User talk:Killdec

Welcome!

Hello,, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

(OK, that bit above is automated, but this bit is from a real human. Nice work on Bank of England. It was long-overdue for an overhaul).

Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 17:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Mujahadeen was created by Afghans
Again it's you that's wrong about U.S. Foreign Policy. The goal of the Mujahadeen was to expel the Soviets from their country. The US merely saw this as an opportunity "to create a "Vietnam" for the USSR." That doesn't mean we created the Mujahadeen. It also doesn't mean we created the Taliban and Al-Qaida simply because some people who joined the Mujahadeen later became part of the other organizations. That'd be like saying that if you support the Boy Scouts of America you also support the Hitler Youth, because a few dumb ones get suckered into neo-Nazi politics. And Ron Paul does NOT tell it like it is, He doesn't know his ass from a hole in the wall when it comes to foreign policy. DanTD (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't even need to respond to this, anybody who knows even a small bit of basic history knows that you're wrong on every point except your creative "title" ("The Mujahadeen was created by Afghans" that I never denied)- not to mention how you've totally twisted what I said out of any recognisable context (I know it and you know it)!
 * You're not touching my point about the CIA funding the Mujahideen in the 80's: so, as for your "Hitler Youth" analogy, that would indeed be the case if the Boy Scouts of America had paid the Hitler Youth hundreds of millions of dollars to grow (as I said- to create a "Vietnam" for the USSR), something that couldn't be managed and overseen by just "a few dumb ones". I never said anything like "we created the Mujahadeen" or "we created the Taliban and Al-Qaeda". I said that the CIA has "funded" them [a fact], and that the funding of the Mujahideen was used [by the likes of Bin Laden] to bring about The Taliban and Al Qaeda, who — though they are separate entities — hold the same stated goals derived from the Mujahideen, it's also a fact that their ideals, histories and leadership are mixed together like milk and sugar in coffee- and this is all thanks, in part, to the CIA.
 * Finally, saying that Ron Paul "doesn't know his ass from a hole in the wall when it comes to foreign policy" is the height of ignorance, he was economic advisor to Ronald Reagen, who brought in some vast, global economic policies and national economic reforms. It doesn't take an idiot to know that he is very clued up on the likes of CIA funding and the resulting effects. He schooled Rudy Giuliani in the Republican National Debates regarding CIA blow back being a primary factor of the motive of Al Qaeda committing 9/11, which is admitted (by the CIA themselves) to be the truth, polls showed that Paul won that debate by some margin.
 * It is you who does NOT tell it how it is- and clearly you don't know your ass from a hole-in-the-wall when it comes to CIA operations and their consequences. Killdec (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said the CIA didn't fund the Mujahadeen, but that doesn't change the fact that Osama Bin Laden created Al-Qaida, and that both they and the Taliban had separate goals from the Mujahadeen. The Mujahadeen simply wanted to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan, The Taliban wants to bring Islamic Sharia Law to Afghanistan, Pakistan and other parts of South Central Asia. Al-Qaida wants to bring it throughout the globe. In case you forgot, the Northern Alliance consisted of many former members of the Mujahadeen who were against the Taliban & Al-Qaida. As for Ron Paul, any man who sees conspiracies in everything and sides with America's enemies does not know their ass from a hole in the wall. Ron Paul is guilty of this. DanTD (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, their roles are to spread jihad globally, to expand- which was of course partly due to the immense amounts of overseas funding. I've never said they are the same entity, their members and missions differ. "As for Ron Paul, any man who sees conspiracies in everything and sides with America's enemies does not know their ass from a hole in the wall. Ron Paul is guilty of this."....Wow...such libelous nonsense! I've nothing more to say to you, except "grow up." Killdec (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Grow up" nothing. Here's a clue for you; Just because Osama Bin Laden was involved in all three organizations doesn't mean the CIA was. It is NOT a fact that we funded the Taliban or Al-Qaida. This is nothing more than standard 9/11 conspiracy freak propaganda. And if you think Ron Paul won the 2008 Republican debates, you obviously weren't paying attention to them. He was being booed when he tried to justify the actions of Al-Qaida. DanTD (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It took you almost a year to come up with that? Firstly, it sure is a fact that the CIA funded the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the Mujahideen - directly and indirectly, through the Pakistani ISI. Secondly, calling people "conspiracy freaks" isn't very helpful now, is it? It's rather uncivil and unproductive to label people with weasel-words and insults, perhaps you should reflect upon the talk page guidelines. Thirdly, Ron Paul destroyed Rudy Giuliani's narrow-sighted argument that terrorists attack us "because we're free": the fact is that war and foreign interventionalism are the top breeders of terrorism, they are what the terrorists want and they ultimately make the USA and other nations less safe. The 9/11 Commission Report supports exactly what Ron Paul said about Al Qaeda's motives on 9/11 being due to US foreign policy. Finally, Ron Paul won that debate by 32% of the vote and Giuliani lost it with 5%, Dr Paul clearly recieved more cheers than boos. Killdec (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

re: Thanks!
No worries, it's always a pleasure to copyedit well-sourced additions. Good work yourself!

If you're ever up for a challenge, Mutant needs a lot of work...

Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it, Mutant should probably be merged with Mutation. There probably needs to be some discussion about the scope of key genetics articles – what's best covered at Genetic code, what should be at Mutant/Mutation, how much should be repeated between articles, and so on.  Real life doesn't leave me with much time for anything complicated right now, but if there's discussion I'll try to chip in.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Sociology membership
You are listed in the Category:WikiProject Sociology members, probably due to the use of "This user is a member of WikiProject Sociology" userbox, but you have not added yourself to our official member list. This prevent you from, among other things, receiving our sociology newsletter, as it acts as our newsletter mailing list (you can find the latest issue of our sociology newsletter here). If you'd like to receive the newsletter and help us figure out how many members we really have, please consider adding yourself to the official member list. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
Your edits to aspartame controversy and related discussions crossed a line with assumptions of bad faith, accusations of others' violating Wikipedia policy without any substantial evidence to back up your claims, and so on. I have blocked you for 31 hours. If you wish, you ay contest your block by using the unblock template; please read the advice at WP:GAB before doing so. Please consider this a warning&mdash;next time you engage in such disruptive behavior, the block won't be nearly as short. NW ( Talk ) 01:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ahh, Yobol and Dbrodbeck are buddies of yours, "if Dbrodbeck isn't around, feel free to drop me a line" (dated yesterday), no wonder I'm blocked. You lot have really done a number on me. КĐ ♥ 01:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was letting people know that I had access to journal articles, as I work at a University with access to most every scholarly journal. It was an offer of help that I would give anyone. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You get a block for 31 hours and some good admonitions, and your first response is taunting? If I were an admin I'd up your block to two weeks immediately. Recalcitrant behavior is rewarded and encouraged when it's ignored, and we don't want to do that. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And I'm sure you're trying to encourage that now, you're such a nice guy. КĐ ♥ 03:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, we are all employees of Big Pharma and are seeking to control how the aspartame articles on Wikipedia look. NW ( Talk ) 03:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was my bad. Stricken. NW ( Talk ) 03:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If your belief is that anyone who opposes aspartame toxicity is part of a secret pro-aspartame conspiracy, you are in violation of several Wikipedia policies including assume good faith, edit in a civil and collegial manner, and neutrality in articles.
 * If you intend to use Wikipedia as a sandbox to try and convince people of an evil toxicity conspiracy - you are not welcome here.  See WP:NOT and particularly WP:SANDBOX.
 * As it is, you are welcome to resume editing in 31 hrs minus a bit. But you will need to edit in a positive and collaborative manner.  Accusing everyone around you of some evil conspiracy is completely antithetical to positive and collaborative editing.  Please find another topic, find a way to edit on that topic that doesn't involve assuming the worst about everyone else there, or move on from Wikipedia on your own before we are forced to ban you.  If you keep behaving in the manner you have been, you will end up blocked and not welcome anymore.
 * Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And, NW, please stop taunting the bears. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't really think you would investigate them or take my claims seriously, now I know for sure. PS You have both assumed bad faith about me from the outset. I'm a paranoid conspiracy theorist huh? КĐ ♥ 03:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is your job to present some evidence at the proper boards, as you have been instructed. Until then be quiet about it. I will also repeat my offer: If there are sock puppets active at Aspartame controversy, I'll help you crucify them, but you're going to have to prove it first, and I hope you can if it's true. If you need help, just contact me. I've exposed some large sock networks before. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * More deletions of evidence from this page. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am more concerned about meatpuppetry, for instance all of the pro-aspartame editors and their admin buddies blocking dissenters. КĐ ♥ 03:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * PS I deleted that because I'm sick of looking at your poison every time I visit my talk page, please leave me alone Brangifer.


