User talk:MrBill3/Archive 4

Logos
I warned him/her about edit warring as well, he/she deleted the warning with the pithy comment 'go read some policy'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I just put the 3rr warning on their talk page as they are at 3R and a noticeboard filing may be needed. The editor seems to feel they have an understanding of a variety of topics that is beyond the justification provided by their arguments. You may notice the ongoing discussion of copyright. Unfortunately it doesn't seem this editor is willing to participate collaboratively, instead simply insisting, "I said so, therefore, it is thus" not to mention pretty poor civility. Such is the case all to often in the sea of fringe. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I too put the notice there in case a trip to the 3RR noticeboard was called for.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Improper use of warning or blocking template
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User_talk:Logos has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Thank you. Logos (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

re: Seth Material page; editing of, updating of
Hi there.

For the purposes of concision, only the date of 1972 is important re: copycat channellers. There have been many and still are new 'Seths' generating material. The ones mentioned in the article are bit players and in my opinion, I see no need to dilute the article with unnecessary information--hence the nature of my edit regarding such--especially considering that, if you Google "Seth-Hermes Foundation", you see nothing comes up. Thusly, I see no reason why superfluous, unimportant facts are included especially when the references are of little or no utility to the current reader. This just seems like bad writing to me.

Those are my justifications for the the re-inclusion of this particular edit.

I would in future be happy to include full explanations but I didn't think one could in the small text window one has to type in the nature of a minor edit... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontosethian (talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Beneful
I have a COI and have offered a draft on the Talk page. The main reason I thought you might have an interest in this one is because the primary area where my COI is most relevant is regarding a medical issue (well a veterinarian one) that I believe falls under a similar pretense of a theory not supported by the medical field, except now the shoe is on the other foot. There seems to be a swell of consumers on social media and consumer complaint sites that feel Beneful has caused illness or death in pets, whereas FDA tests have not found any contaminants in the food and vets say grieving pet owners often falsely attribute ambiguous symptoms to their food.

I thought since you are active in medical theories not supported by professionals in the field and also have a critical view on paid editing, you would be the ideal person to verify whether my depiction is fair or if I have a skewed point of view.

The draft is located at user:CorporateM/Beneful CorporateM (Talk) 15:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The content I'm referring to is the second half of the second paragraph of the History section in the draft. In the live article it's under an "Accusations" header. CorporateM (Talk) 15:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Remember [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rima Laibow]]?
You might want to take a look at it with the socks struck, and Sockpuppet investigations/Electromechanic. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Flim-Flam!
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Alton Lemon
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sam Parnia
The same IP is removing that source again and inserting original research. He should be blocked considering all the times he has done this. What do you think? Goblin Face (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ANI filing here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The page has been semi protected for a year. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter Aug./Sept. 2014
Medical Translation Newsletter

Issue 2, Aug./Sept. 2014 by CFCF sign up for monthly delivery 

Feature – Ebola articles
During August we have translated Disease and it is now live in more than 60 different languages! To help us focus on African languages Rubric has donated a large number of articles in languages we haven't previously reached–so a shout out them, and Ian Henderson from Rubric who's joined us here at Wikipedia. We're very happy for our continued collaboration with both Rubric and Translators without Borders!
 * Just some of our over 60 translations:


 * Xhosa
 * Northern Sotho
 * Zulu
 * Tsonga
 * Venda
 * Hausa
 * Igbo
 * Yoruba
 * Kinyarwanda
 * Swahili
 * Tigrinya

At Wikimania there were so many enthusiastic people jumping at the chance to help out the Medical Translation Project, but unfortunately not all of them knew how to get started. That is why we've been spending considerable time writing and improving guides! They are finally live, and you can find them at our home-page! We're proud to announce a new sign up page at WP:MTSIGNUP! The old page was getting cluttered and didn't allow you to speficy a role. The new page should be easier to sign up to, and easier to navigate so that we can reach you when you're needed! Translations are of both full articles and shorter articles continues. The process where short articles are chosen for translation hasn't been fully transparent. In the coming months we hope to have a first guide, so that anyone who writes medical or health articles knows how to get their articles to a standard where they can be translated! That's why we're currently working on medical good lede criteria! The idea is to have a similar peer review process to good article nominations, but only for ledes. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * New roles and guides!
 * New sign up page!
 * Style guides for translations
 * Some more stats
 * In July, 18 full article translations went live ( WP:RTT ), and an additional 6 simplified versions went live ( WP:RTTS )!
 * We have a number of new lead integrators into Dutch, Polish, Arabic and Bulgarian, with more to come in smaller languages! ( Find them here old sign up page )
 * We were mentioned in a Global Voices Online report by Subhashish Panigrahi at Doctors and translators are working together to bridge Wikipedia's medical language gap
 * New medical professionals have started, dedicated to working in Odiya and Kinyarwanda!
 * Further reading
 * Translators Without Borders
 * Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

Help
I have done some things against Wiki policy and would like to set things right.

