User talk:Eaqq

Email
Please activate your email and then email me. My email link is on my talk page. When you have activated yours, a link will appear in the same place on your talk page. Wikipedia does not reveal your email address. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited F. R. Carrick Institute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rehabilitation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

=Removing a reference=

Dear Sir, You removed in the article 'Coefficient of colligation' a reference. This is quite a pity for public health. You clearly did not saw the importance for the medical sciences. Read a few first pages of the article of Gigerenzer et al 'Helping doctors and patients to make sense of health statistic'. You will see that a good understanding of statistics is often a matter of life and death. And what I write and wrote contributes to a better understanding of association and its relation to post-test probability of disease. What do I wrote? I wrote that it is possible to express the degree of association in a very attractive and not that difficult to understand way. I have no doubt that, once this is better understood, it will make it much more easier for professionals and many others to understand results of statistical research and this will undoubtedly contribute to public health. Of course it is a general rule that in Wikipedia that the writer of an article does not references to an own written article but the matter is from such an importance that it justifies greatly an exception on this rule. My mother tongue is dutch and I wrote in dutch a few dozens of articles on similar subjects. Two of them are extremely often read ('Diagnostisch onderzoek (Diagnostic examination), Wikistatistiek, website of the Free University of Amsterdam en 'Associatiematen 2X2 tabel' (Measures of association, 2X2 table. Both articles, counted together, were until now more than 50,000 times consulted as you can see on that website.) I invite you to put the reference back where it stood in the interest of public health. Despite the oath of Hippocrates surgeons make incisions what is doing harm to a person but with the intention to heal him. You can do a similar moral choice: allowing such a reference for the interest of public health. (advisable lecture: Body and Foex 'Is doing more good than harm better than 'primum non nocere').

Sincerely yours,

Soete Michel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.143.121 (talk • contribs)

Re:Arrowsmith program revert
I will explain the reason for revert in the article talkpage if you wish. Also I aplogise for anything lost that you added. if you wish to re-add them please do so, but I'll defend my actions of reverting back to the old title.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Eeqq I have responded on the talk page. You can retrieve the edits you made by checking the articles history and copying there. Sorry again for the sudden revert while you were in progress.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Since you contributed to Arrowsmith school, you may also want to expand on the newly created Power Brain Education article. Thanks--Taeyebaar (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Let the editor who moved it last move the page the correct way and then we can continue the discussion on the talk page from there.--Taeyebaar (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Or, I could move it to "Arrowsmith Program" and you can comment on the talk page there. Why not? Eaqq (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Since most people knew it as Arrowsmith School and may search it as such and that google searches and their website refer to it as Arrowsmith School, let's stick to it for now, if we can build consensus we can move it to Arrowsmith program. The section of the program is still there and can meantime be expanded if you wish.--Taeyebaar (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking a wikibreak for a few hours. Hopefully this will get sorted when I get back and we can take it form there.--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears that some of the external links got lost during the back and forth moves of the article. But I'll hold off until we resolve where to place and title it.--Taeyebaar (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * They didn't get lost, I deleted them. Please read my edit summaries. Those two links I deleted do not mention the word "Arrowsmith" even once. Eaqq (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually they were still relevant. One of them was a paper that this article mentions and is a critical discussion to brain training programs. The other is a study report form the university of Oslo that discusses brain training programs, so they are still very much discussion of the topic.--Taeyebaar (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to put links that do not mention "Arrowsmith School" or "Arrowsmith Program" *at all* under the External links section. Eaqq (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Add the first one for now as it clearly is an alternative. Wheather it works or not is a different issues, but I don't know about the second one. Maybe you should hold off and build some consensus before adding it.--Taeyebaar (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest the University of Oslo report be placed as a reference in the paragraph discussing the University of Oslo's report. The report by the scientists can be placed in the external links as it was mentioned in the news article about Arrowsmith which is used as a reference about Arrowsmith. Readers wanting to know about it will be curious and it is to do with the Arrowsmith school as it was mentioned there--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've re-added the references to the university of oslo since the article cites the university of toronto so I'm balancing it out. Also the brain training article could use some notable examples such as the Dore program since it had many branches and was discussed heavily in the news in Europe and Australia.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sean Stephens (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2015 (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) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification
Long ago I was accused of "banning you" from Wikipedia, which is strange because I am not an administrator and some other editors pointed this out when they read the accusation. It seems you have just stopped editing. Because of that I put the retired template on your userpage to avoid any misconceptions. If you decide to come back and continue contributing then you can remove the template if you want, to show that you are active again. Thanks for reading.--Taeyebar 08:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)