 * Specifically towards the meatpuppetry allegation, are you asserting that I and the other editors at the article coordinate edits? As you can freely see our talkpages, the only way that's possible is if we're communicating off-wiki. I will personally attest that this isn't happening (no, you can't have a dump of my personal email, and you'd be unable to determine whether it was complete if I provided it), and as this isn't something you can investigate without breaking the law (of the United States, at least), I'd suggest you leave it alone. Just my two cents. -- King Öomie  07:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Same here. We all just happen to have some of the same articles and editors on our watchlists. That's the way things work here. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey
Hi Killdec,

Your talkpage was still on my watchlist following our conversation above, and seeing the flurry of 41 edits here in one day, I thought I'd see what was up. It's a bit sad to see you blocked, as you seemed like a sensible sort when when I first came across you at Genetic code. If you want to talk to someone uninvolved, well, I'm still watching this page.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

p.s. When Georgewilliamherbert pointed you to WP:SANDBOX, I presume he meant WP:SOAPBOX.
 * Hey Adrian, I really appreciate the thought. Thanks, it makes a nice change to have a bit of wikilove after what I've been through, don't get involved with these guys. КĐ ♥ 20:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. Have you thought of having a play with WikiChecker?  It has a tool that lets you examine others' editing histories.  If you want to know what the results look like for people who are only at Wikipedia for "special purposes", try running it on some of the IPs or usernames mentioned in the last question of the FAQ at the top of Talk:Tagged.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link and tips, I'll be sure to check it out when I get the chance. I owe you one! КĐ ♥ 20:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Americanization of INDIAN CHRISTIANITY
Hi. Once the author has removed the prod tag from this article you're not supposed to put it back. I've moved it to AfD and you're most welcome to !vote there andy (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry for the faux pas, I'm not too familiar with the AfD procedure, but it's clear that article is no good. I'll go and vote for it. КĐ ♥ 23:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jmpunit (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Improving Immunology Articles
Hi Killdec, I am simply an editor who thinks some of the immunology articles on Wikipedia are far from complete and the quality can be easily improved. I'd love to do it all by myself, but it'd be even better to do it in a team, to be more efficient as well as to get a wider viewpoints (from the medical, molecular and cellular viewpoints for example). If you are interested, please go to here and just start editing. The purpose of the page (it's a new page) is simply to get everyone together and collaborate, as to ensure there's editors for different topics. I look forward to working with you soon, any help would be greatly appreciated.  Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 01:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014
The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the User WPMed template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors
Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter
 Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter

Issue 1, June/July 2014 by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery



This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice. note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:
 * WHO's list of Essential Medicines
 * Neglected tropical diseases
 * Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

I've () taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.
 * IEG grant

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.
 * Wikimania 2014

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish. What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.
 * Integration progress


 * Swedish Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that. Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
 * Dutch Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
 * Polish Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article. (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
 * Arabic The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.
 * Integration guides

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here

News in short


 * To come
 * Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
 * Proofreading drives


 * Further reading
 * Translators Without Borders
 * Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!