Please email me at.

You were using my older email address that I hardly ever check, so I hadn't known that I was going against policy and would like to rectify.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spidermedicine (talk • contribs) 06:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Apparently you are mistaken. I have not corresponded with you via email. If you wish to clear up anything to do with activities on WP you may certainly do so here, although it is probably not necessary. Please sign your posts with four tildes ~ . Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

OTRS editing
Hi MrBill3 -

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I actually do believe the OTRS admins are doing a pretty effective job in reminding folks of the status of OTRS editing (must comply with all policies, etc) and the rules around that, and the recent reminder of that is a good thing. Thank you for your role in that. I think the message is received.

On another note, I'm gratified that you've gotten access to the journals. Reference materials are critical to writing an encyclopedia, of course, and the role that the WMF was able to play in making that happen (while limited - it's largely due to volunteers like User:Ocaasi) is one that seems to me to be a natural fit. I hope that we're able to continue to expand that worthwhile program (The Wikipedia Library). I know that we've recently shifted more resources toward it, which is a very good thing. I'll pass your comments on to Lila and to Siko, who I know will appreciate them. Thanks for everything you do. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Done with discussion at ANI.
 * I too am pleased with the amount of access to journals and resources (several are other than journals) I have been granted through the WP Library. I have been very busy IRL and hope to free up some time for content development and to assist others in research. As I also have several library cards the amount of material I have access to is pretty vast. It provides an interesting comparison to WP which is far more user friendly in terms of finding info and references on a topic or specific subject. As an RN I have many occasions to look into specific medical subjects and find WP gives a good background and often a great set of references to start from. Thanks for your time and attention and for your contributions. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Refs etc.

 * I have found that the best sources are often those that are most difficult to obtain. There's something exciting about finding four pages of precious Wikipedia gold buried in the library, on the fourth floor of their archival materials, where nobody else would have ever found it. Or getting a really old, out-of-print trade publication through an inter-library loan from the only library in the country that still has it. One time I even posted a Craigslist ad offering $20 to anyone who could get a scanned copy of source from a library on the other side of the country that would not loan out the material on an interlibrary loan (no bites though). CorporateM (Talk) 05:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * At my university (WVU) the inter-library loan program would scan a limited number of pages even of books. On one occasion I got an entire chapter xeroxed and mailed to the university library. Should you be looking for a specific reference in the future, let me know and I will do my best. Besides WP one of my hobbies is genealogy, I was able to get a rare book sent to the library and read and research the contents only in the library, fortunately the library had a scanner. The book is now available on Google Books, how things change... Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because I am not a student or faculty, the local university will not let me do inter-library loans through them, so I am stuck using the local public library, which does not have the clout to get a lot of materials. user:DGG actually suggested I take a class, just so I can get full access, but Resource requests has worked well for me.


 * I'm curious if you are familiar with this controversy as a WVU student. It seems to have caused quite a ruckus on-campus from what I can tell. I may be working on that page in a few months as a COI, not so much in regards to the controversy, but in expanding the rest of the page to create better balance.


