enough with ordinary text lol. So this means to get the job done I have had to jump into the deep end and I can only hope for the support of others when i make mistakes or things go wrong.

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand a fair bit about how dyslexia interacts with writing systems, but that doesn't mean that your plan fits with how Wikipedia uses categories.
Note that the question that needs answering is this: "Is the general reader looking for articles about writing systems going to be looking for information about dyslexia?" The answer appears to be "NO."
You, on the other hand, are trying to address the importance of understanding writing systems for the purpose of correctly understanding dyslexia -- a very different question.
I also object on the slippery slope grounds: if we added a category for every single subject that had a verifiable connection to the general subject of Writing systems, the list would be very, very long indeed. Category:Blindness and Category:Autism have every bit as much claim as Category:Dyslexia does: people with these conditions often have just as much, if not more, problems with common writing systems. Category:Vision, Category:Disability, Category:Congenital disorders, Category:Cryptography, Category:Learning disabilities, Category:Neurological disorders, Category:Education issues, Category:Developmental disabilities, and Category:Corrective lenses could make plausible claims -- and that's without even getting into linguistics, arts, culture, or computers.
It does not serve Wikipedia to have dozens of categories on these pages. Adding too many categories is worse than adding too few.
Yes: members of WikiProject Dyslexia are free to work on whatever articles interest them.
No: members of WikiProject Dyslexia are not allowed to declare dyslexia to be one of the single most important subjects to writing systems over the reasonable objections of other editors.
My advice to you is to give up this particular quest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comment of WPMED GA Articles

Yes, Although I've only reassessed a few articles a lot of them have been way of and neglected for some up to a year, so it'll be interesting to what I find. A lot of the articles are small genetic chromosone or horomone disorders so it gets pretty tedious actually. Nevertheless, I'll be on the lookout for possible C, B, GA, A or maybe even FA articles. :) Renaissancee (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you're running your search pattern, but C-class is relatively new, so everything in there is more recently assessed (on average). Older assessments in Start and B need to be reassessed to move many of those articles to C class. You might consider looking through either Start or B class articles specifically. (B class, if you want the best odds of finding a GA.)
Also, do you have a script to make the actual assessment step less carpal-tunnel inducing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Possibly unrelated questions: do you have any idea as to how the GA Sweeps process is coming along? Two or three of "my" GAs will eventually be up for reassessment, and I'd like to be around to ensure a quick response. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been following the GA sweeps, and a quick search on relevant links showed no particularly useful page that might answer your question. I suspect that the real answer is "whenever someone gets around to it" -- which could be a long time, unless you're volunteering to be that someone.  ;-)
There aren't that many medicine-related articles left in the review list, if you wanted to look them over. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The dyslexia project: A new beginning

Hi All

I have added some new sections below which have come from various talk pages in recent days but all realted in some way to the dyslexia project. So I have added them all below, in the hope that we can all begin to add our own input as one person working alone can cause also sorts of problems as can be seen above. I will post a copy of this to all who I think may wish to the new begining of the Dyslexia project and a copy will appear on your individual discussion pages ( I hope you do not mind). The oringinal copy of this can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia the talk page of the main project article you will see revise project template, the changes on the tamplate is the addition of a Project pages section, which includes the orinal project pages and the new STAGE TWO page which is hopefuly the new starting point. the STAGE TWO page has the dyslexia article as it is now. And we can tinker with it without changing the actual article itself and discuss and issue we may have before making further changes to the article itself.

dolfrog (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RE Wikipedia:Layout: Other Wikipedia articles that discuss the "header"

Hi,
RE your question whether other articles discuss the section header -- they are as follows:

I'm not going to contribute anymore to Wikipedia:Layout -- C&C clearly has good intentions but he's very difficult to work with. Before I go, I just want to voice my concern that he is driving dissenting voices away from the page -- again, not because he's got bad intentions, but because his contributions are just so difficult to read and respond to. I don't know how Wikipedia handles situations like this. Good luck. Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 06:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I'm sorry that you invested so much time in developing alternatives before seeking input from editors more familiar with the page (and, perhaps importantly, common questions about the page).
You're clearly an excellent copyeditor, and I hope you will direct your considerable skills to more important work (i.e., anything in the main namespace). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Just FYI

I replied at WT:DERM#Roseola. ---kilbad (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How about working on content?

As you can see from the discussion, I have done what I could and I encouraged people to write for a contrarian point of view. How about being fair and asking LG to "stop stalling"? Alternatively, you could work on content a bit and write a compromise version. Sincerely The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And LG wants me to be "fair" and criticize your tendency to complain about him (or her). I'm not interested in a childish "even-Steven" definition of fair: I'm interested in resolving this dispute. If I can appear "fair" while resolving the dispute, then that's fine, but I'll settle for simply resolving the current dispute. It would be easier to resolve if either of you would stick rigidly to commenting on the content. Frankly, neither of you are doing a stellar job of working on content, and it only gets worse when you don't feel like a "parent" or "teacher" is looking over your shoulders to make sure that you're doing your work instead of sniping at the other editor. (Thus the apparent need for a daily reminder from other editors to quit posting insults.)
The dispute already covers such a large territory that resolving it will be complicated. I haven't attempted to engage in any significant content work myself because I'm concerned that it will derail the consensus-building. This is a deliberate choice, made to support dispute resolution, and one that I have no plans to change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It does not look to me like you are interested in resolving this dispute, you just like bossing people around and cannot write good content. It would be much easier for LG to accept a balanced view if it is given by an impartial person. That would be the fastest way to end this controversy. I do not need a mother figure looking over my shoulder. Please return to RL to your NIH or wherever you work and boss people around over there. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Please read what WP:Etiquette says about being welcoming instead of telling editors to go away, and then see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#The_Sceptical_Chymist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This comment from you -- "neither of you are doing a stellar job of working on content" and "it only gets worse when you don't feel like a "parent" or "teacher" is looking over your shoulders" -- is not very welcoming, is it? I mean -- bossing people around, telling them that they are doing poor job without your "parent figure" and at the same time refusing to help with content and filing baseless reports -- is that welcoming? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] just to break the monotony

Hi WhatamIdoing I just thought you might find this may be interesting reading, which we have both been doing a lot of just recently dolfrog (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I replied there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for a bit of fun you could have a look at one of my old web pages, one day when i have time i will bring all my web sites together lol dolfrog (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If that did not break the monotony, this lot will send you to sleep. You could have a look at some PMIDs and DOIs I have just added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia sub-articles just to get the sub articles the kick start they need. In time I will ad some that i have regarding reading, but i have to classify them yet on my computer, just a list of numbers that moment. dolfrog (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force

I have set up a Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force, and begun a discussion on the talk page for potential benefits. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help me with the links and works

Are my ip somehow blocked or banned or classified as spammer for this mistake that I did so that I cannot make any contribution at all in the future? Saintbridget (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs