User talk:Polyamorph/Archive 3

Self-harm
Hey Jdrewitt sorry about closing the self harm GAR. Though it was an individual assessment rather than a community assessment and that this than would allow the opening of a community assessment. Will wait for others to comment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the apology, its fine. I won't have much spare time in the coming weeks to spend on another re-assessment but will do what I can when I can. Jdrewitt (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have requested further opinions from people over at WP:MED. Hope that helps. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A few things
I added my two cents to the talk page. I think its a good third option. A map of prevalence would be nice to see.

ALSO

Do you think either of these sources reliable? |www.eatingdisorders.ie or |www.mindframe-media.info to back up the statement that its hard to get true statistics on self harm.--Guerillero (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. I would prefer to go with academic references for these sort of statements. e.g. Laye-Gindhu et al, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34 (2005) 447 (abstract: http://www.springerlink.com/content/u324673226672214/) state that prevalence estimates of self-harm are variable and that there is little research that ha been performed to accurately assess the frequency and nature of self-harm, partly due to the abscence of a valid measure of self-harm. They also state that although it is commonly stated that more females engage in self-harm few studies actually include males in their samples! i.e. the study of the prevalence of self-harm is still in its infancy and there are very limited studies to go by. And where good studies do exist these are typically restricted to a very limited number of countries, e.g. the UK. I can find other suitable references but at present am a bit short of time but I think the reference above will be ok to state that e.g. the prevalence of self-harm is difficult to quantify due to limited studies. I think the point that they make about males being excluded from samples is also an extremely important one. Best wishes, Jdrewitt (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. I will look at those. --Guerillero (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

sorry for starting the discussion off the article talk page. I thought he wouldn't see it there. I also didn't think I would turn inot what it did. --Guerillero (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with it, I think you did the right thing just some user who cant be WP:CIVIL but really don't worry about it and there's no need to apologise you didn't do anything wrong! Cheers dude Jdrewitt (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wave Structure of Matter
A fully consistent theory of quantum gravity has been found, http://www.spaceandmotion.com/ is where the theory The Wave Structure of Matter (WSM)can be found. WSM correctly derives all of quantum physics along with general relativity, in one comprehensive theory. It work by calling space a tensile medium through which vibrations can occur. At the center of these vibrations, where the energy is the highest, there appear to be particles, but they are only waves. Remember "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance"-Albert Einstien. Also before Einstein died he attempted to make a theory almost identical to this one, the only slight difference was he used fields instead of waves. These fields were unable to correctly derive quantum mechanics but Geoff Hasellhurst, Milo Wolff, and Ray Tomes have all done it with WSM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.204.142 (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no original research on wikipedia. If you submit content that is not backed up by a reliable source then it will be removed. For example, if the work is published in a peer reviewed journal then it would be deemed reliable. Until then it is self published original research. And one final thing, don't try and use einstein against me on my own talk page! Jdrewitt (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

lanthanide --> lanthanoid
Hi, thanks for fixing "lanthanide" to "lanthanoid" in the croconate violet article. I am not a chemist so I can only presume that the replacement is appropriate. However, one of the two occurrences was in the title of a referenced paper ; and the title *does* say "lanthanide", so it had to be left alone. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, yes if it's in the title then it should remain as it is in the reference. I tried to make sure I didn't change the terminology in the references but this one slipped through the net, thanks for spotting it! Jdrewitt (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If there's truly a consensus for -oid, it's confusing to have eg Lanthanide be the main article and Lanthanoid be a redirect. Not to mention some fairly random choices out there (is my impression). Is the discussion still available? &mdash; JLundell  talk   17:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes this was discussed at length on the chemistry wikiproject talk and the result was that -ide is predominently in use. I'll try and find a link back to the discussion. Jdrewitt (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