 * Regarding Coolsculpting, I am still early in the research/drafting process, but I've done enough research to realize editors will be skeptical about whether my contributions are actually representative. I am sort of wrestling with this WSJ source, which has a lot of information not repeated by the medical journals and I am not sure whether to believe it. CorporateM (Talk) 08:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I will check them out when I get a chance. I am aware of the Bresch scandal, as I was a student during that time period. It was pretty apalling, but I guessing that her page is a little out of balance, particularly since there is a stand alone on the controversy and she continues to hold a significant position at Mylan meaning she has probably gotten additional ink. On the Cryolipolysis article I pulled two refs to talk, not RS/promotional. It will be interesting to see how MEDRS sorts out on something that has recieved FDA approval, the best of the latest with qualifiers and attributions for non MEDRS sources is my guess. Once the article goes up I am guessing it will attract some attention/input. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Resource request
Hi. I saw your message on Bish's page. Do you have access to this? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the OUP access is rather limited. I will check my other access when I get a chance. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I arranged for the OUP article using WP:RX. No need to bother about it. Thanks. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 02:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Resource Request is a great service. Glad they were able to help. I will try and do what I can to help out there too. Thanks for the reminder. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * And I saw your message on GoblinFaces Talk page. The The Black Monk of Pontefract and Lonnie Zamora incident are on my eventual to-do list. Any objective sources (academic would be great) would be appreciated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look around. Busy with the job IRL for a few days. Be in touch soon. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted what I could find in a basic research attempt to your talk page on The Black Monk. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Greeting Thank You
Thank you, MrBill3! Finally learning how to message other people. Appreciated the welcome and instructions!173.168.39.10 (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Amen Source Comments
I noticed that there hasn't been any activity on your post seeking comments on the Daniel Amen talk page. Since I feel it could be added and you feel that there may be a case for it to be added, maybe that is enough of a consensus to move forward with the addition for now, and then if people object then it can at least bring some activity to your post? Dmrwikiprof (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest stating on talk you are going to add and then doing so. I think the due weight is very limited and you are likely to be reverted, but who ever does so should certainly justify that on talk and that would allow you the opportunity to put forth your position. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

CoolSculpting
An article I am researching for where I will have a COI, regarding an FDA-approved Cryolipolysis device (kills fat with cold). They are in an industry that is obviously filled with a lot of scams, misleading advertising and dangerous "medical" products (read quackery) and I think any editor would rightfully question whether my article is actually representative of the source material. I was wondering if you would be interested in checking my work against the quack test once done. CorporateM (Talk) 03:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to look into it. A link to your draft would help me get a start at looking at the sources. I am taking a look at Cryolipolysis now. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Cool. You can see the interim draft I'm working on at user:CorporateM/CoolSculpting. I've mostly only used the medical journals so far (the most reliable sources) and still need to do more research on mainstream press, as well as images and wikilinks. Citation #2 provides a review of the total body of literature on the subject from a medical journal/clinical study perspective and may be useful as comparison. I'm going to leave a note about article-naming on the Talk page as a first step and keep working on the draft (you are of course welcome to edit as well if you choose). I'm trying to steer it away from medical terminology (our audience is the public), but I feel I may have gone too far. CorporateM (Talk) 21:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Naturopathic medicine under 'Practice'
Hello, I see you reverted from my edit, where I deleted "often rejecting the practices of evidence based medicine." What is the evidence you have to support this claim? The citation listed does not support it. And I have supplied other citations elsewhere (which have so far still been removed from the page) that show evidence-based medicine is incorporated into naturopathic practice.Take, for example, this article: http://www.futurehealth.ucsf.edu/Content/29/2001-09_Profile_of_a_Profession_Naturopathic_Practice.pdf pages 14-19. I look forward to your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyfischer76 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC) Jeremyfischer76 (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See the ref already in the article added to that sentence. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the publication linked to above, note it is 13 years old, simply a report which describes itself as "The following case study is an effort to test a model", not peer reviewed, published as the opinions of the authors only and the "model" being tested is the work of the two lead authors pretty weak as a reliable source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Myofascial Release under "Effectiveness"
Hi MrBill3, thanks for your Suggested References comment on the talk page. I'm not sure if you saw my edit to your previous comment (this is my first time editing a Wikipedia article, so please bear with me!). Just in case you didn't see it there, I'm pasting it here too. I said (with minor changes):

Please examine my sources as they are all much more reliable as well as more recent than the 2011 ASA citation currently published on the article. That citation was based on a single, poorly designed study of smaller populations than my citations. That study was not blinded or controlled and the source influencing ASA's ruling was an abstract from a conference paper, not a trial published in a journal.

My cited trials are different. All four were randomized, controlled and blinded (either single or double). All were published in peer-reviewed journals. The links I originally included were to PubMed, but I've replaced them with these direct links:

http://www.bodyworkmovementtherapies.com/article/S1360-8592(13)00074-0/fulltext

http://www.thefootjournal.com/article/S0958-2592(14)00013-3/fulltext

http://www.archives-pmr.org/article/S0003-9993(11)00914-2/fulltext -- FULL TEXT AVAILABLE WITHOUT SUBSCRIPTION

http://www.bodyworkmovementtherapies.com/article/S1360-8592(11)00022-2/fulltext

If you'll be willing to reconsider Twinkle's automatic rejection, I'd be most appreciative. At the very least, I think the third link should replace the current citation, since full text is freely available and it's a good study. (But honestly, I think they should all be used. :o) Thanks, Marlene Mayman (Marlenemayman) Marlene Mayman 08:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlenemayman (talk • contribs)

Marc Siefer
Please revisit Marc Seifer.. I just boiled down the entry to what is supportable. --Lfrankblam (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Untitled
Hello MrBill3,

Thank you for your message. I want you to understand that the tone of my comments are presented with great concern for children who are brain-injured, and their families.

You addressed my input by saying, "...you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article." I find this very interesting since the input on "The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential" is not only not neutral, but it is 99% negative and fault-finding.

As I mentioned in my post, I am the mother of a child who's life was saved by The Institutes. I do not work, in any way, for this amazing organization. As I could see that you are an ICU nurse you may have conflicts that are common to the medical profession in regards to The Institutes. They are used to these types of accusations. If one has never been to visit or learn from them it is hard to believe what they have done to save and improve the lives of children with brain-injury. They also do not use conventional or popular treatment methods, although others who have challenged or had a falling out with them have gone on to set up their own organization using methods from The Institutes.

One other comment you may or may not have known, MrBill3, is that when I was in college from 2007-2011, our instructors told us not to use WIKIPEDIA for research or references. We were to use our school's library, which also had access to the Harvard library system. The deemed WIKIPEDIA as unreliable. I wonder if you have heard this from others?

The reason I contacted WIKIPEDIA in the first place was that I am doing research for my book and "Googled" The Institutes for pictures, when I came across the WIKIPEDIA content. The content, as I said, is far from "neutral" and very damaging to other parents and professionals who may be interested in helping children with brain-injury, and in my humble opinion should reflect both merits and faults of the organization, rather than the negative content therein.

Infavorofiahop (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)11/3/2014


 * My conflict of interest notice was based on both your username and your disclosure of personal involvement with the subject of the article. The text of the notice is generated by a template, more detailed information on the policy can be found at WP:COI a link to which is provided by the template. You may think and are free to assert that you have no conflict of interest. I think it is a question that would be viewed in different ways by different editors.
 * I think the question of a conflict of interest on the part of a medical professional and alternative treatment proponents/practitioners has been adequately discussed in a number of forums archives of which can be found by a search. Personally I have no conflict of interest with the subject of that article. If you feel otherwise a discussion can be brought to the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. A reading of the previous related discussions would likely demonstrate that to be inappropriate.
 * Neutral point of view on Wikipedia has a specific and well spelled out meaning. Essentially it means presenting information from reliable sources as due. Your personal anecdote is considered original research and is not the basis of content on WP. If reliable sources publish information that supports the assertions you have presented it can be considered for content. It is important to note that the standard for biomedical information on WP is higher that for general content. Details can be found at the guideline Identifying reliable sources (medicine).
 * Regarding the reliability of WP, it is a subject of interest to me. I think the established policies and guidelines are a great tool to establish, maintain and improve the quality of the encyclopedia. There is some degree of academic study on the subject and you may find it interesting that a WP article has been published in a peer reviewed journal now. I believe it is by adhering to and enforcing the policies and guidelines WP continues to improve. I consider this important as WP is one of the predominant sources of information for a great number of people. As a note for important research and information I use WP for a general idea but always consult the listed references directly and use the search terms, authors, categories etc. as a guide in searching the published academic work. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation/infringement
Your addition to Talk:Ayurveda, User:MrBill3/sandbox have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee sanctions
Bladesmulti (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

KDX 200
Hi there

being new here I couldn't readily find the reference part - however the reference to the edit I made is below.

Please can you point me to the article that explains the use of the referencing section?

Thanks

Kind Regards

"http://www.mbike.com/kawasaki/kdx200/2006"

Dylanwood89 (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

VOA
Okay, bill, please stop messing with Bennett English. It's not "vandalism", our teacher dared us to make a Wikipedia page for him and we did. Stop. Realdrphil (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI "Realdrphil" has been blocked indefinitely, and the school IP they edited from has been blocked for 6 months. Thomas.W talk 15:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright material removed
Hi MrBill3. I have removed some copyright material from the talk page Talk:Ayurveda, and also from your sandbox. Extensive quotes should not appear on Wikipedia talk pages or in user space. Such material could be stored offline in a text file. For the article talk page, you could offer the other editors a series of external links and let them read the material for themselves. Regards, -- Diannaa (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , With the exception of the quote from Sujartha 2011, I think the quotes posted fall under WP:FAIRUSE. I am assuming you have more knowledge of the policies and practices on the subject so I have not restored any of the quotes. I have posted a query at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content and asked the opinion of on their talk page, here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that since the material is available online, that you need not post any quotes but could simply provide links. Philippe is a good person to ask, as if he does not know, he will know where to find out. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not all of the material is available online. I work hard to provide links to content that is available online, but some is locked behind paywalls. I think if you read the discussion you will find that stating a source says something and providing a full reference for it has been met with claims the source doesn't say that, so I provided brief quotes that made clear what the sources actually do say. Removing another editors comments based on a feeling rather than on policy seems heavy handed. If within WP's fair use policy it seems removing another editors comments would be a violation of policy. I do acknowledge that at least one quote could be considered too extensive and I respect your considerable contributions to the project. It is not my intent to provoke a dispute with you, but to clarify what can/should be restored as valid commentary that is in adherence with policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As an admin at another place on the internet with strict rules about copyvio, I feel Diannaa has been a little overzealous, except with perhaps the bit you appear to agree with. Fair use quotation isn't a problem. I'm more concerned with Blades running off to teacher by email though. Feels underhanded somehow, and it is happening all the time. sigh. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Rainbowdashdude2
Blocked as a sock but will be back again. Sockpuppet investigations/Cavefish777. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Stanley Krippner
I have raised this issue on the fringe noticeboard, but it may need to be taken elsewhere. Similar to the Sam Parnia article it is happening monthly i.e. removal of reliable sources. I will wait a few days and observe what happens. Goblin Face (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

can you help me delete a page that i created??
can you help me delete a page that i created?? Thx! Fortrade59 (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

please help
mrbill3. i am monte boulanger. i created the monte boulanger and alex boulanger pages about six or seven years ago. i have a concern that my page has enough information for my identity to be stolen. can you help me delete the pages? I have tried, but don't know how. please help. Fortrade59 (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

i tried to speedy delete but...
MrBill3--

Here's what you wrote to me: To propose deletion of an article[edit] To propose deletion of an article (that would be non controversial) see WP:PROD or possibly WP:SPEEDY, for deletions that may be controversial see WP:AfD. Please note once content is on WP the processes should be followed. Sorry if you have had some difficulty with getting this done. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I tried the delete, but as soon as i did two people undid it. and then you reported me. what do i do to take the pages down? thanks! mFortrade59 (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete is a process. I will remove most content and post a speedy tag. I have withdrawn the report, an admin may note this and delete the articles. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks do much, mr. bill!
Thanks for the help! monteFortrade59 (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Mr. Bill3
Here's the note I just sent Safiel:

Please stop contesting my speedy delete[edit] Safiel-- Please undo you contest of Alex Boulanger. I know you are trying to be helpful, but you are not.

I am "author1965" and no longer have access to that account and had to create "fortrade". "Mr. Bill3" has been helpful in helping me to delete Monte Boulanger and Alex Boulanger.

Thanks! Monte
 * The appropriate processes have been started. Without evidence both accounts are yours that line of argument will probably fall short. Again no offense but the article is highly unlikely (in my opinion) to survive AfD and an admin may find it meets the A7 criteria for speedy deletion. Either way any information about a living person must be supported with high quality reliable sources as none have been provided the content you object to should not be re added to the article. I so sincerely hope you choose to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. There are lots of articles that need work and new ones to write. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * PS Don't forget to sign your posts. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Falcon
I added a source, but could you make sure I did it right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.127.212 (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Greetings 24.33.127.212 and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia (WP). Kudos for handling a revert with grace and constructive effort. You did a great job adding a source to your content addition at Falcon (comics). Congratulations on using a reference template (my preference and useful for a number of reasons). They can be confusing and complex. The most important elements are all there: the title, the link, the author and the work it came from. It is missing the date published. The work it comes from Deadline.com has a WP article so I would have linked that. Technically the publisher of Deadline.com is Penske Media Corporation. The "ref" ( |ref= ) parameter is not really needed. That is used for creating a name/shortcut/anchor for the reference for additional uses in more complex reference schemes. If your going to use a reference multiple times the easiest way to do that is by "naming" the ref (


 * The next use of the same source would then be . Note the closing " / ".


