User talk:Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc/Archive 14

DavidinDC
Greetings,

You can see from these edits here:


 * 15:51, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Paul Baltes: proofreading's gud)
 * 15:40, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: ok got it right this time.)
 * 15:38, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: keeping whole comment tabbed over correctly)
 * 14:54, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Paul Baltes: There is a less solipsistic explanation than vendetta.)
 * 12:20, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) Denise Eisenberg Rich ‎ (moved "uncategorized" template to top and changed date. It was placed here in Jan., not Dec.)
 * 06:25, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) Paul Baltes ‎ (last bit of copy editing)
 * 06:22, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) Paul Baltes ‎ (additional copy-editing)
 * 06:19, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) Paul Baltes ‎ (copy edit. Also removed words per WP:PEACOCK. Calling someone "reknowned" or "key" does not make it so. Notability requires references, not bald assertions.)
 * 06:14, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) Paul Baltes ‎ (Notable? I'm not sure. But I am sure questioning his notability is not a political attack. It's important to use edit summaries, but even more important that they be intelligible.)
 * 05:54, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) m The Legend of Nigger Charley ‎ (space)
 * 18:29, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacey Owen (2nd nomination) ‎ (→Stacey Owen: tildes)
 * 18:29, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacey Owen (2nd nomination) ‎ (added to list of porn star deletions)
 * 18:26, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) m User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: upper case)
 * 18:25, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: I split my answer, so I added the questioner's datestamp to the part I cut off with my first part of the answer)
 * 18:23, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: Technical issue reply)
 * 18:14, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: Let's be honest)
 * 17:59, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) m User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: spacing only)
 * 17:48, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:Canadian Paul ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: Thank you)
 * 17:42, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC 5 ‎ (→Another date?: Post inaugurtion)
 * 12:46, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) m User talk:Ryoung122 ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: spacing)
 * 12:46, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:Ryoung122 ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: keeping the discussion on one page)
 * 12:43, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: reply)
 * 12:37, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:Ryoung122 ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: copy edit)
 * 12:36, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:Ryoung122 ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: copy edit)
 * 12:35, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) m User talk:Ryoung122 ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: speeling)
 * 12:35, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:Ryoung122 ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: new section)

That DavidinDC's "attack" of the Paul Baltes page came just one day after the Sebastian Bonnet dispute (an actor in gay porn).

David himself remembered fairly quickly. Let's be honest, humans are humans, but I'm calling out inappropriate behavior. As it turns out, most people AGREE that Paul Baltes is worthy of an article, and the article was referenced as well (though missing inline citations). The Sebastian Bonnett article was re-created, so in away that's Robert 2, DavidinDC 0. David should NOT be targeting articles just to be spiteful of the editor.

Ryoung 122 19:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Real diffs would have been more helpful. As would a clearer explanation of what I'm supposed to be looking for in these 26 edits. After reading every one, I see no "anti-gay comments". I see no evidence of "targeting" any particular articles- though even if he was, that would not be "anti-gay comments". I see no evidence of grossly inappropriate behavior.
 * On the other hand, I see you disagreeing with the deletion of an article about an adult film actor who happens to be gay. I see you accusing him (without evidence) of making "political attacks" and having a vendetta. I see a lot of unfair assumptions, and I see them coming out of you.
 * Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. It is not a battleground. If you're keeping score you're in the wrong place. I have seen no evidence that David has made anti-gay comments. This is a personal attack, even by your definition. Please redact your accusation. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see that you've retracted your claim of anti-gay comments, though evidently in favor of an accusation of anti-porn behavior. I'm sorry, but given what I saw in the edits you asked me to read above, I just see bad blood over an AfD. A disconnect exists between you and David in terms of your understanding of notability and the sourcing that needs to go into that. That's all, and it doesn't make either of you wrong, vandals or otherwise contrary to Wikipedia's interests.
 * Poisoning the well in discussions about notability in other articles is not helpful. Neither are quotations out of context, by an editor who appears to frequently make tongue-in-cheek comments, to, I assume, lighten the general mood around here. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Violation of Trademark Law
Dear Mendaliv,

The content you wrote regarding H-Wave is misleading, but more importantly violates Unites States Trademark Law. I'm sure you agree the changes I made were by no means any type of sales pitch for H-Wave®, I simply listed the FDA cleared indications with nothing added. I can accept eliminating everything about H-Wave on this wikipedia page; however, our attornies at Blakely Sokoloff Taylor Zafman have advised that not referencing our registered trademark and confusing our registered trademark with an unrelated product is a serious trademark issue. Though I have not wanted to get them further involved; Electronic Waveform Lab is more than willing to stronly defend its long standing United State Trademark.

I understand that you think you have referenced something credible; however, the statments you referenced are based on opinion, not evidence based medicine or facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken6175 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment:
 * Wikipedia is not intended solely for a US audience; it is not appropriate to focus solely or largely on a US product. It is problematic that EWL's trademark is confusingly similar to the name of a product used in other markets.
 * Including the (r) or "TM" symbols in Wikipedia articles is a violation of our Manual of Style; you will find the Wikipedia community strongly opposes such edits. Please read MOS:TM, Wikipedia's manual of style pertaining to trademarks.
 * I am considering inserting a short clarifying statement in the article in light of the disclaimer present in California MTUS and ODG with respect to McDowell's research. I need to do some additional research prior to this, however.
 * Please review Wikipedia's policy on making legal threats. I am interpreting your above reference to a law firm and guarantee of strong defense of a trademark as a legal threat. Subsequent to this reply I will be notifying the Wikipedia community at large of your vaguely threatened action.
 * Thank you for your time. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reminding myself to check User talk:Ken6175 for responses to this. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mendaliv, I apologize for the poor approach taken in the past. This is indeed a complicated issue and I'd really like to see if you have some ideas to help clear it up. I’m sorry for dumping all this info on you, but it looks like you are interested and hopefully it can help. You stated that EWL's trademark is confusingly similar to the name of a product used in other markets. You are correct that it is confusing. In the US there is only one product that has ever been called H-Wave (the brand name and registered trademark of Electronic Waveform Lab, Inc). Trademarks are not international and Electronic Waveform Lab (EWL) could not stop a company in England from naming their stimulator h-wave, which is what happened quite a few years after EWL’s H-Wave was developed.

The England h-wave has never been sold or used in the US for two reasons. One it is not cleared by the FDA in any manner. Two it would be in violation of EWL’s H-Wave trademark in the US. Therefore all of the studies performed in the United States, anyone who has used H-Wave in the US, any publicity regarding H-Wave in the United States (pro sports teams, periodicals, television news reports available on youtube, etc) and the positive reputation of H-Wave in the US are all referring to one particular product; EWL’s H-Wave. You have likely noted that all of the US studies dating back to the 1990s refer specifically to Electronic Waveform Lab when H-Wave is mentioned. So to sum this up in the United States H-Wave is considered a form of therapy, but it is first a brand name and one particular product as opposed to a generic technology.

The problem is created when other countries are brought into the equation. Nobody in the US has ever or will ever encounter any H-Wave other than that of EWL; however, it’s basically the opposite outside the US. EWL’s H-Wave is not sold in Europe directly or through distributors. But there is an unrelated h-wave device manufactured by a company in England. The McDowell studies published in Europe use this product. In one of the studies you’ve referenced (The effect of H-Wave therapy upon conduction…) it shows on page 823 that the h-wave therapy unit was provided by “Evimed, London, UK”. In another study referenced (Comparative analgesic effects of H-Wave…) the last page lists a number of suppliers including Evimed Ltd, London.

It is difficult to know for certain how different the EWL H-Wave is from the England Evimed h-wave, but several things point to significant differences. The explanations of how the England h-wave works and how it was originated (taken from McDowell and used in the current Wikipedia page) do not match the explanations given in EWL H-Wave research about their mechanisms and origins. Outcomes obtained in the applicable research also look distinct. In addition the two companies have no affiliation therefore electrical design technology, protocols, and other factors are unlikely to be the same. There is also the fact that the England h-wave does not have any FDA clearances whereas EWL’s H-Wave has numerous clearances from the FDA. To summarize I think it’s fair to say that these are two distinct products.

So here’s the dilemma. Whether you’re an athlete, patient, doctor, therapist, athletic trainer or insurance carrier in the US you’re only interested in the H-Wave that you, your patients or insured are using (which is only EWL’s H-Wave). Outside of the US people may certainly be interested in the England h-wave available for sale. So is it best to let people know that there are two distinct H-Wave products and then summarize what the applicable research says about each? Or let them know that in the US H-Wave is one product, but in other parts of the world H-Wave may refer to a number of products?

The other interesting thing to point out is that there are more than 10 pubmed indexed studies on the EWL H-Wave from 1997-2010, that all have fairly positive outcomes; however, until recently none of these were listed on the electroanalgesia page. Instead one major quote was used from McDowell regarding the England h-wave and gives a somewhat negative impression on the product. It seems strange that only that one quote regarding effectiveness was used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken6175 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ken. I'm sorry about my role in this misunderstanding as well. As I said, I'm going to read into this some more. There may have been more developments since I last read extensively about H-wave. I've been busy lately, but I'll do my best to get to this soon. My current feelings are that, in line with WP:RSMED, Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources pertaining to medicine, it may be most appropriate to keep things as a summary of nationally-recognized evidence based medicine guidelines, such as ODG. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

dispute resolution?
why did you give up so easily on resolving the issues in the Federal Reserve System page? it's not really dispute resolution if the cops only listen to the guy who knocked the other guy down, is it? —ganjadi (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for one, I'm not the cops. I just hang around WP:EAR a lot and step in where I think I can help. EAR isn't supposed to be about mediation and I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was going to mediate. I thought at first in this case that Yourmanstan's edit had been justified. Upon discussion with the other editors there, I was given the impression that similar content was integrated into the article body, and that summary of this content in the lead would be problematic per WP:WEIGHT. I also thought that a compromise had been reached or would be forthcoming, though I see now that Yourmanstan doesn't agree.
 * If you think there's room for further improvement, I can suggest trying to ask for assistance at WT:ECON, where more knowledgeable editors may be found, or starting a RFC. I just don't know a lot about the FRS, and this is very much a content dispute. I do not think my continued involvement in that article will be particularly helpful. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

New Indicator for National Economy Infoboxes
Hi Mendaliv,

You responded to my proposal for a new statistic on the national economy infoboxes. I am still waiting to get responses to the proposal from the talk pages you recommended. In the meantime I am trying to learn how I would edit infoboxes should people like the proposal. Editing the html doesn't seem to be sufficient. Instead it seems there is some kind of underlying categorization process. The infobox page says it is transculded from the template doc page, but in a couple previews in the sandbox I was not able to preview what an infobox would look like with an additional statistics. Am I misunderstanding something?

Thanks in advance for your time and assistance!

Win.monroe (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Win.Monroe


 * Well, first off, you might be waiting some time (a couple days or more) for responses. Don't worry too much about that. I'm not sure how long you can expect to wait before you can feel comfortable in adding the statistic.
 * As to the infobox templates, here's what needs to happen:
 * First, the infobox needs a new parameter added at Template:Infobox economy. Let's say you called it  (as a for-instance). This would involve modifying the infobox code a bit, using the preexisting code as an example of course.
 * Second, you'd want to modify the documentation page to explain the purpose of the parameter.
 * Third, and this you'd have to do on every article you wanted to add the statistic for, you go to the article and modify the infobox template by adding, or whatever the rank is.
 * I can probably help more with the first part of it if you need. Let me know! Changing the infobox isn't a big deal if you don't break it, but if you go through all the work of adding the statistic to the articles, and it's controversial and gets reverted, well there goes all that work. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks a bunch for the advice. I don't mind waiting and I am comfortable with editing the basic code on the economy pages (I went around and added the gini coefficient to some places it was missing) and on the documentation page, but I guess it is setting up the new parameter that I don't understand. I'd like to learn how to do it myself, but assuming I can't figure it out, your help would be much appreciated. Thanks again for your assistance, I am still a relative newbie at contributing to this site which I so much appreciate and believe in.


 * Win.monroe (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Win.monroe


 * Mendaliv,
 * Thanks for your advice and offer to help. An editor reviewed my proposal favorably and I think I have addressed his minor outstanding considerations. Most importantly a discussion has been started for people should they favor or disfavor the new indicator (it can be read on the economy infobox template page). I was hoping I could take you up on your offer to assist with step 1 to create the parameter. We could do it as simple as the title and rank. Ideally though I think we would want something like the HDI in country infoboxes: the title on the left could read "Doing Business Index" which would link back to the wikipage for Countries by Doing Business Rank. Then for the statistic we would have the rank and an up or down arrow to show whether a country improved or worsened their ranking since last year (this then indicates not only the business environment, but the trajectory of its development). Let me know what you think.


 * I really appreciate your help and if you do set up the parameter for the economy infobox I should have no problem making the change and explaining it on the template documentation page. I'll test it on a dozen or so economy infoboxes and provide an explanation and link back to the template discussion on the economy talk pages, that way people can determine whether they like the new indicator or not. Thanks again for your advice and assistance: it's been a real help.


 * Win.monroe (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Win.Monroe


 * Be glad to help. Creating a parameter should be easy. How about something like  for the parameter, and the code you'd insert to the infobox would be , where "rank" is the actual rank number. So   would produce the text "Ease of Doing Business Rank 3", and this would be in the statistics section. (Actually let me know if the link text should be different) &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks a bunch for the help. The link looks good to me, although I might change the text it would produce. I'd like to shorten it if possible so that it could be in one line, so that it can be as unobtrusive of an addition as possible. "Doing Business Index" or if not "Doing Business Rank" should fit. I would probably adjust the code to match whichever, such as "DBI" rather than "EDBI." The statistics section is definitely where it belongs, probably right above or below the Gini. But those are just suggestions. Let me know when you get around to creating the parameter (no rush) and I'll add it to some economy pages for a test run. Thanks for all your time and assistance.


 * Win.monroe (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Win.Monroe
 * Hey Win.monroe; sorry I haven't gotten to this in the last couple days. Things have gotten busy. I'll try to look into this in the next day or two. It shouldn't take long but I'll be doing a little testing to ensure I don't break anything. I just thought I'd drop by and leave a status update. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch. Let me know when you get to it and I'll start adding rankings to some countries. I sincerely appreciate all of your help. Win.monroe (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Win.Monroe

Finally found a minute to handle this. Upon testing, neither labels "Doing Business Index" and "Doing Business Rank" fit on one line (tested with the Economy of Hong Kong infobox data); either the second or third words wind up on a second line. "Ease of Doing Business Index" or "Ease of Doing Business Rank" perfectly fill out two lines when I tested it, plus it's harmonized with Wikipedia's article title on the same subject. I'm kind of a sucker for harmonizing things like these... is there a reason not to?

Anyway, the current draft is at User:Mendaliv/infosandbox; I'll make the final move over once you've approved, and I'll update the infobox documentation as well. Feel free to play with it if you want; you can test it at the sandbox. Just take the "usage" from the current, and replace  with. The new parameter is  as you suggested (though I guess that'd change to   if the current label remains?). Let me know if you have any questions or problems. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Mendaliv, I just played around with it and it looks terrific. I agree with the harmonization. Of the two, I think "Ease of Doing Business Rank" is better because, despite being calculated by a quantitative index, the number associated with each country is their rank, which clearly means that a lower number is better (while in some indexes a higher number is better). As such, I think the code should be switched to EDBR for consistency.


 * Thanks so much for all of your help. Let me know when the parameter is in place and I'll add the rank to 15 countries or so and then we can see if people think its a good addition or not (unless you think it is better to go ahead and do it for all of them).


 * Once again, I appreciate all of your time and assistance.
 * Win.monroe (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Win.monroe
 * All done; give it a shot. Per our consensus above,  is the parameter now. I'm glad to have been of help. Let me know if there are any problems! &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks a bunch, I am already updating them on the top 15 or so countries. Should I post a link on each page on which I add it to the template talk page, or just the first few?
 * Thanks for all of the help and advice. I think it looks great and is a useful and informative contribution. I hope others agree.
 * Win.monroe (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Win.monroe


 * I don't think you need to worry about linking people to the template talk. If they're concerned about the use of the statistic, they should be able to find the template themselves. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam
Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I hope I can use the tools to help the project.Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:ENSCO, Inc.
Hi! See Talk:ENSCO, Inc. Long story short:
 * No townships in Virginia. ENSCO only resides in a county and in a CDP.
 * Wikipedia does not use "local understandings" the basis of Annandale, Virginia; the article is about the CDP, period.
 * What the feds mean is that the locals may perceive a community as being in one place even though the feds define it as being in another. It doesn't mean that the feds made an error in crafting the map, nor does it mean that Wikipedia is going to use the local understanding over that of the feds.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see it, and have replied. I don't agree with your points in this case, and I think you're missing some of what I've said previously. To put it shortly, a CDP has zero legal bearing. Local understanding, as codified by local government, defines town borders. Mentioning the CDP is needless trivia as it has no important bearing on the subject. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Warner Bros logo.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:Warner Bros logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Restored; this is the official logo, while the replacement was a high-rez screenshot from a DVD of a stylized logo on sky background. Warner's logo, as seen in this file is the current official logo for Warner Bros. Entertainment. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:4EverHilaryDuf.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:4EverHilaryDuf.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed... &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 06:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)