self harm
Self Harm might make DSM V the only problem is that DSM wants to refer to it as self injury not self harm. This could make things interesting.DSM5 page proposal to include self injury --Guerillero &#124; My Talk 02:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the following quote from the report should be noted:"As noted above, the term self-harm is widely used and is applied to both suicide attempts and non-suicidal injuries, as well as, at its broadest, to behaviors or attitudes that carry a risk of eventual loss of resources, such as gambling or substance abuse. It was agreed that using a term free of such broad connotations would be advantageous. Non-suicidal self-injury is the term chosen by researchers and practitioners working in this area, and we propose that that name be used." We had consensus to make the page move because self-harm is the most common term used (in academia and elsewhere). If it turns out that NSSI becomes the most common term then there would be a case for another page move but I don't think this is currently the case. You could mention on the article talk page though if you're worried about it but it might be best to wait until the proposal actually comes into practice. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thats why I posted it on your talk page because it still has to pass APA. Though if it does enter DSM it will make our lives a lot easier. (More studies will be done if it is viewed as more then just a symptom of other disease) cheers --Guerillero &#124; My Talk 18:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright for Crystal Viewer Tool
Hello, A reply has been posted regarding copyright issues at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Copyright_on_images_created_using_the_Crystal_Viewer_Tool I hope the reply would satisfy your doubts regarding the same. Also let us know if any further questions.

thanks, nanoHUB team —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatnik8983 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I am satisfied the question about the copyright of these images has been resolved. Thank you for responding to my query. Best regards, Jdrewitt (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kepler's laws of planetary motion (Introduction)
Hello Jdrewitt. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kepler's laws of planetary motion (Introduction), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a recently created redirect - consider WP:RfD. Thank you. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Mass-energy equivalence
A new editor has decided that the lead should specify "invariant mass" and put in the edit diff: "m = rest mass, units and units don't need to be explained in the lead - this is general knowledge not limited to this formula." In fact, it is not only not "general knowledge"-- that is wrong. The statement is incomplete. Many physicists have used this formula with relativistic mass, in which case the energy simply becomes the relativistic (total) energy. Problems with the formula only arise when you use one kind of mass with the other kind of energy and your momentum is not zero. This is all explained in the rest of the article. There is some irony in the fact that the same editor has gone down placing "unreferenced section" tags on a number of sections, and these are indeed general knowledge not limited to this formula. Same justification, except this time, right. S B Harris 01:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that I had improved the wording of the lead significantly. It was poorly worded previously and there is still much work to be done to the article as a whole. As for unreferenced section, everything on wikipedia has to be cited with reliable sources. Vast swathes of the article are wholly uncited and so like it or not this is contrary to wikipedia policy. Thanks, Jdrewitt (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please post any further comments on the article talk page where I have replied to your post and where it is more approriate to discuss matters regarding article content. Please also read the notice at the top of my page and consider the points when posting on users talk pages. Thanks Jdrewitt (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Self harm
I see self harm more than I see attempts of suicide. Many people I see who cut themselves deny any attempt to end their life. I guess when any term like this is used were does one draw the line between self harm and normal. Is biting ones nails self harm? Getting ones ears pierced? How about scratching oneself. What if it is really hard or one uses a sharp object. We have obvious cases such as Lesch–Nyhan syndrome were fingers are bitten off and wounds created. I cannot take credit for the above idea as it was from a piece I read about the before mentioned genetic condition. The 1% of the population causes severe self harm / repetitive self harm seems about right.

The same difficulty applies to all of psychiatry and some of medicine. All psychiatric diagnosis are based on agreed upon subjective diagnostic criteria ( among psychiatrists and the society at large ). Even conditions such as obesity which are diagnosed based on an agree on cut off for BMI and diabetes an agree on cut off of blood sugar. Fracture are better as you either have one of you do not. But conditions like this are the exception rather than the rule. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok so it seems difficult to provide a definitive diagnosis in some cases due to vague definitions. How about gender differences? The article currently states that "the best available evidence to date" suggests that females are up to four times more likely to self-harm than males. I find this unlikely and contrary to my own personal experience but also it appears that more and more reports suggest there is no gender difference, for example Kerr et al. (2010) (the review you gave us the link for) report "Aggregated research has found generally similar rates of self-injury between men and women". So I think this section needs an overhaul. Jdrewitt (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree. It is best to go with the most recent review articles. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback ErikHaugen
thanks--Demomoer (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Corcelles :) I will use this new tool wisely. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Rare earth elements/minerals
I note in the second paragraph of REE, the term mineral is used as a synonym. ("The scarcity of these minerals (or "earths") . . ..") That is, there is no transition to explain the difference between mineral and element. (It does not explain what "these minerals" are.) Perhaps you can edit to clear this up. Also, merger is appropriate when "There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap." The REE and REM pages are not quite the same topic, but they have the same scope. Instead of deleting a proposed merger, I suggest you discuss. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Mineral is not used as a synonym, the sentence is referring to the minerals in which rare earth's are found. Rare earth elements are not found in isolation in any significant quantity in nature. Instead they are found in Rare earth minerals. They don't have the same scope because one page discusses the element and the other the minerals of those elements.Jdrewitt (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Apology on undo button
Jdrewitt, I didn't mean for you to take offense at the use of the revert button for your edits. I frankly didn't anticipate that it could be taken this way, especially since the vast majority of what you do is very helpful, at least what I've seen on Rare earth elements. I do agree with you that Rare earth minerals should have it's own page, though it seems currently underdeveloped and much of the material is covered in Rare earth elements...I think if we develop the REM page a bit more its legitimacy as a separate page will become more obvious.Erudy (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, no need to apologise. I don't mind you improving any changes that I might make, including complete undoing if you feel fit, but in which case it would be better to just change the edit summary so it doesn't show the automatic "Undo revision 123456 by Jdrewitt" message. As for the REM page, it is a stub and could certainly do with improvement. As and when I get time I will look into helping improve it. Thanks Jdrewitt (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Galileo
Done, naturally. In these circumstances I try to restore the pages as quickly as I can, but it always takes a few minutes when I'm working with a page with many revisions. Graham 87 14:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

arXiv
Look. This is your field, more than mine (I'm in Linguistics/Education). Do you seriously consider arXiv to be an unreliable source?

We have an analog, Language Log, in the field of linguistics. It's one of the most interesting blogs around (at least within my interest area heh), and we consider it to be reliable.

Thanks again for dropping in on the conversation.. Your previous post was welcome. :)

-Danjel (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The following is my opinion on the matter. The publications themselves on arxiv are often preliminary papers that have not gone through the normal peer review rigour expected of a scientific articles. Perhaps this is good because it means some authors with controversial results that might take some time to get through the peer review process are able to present their findings to the world early preventing another group rushing a paper through some other channel beating them to it. It is slightly more complex than this though, there is some degree of moderation of the articles submitted to arxiv and some people are of the opinion that the peer review process is fundamentally flawed in itself due to bias on the part of the reviewers.
 * As for arxiv blog it is not necessarily a reliable source. For a start its a blog and so is somebody's opinion as opposed to one of technology review articles the site also hosts (which I agree appear to satisfy WP:RS). So it fails WP:BLOGS. But the particular blog that you cited also promotes one of their own submitted articles, so in my opinion it fails the part in WP:ABOUTSELF regarding "Self-published sources as sources on themselves". Then this leads to notability. Just because arxiv has noted this, doesn't mean anyone else cares. So until the controversy is reported in a number of independent reliable sources I don't think it would satisfy WP:Notability. If on the other hand the controversy has been or is reported in a number of reliable sources then I can't see why we can't also report on the controversy, provided the discussion is scientifically accurate, i.e. undue weight must not be given to a fringe theory. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Come on mate. I expect better. You're returning to fighting against a strawman (that I support an edit validating Marinov's claim). You know this is  false . I have repeatedly said it's not my position.


 * As for WP:BLOGS, fine, you don't like it because of WP:ABOUTSELF. There are alternatives [] (NewScientist) and [] (Nature). I prefer the New Scientist article as it points out the notability of the issue.


 * Seriously, does the proposed edit detract from the quality of the article? No, of course it doesn't. But different opinions, right? Got a suggestion on a change? What do you propose? Or shall we continue to argue in favour of a completely static wikipedia? -Danjel (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're not listening to any of our points re: WP:RS. So I have no interest in discussing this with you anymore. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried to take into account your points re: WP:RS above, and obviously failed (?)!


 * Look, I'll apologise for, withdraw and strikethrough whatever part of my above comment offended you so much. I won't withdraw my comment regarding User:Stone being a "voice of reason", because it's clear that he's trying to present a compromise position, which is good for all of us (even if you don't like the compromise, it'll at least move us forward, and I don't understand why this would be so unacceptable to you).


 * But clearly your and my conflict is a case of a rather critical misunderstanding. Please give me 5 minutes of your time so that I can explain that we're arguing in two different directions? -Danjel (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's just that you're rubbing everyone up the wrong way, including me. I have been trying to help so completely negating mine and everyone else's comments and opinions (which are infact the majority view and hence the current consensus on the matter) by saying things like "at last the voice of reason" is poor manners. You need to improve the way you interact with other users. The url's you linked above don't work but I googled the nature blog anyway and it's possible that it could pass as a reliable source if used simply for evidence reporting that such claim has been made. The arxiv blog isn't suitable beacause as I have said before it is not an independent source. But I don't like the idea of using a blog as a reference because it still reads very much like one editors opinion as opposed to a balanced article. So my suggestion, is to find a suitable source and follow Stone's suggestion sounds a good cause of action to me. Jdrewitt (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Those links are: [] (NewScientist) and [] (Nature). I prefer NewScientist.

I completely understand that they're not strong references (but I still contend they're an exception), which is why the language I proposed on the other page emphasised the possible dubiousness.

As for rubbing people up the wrong way... I've been "warned" for edit warring and abused by the same admin, had another admin WP:CANVASS (slagging me off and misrepresenting my position (which led to my having to repeatedly disendorse the strawman)) and had a third WP:INVOLVED admin suggest that (a) admins can abuse people if they feel the need/want to; and (b) admins can WP:CANVASS if they want, because I'm gaming the system (to what benefit? I didn't get what I wanted, but I'm not unhappy with the compromise). On top of people ignoring compromise requests and positions and attacking the strawman over and over and over... I'm desperately trying to stay civil in the face of this.

So I'm having a bit of a bad weekend! I'm truly sorry if I've become combative, but, yeah, this situation has caused me to lose a lot of faith in the general good will of the wikipedia community.


 * Ok, thanks for the apology and I understand that you've had a rough time. Just take a virtual step back and assume good faith. At the end of the day it looks like the claim is being reported by third party sources and so seems to be notable. Nature is more reputable than newscientist but I can compromise on using both of the blogs as the reference with a view to replacing the sources when new articles become available. The reason being because although you just want to report the claims existence, in such a case it is important to comment on the validity of the claim because it otherwise readers might assume the claims are true. But in order to discuss the validity of the claim we need reliable sources, i.e. a balanced article. I hope that is clear. Jdrewitt (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. Just so we're clear, I was halfway down the track to academia before real life hit me in the back of the head, so I understand what you're saying (hence language).


 * Next time you're in Sydney I'll buy you a beer and we'll argue over the relative merits of blogs like arXiv and Language Log. -Danjel (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Beer would be so good right now...I am currently on day 6 of an 11 day central facility experiment! cheers. Jdrewitt (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

La Tristesse Durera (Scream to a Sigh)
Can you add some references to La Tristesse Durera (Scream to a Sigh) to meet WP:V and WP:N? I am asking prior to taking it to WP:AFD, in hopes of not needing to. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I can but I ask for your patience as I am currently too busy in real life to edit articles, will get to it within the week if that's ok? Jdrewitt (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I will assume that by say Monday Dec 13, if it is still unreferenced you gave up on it? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added some references because I don't know when I would have got a chance to otherwise and strongly disagree with this article going to AfD. It should now satisfy policy. The article needs expansion but there are many more reliable sources (books, websites, articles) that describe this song's success both at the time (1993) and when it was re-released in on the bands (one of the most successful, influencial and biggest selling bands of the 1990s) greatest hits album Forever Delayed.Jdrewitt (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks good, thanks JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Transparent metals
Is there anything that you can do for me here ? After a couple of weeks of hard work and doing everything that I have been asked to do by the interested editor, I seem to have reached an impasse. Please advise. Thanks ! logger9 (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nevermind...I think I have the situation under control now. logger9 (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)