 * This produces:


 * A couple of quick notes, please sign your posts with four tildes ~ and when referring to an article please provide a link to the article or a "diff" (link to the edit). Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing and decide to stick around and continue to improve the encyclopedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited B. Unnikrishnan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Tiger. 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) 11:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Adoption suggestion
You left me a message on my talk page. Thank you very much for taking the trouble. I should be happy to work with an experienced editor, to be "adopted" as it appears to be called, though I don't know who wants to take on a son of 62 years of age. I have been grateful for the edits of many people to the pages I've created and am happy to accept criticism and would certainly like to help Wikipedia maintain and increase its quality, for I find I can strongly support the ethos and aims it represents. If there are ways I could be useful or improve the quality of what I'm doing, I should be glad to hear of it. 3world Kid (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Greetings . Welcome to Wikipedia (WP). I see you have been here a while, sorry no one else has welcomed you yet. I hope you enjoy editing and decide to continue to contribute. The Teahouse is a great place to ask questions. You may want to join a WikiProject that aligns with your interests. You can also monitor (via your Watchlist) Noticeboards of interest where you can pose questions. If you want to share something about yourself with WP you can create your User page (I suggest thinking about your personal privacy concerns when doing so).
 * I'm happy to be of help when I can. I don't know how our areas of interest overlap but feel free to ask any questions you may have here. I have access to quite a bit of paywalled reference material so if you are researching a topic let me know. We would need to correspond via email for me to send you ( single copies for the purpose of improving Wikipedia ) of articles ( not for distribution, copying etc. ) If you want me to look over edits you make you can post a link to the article or a Diff here. If you find yourself engaged in a discussion on talk you can likewise let me know here, I am fairly strong on Policies and guidelines (PAG). In the past I provided some pointers to who seems to have developed a strong grasp of editing and PAG. Their interests may overlap yours and they might be willing/able to help out too.
 * Please place you signature at the end of your comments. Colons at the beginning of paragraphs create indentation to separate comments. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment, . It's funny you should suggest that; for the past few days and I have been collaborating on a page that they've recently translated from the German - Else Klink. I don't know much about the subject, just noticed a new wikilink to it on a page that I monitor, and saw some opportunities to chime in. It's cool to now be at a point where I have something to offer. I don't know much about WP adoption, but I am happy to help when time and knowledge allows. Certainly I've benefited plenty from the help of others and like to pay it forward. --Karinpower (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Greets . You are most entitled to the compliment. It is no coinkidink I pointed to you, I am your WP:JAGUAR (talk page stalker ;). I saw your interaction, noticed hadn't been welcomed on their talk page and viola. I am glad your experience has been good. I am particularly pleased that your interaction with the Fringe theory noticeboard/Skeptic community has been (mostly) positive. As a member of that community I try to be a pleasant and helpful presence. As a member of the larger WP community I seek to ensure that a wide variety of POV's have a voice (within policy of course ;). I am not a member of Adopt a user but do what I can to encourage participation on WP and point to appropriate policy as needed. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I was wondering if you had been following. Excellent. I wasn't aware of WP:JAGUAR; very funny. As to constructive interaction with those of different POV's, I am an Aikidoist (which teaches non-conflict) and I think Wikipedia has provided me with some advanced training that I don't get in my daily life. Initially WP interactions spiked my blood pressure sometimes but not anymore. I think we all have the opportunity to create the culture here that we want to see, and that includes keeping conversations constructive, helping others, and generally being gracious. I'm not inclined to do official adoption but rather to be called upon as needed. I appreciate that has been completely good natured about my suggestions and edits. Thanks again for your kind comments.--Karinpower (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"Fixing" redirected wikilinks
Hi, I just reverted your "fixes" of wikilinks on Intensive Care Medicine (journal). This is not just because it is not necessary (the software takes care of this), but because it actually is undesirable. Several of these databases may be notable enough to get their own article eventually. Without a "fix", the wikilink will automatically go to the new article. But with these "fixes", the wikilink will still go to the old article where (now that an independent article exists) the database is perhaps not even mentioned any more. I used to make these kind of "fixes" myself all the time until somebody pointed this out to me. Not doing this any more actually saves me a lot of time :-) --Randykitty (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Greetings . Thanks for the info. I just found WP:UNBROKEN. I appreciate both the notice and the explanation. Anything to save some time is great.


 * I am going to add back the link to the website of European Society of Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care to external links, as I am under the impression there should be a link to the organizations for which the journal is the "official journal of". I am assuming your removal was due to the link being down/flakey it seems to be working fine for me now.


 * I am planning on writing articles for a number of journals so any input is appreciated. My interpretation of notability is good to go if the journal has an impact factor. Unfortunately I don't have access to the premier databases on journals but the guideline says we can trust the journal's website. Thanks for your contributions and Best Wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't remove it because it was broken (for that we have tha ) tag. But that society has its own article and that is where the EL belongs. Not too important, though. For writing articles on journals, see our journal article writing guide for some helpful tips. --Randykitty (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh I see now, "Also, give the homepage of its affiliated society/organization if it has one and this has no article of its own." I already added it back and think it is worthwhile. If you or someone else removes it again I won't redo. Thanks for your contributions and input. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

, I just did some work on Clinical Microbiology Reviews if you wish to review my efforts, I'd appreciate it. I will note the edit history if you make changes for input (so ES's will help and save you a cmt here). Thanks for all your help and your contributions to WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I see the upload wizard doesn't mark the image as has rationale=yes. I wonder if I should fill something else out in the wizard or just add that by hand after, or if it is something that should be done by another editor? Thanks for all your help. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Enlisting your support on Alternative Medicine edit revert
Hi U|MrBill3, would you please take a look at this edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&oldid=prev&diff=636554042 I believe that the more flexible wording, which allows for some basis in evidence, is more correct. Alternative medicine is a broad enough label that it does include treatments that have some evidence, and as evidence grows those modalities will continued to be considered alt-med even if allopathic medicine embraces them. For instance, massage and acupuncture have some evidence supporting certain applications for certain conditions. So, to keep our description accurate, "may not be based" is correct. What do you say? Thank you. --Karinpower (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Evidence after the fact perhaps, and if real medicine embraces something, that is what it becomes, ceasing to be nonsense. Your examples are not based on evidence, even if evidence later arrives that a rub down can be helpful, or sticking pins in people does have some physiological effect, that's hardly surprising. Woo remains woo, and real medicine remains real medicine. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not being based on evidence gathered by implementing the scientific method is a hallmark of alternative medicine and multiple sources state that. "and as evidence grows those modalities will continued to be considered alt-med even if allopathic medicine embraces them" is OR and I think contradicted by history. When there is evidence that supports a treatment and it is embraced by mainstream medicine that treatment ceases to "alternative" more or less within the definitions of the words alternative and mainstream. As Roxy the dog pointed out there is a difference between "not based on evidence" and after the fact evidence of an effect. The proper place for this discussion is on the talk page of the article. I don't know if I will wade in there as it often becomes wearysome and a timesink. In general I am thankful that there are editors willing to consistently present, explain and enforce policy on these controversial fringe articles. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible Error on remote viewing
Please see this edit, he claims the remote viewing article has an error. I am not sure who added this edit originally it wasn't me as I have not read that report (I have read Marks book), but a tiny piece of text has been omitted from that report apparently. I don't have that source on me right now, but I think it is online, but should the quote be put in full? Goblin Face (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the snippet needs to be added. It would require a full read of the report to see why the authors thought such changes were appropriate in that situation. I don't think it would add to the article as it would require even more quoting for context (what situation, why appropriate). I also don't think edits or reverts need to be supported against rambling walls of text. Concise policy based argument suffices. If clear concise specific objections and proposals are not made (on the appropriate talk page) it is not consensus building, good faith editing. Thank you for all your contributions and your patience in dealing with tendentious editors. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A user is writing long attacks against me on the near-death experience article which I removed. Also constant edit warring to add spiritualist books or fringe sources into the lead. How do we solve this? Nobody seems to be watching this article. I can't get involved anymore myself or I could get in trouble for edit-warring myself. If problem persists should I take to the admin board? Goblin Face (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Fuhrman Biblio
I would take issue with your removing biblio on Fuhrman. MaynardClark (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See the talk page of the article, present a reasonable argument. I'm willing to go along with consensus. In my opinion it is an indiscriminate list of non notable publications. WP doesn't list the non notable articles published by subjects. Take note of the articles on major scientists. If any of these articles are considered notable by reliable sources, I would support their inclusion otherwise it is undue puffery. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)