User talk:Steve carlson/Archive 2

Attachment Theory
Hi Steve. Have you given up or are you just on holiday? This separate article thing needs a bit of thought. It would be interesting to have a bit more history and comparisons with say Erikson or the 'cupboard love' theories and so on. I was also thinking, if we have the separate articles for Attachment theory and attachment measures, the controversial and unvalidated measures could go in the AM article along with the good stuff. At the moment they're floating around in the attachment therapy, reactive attachment disorder and attachment disorder articles. Fainites barley 09:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Haven't given up, just got busy. Wiki is something I do to procrastinate, so when I'm not Wiki-ing it's usually a good thing! I think your suggestion above is right on. I do think that reactive attachment disorder needs its own article since it is an official DSM-IV diagnosis, and the attachment disorder article looks like it is in pretty good shape, so we should keep it too, but we should try to move whatever content on measures that is in either of those articles to the attachment measures page. Steve carlson 06:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Wiki is the ultimate way of avoiding real life! Glad you like the attachment disorder article. Like the RAD article and AT article its been rewritten at some speed after the sock gang got banned but they all need more work. I thought they could have a brief overview of diagnosis issues then with a link and the full details in the Attachment measures article. Otherwise you end up with the same material in 3 different articles. Controversial methods of diagnosis are very much part of the whole attachment therapy controversy though.Fainites barley 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice tidy up on RAD. The issue of treatment is a vexed one. What's currently being proposed is that the Child psychotherapy article be expanded to cover treatments for attachment disorders, both mainstream and controversial, rather than repeating mainstream/controversial treatments in each article. There's quite a bit more about treatments and diagnosis in the attachment therapy article. Fainites barley 15:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week
WikiProject Pharmacology is currently organizing a new Collaboration of the Week program, designed to bring drug and medication related articles up to featured status. We're currently soliciting nominations and/or voting on nominations for the first WP:RxCOTW, to begin on September 5, 2007. Please stop by the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week page to participate! Thanks! Dr. Cash 17:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week
Aspirin has been selected as this week's Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week! Please help us bring this article up to featured standards during the week. The goal is to nominate this at WP:FAC on September 10, 2007.

Also, please visitWP:RxCOTW to support other articles for the next COTW. Articles that have been nominated thus far include Doxorubicin, Paracetamol (in the lead with 4 support votes so far), Muscle relaxant, Ethanol, and Bufotenin.

In other news:


 * Bupropion has been promoted to featured status on August 31, 2007.


 * The WikiProject Pharmacology main page has been updated and overhauled, to make it easier to find things, as well as to highlight other goals and announcements for the project.


 * Garrondo is asking for individuals to help review Therapies for multiple sclerosis, as he is considering nominating this article for GA status.


 * Fvasconcellos notes that discussion is ongoing regarding the current wording of MEDMOS on including dosage information in drug articles. All input is welcome.

Dr. Cash 00:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability tag
Hi!

Per your message on my talk page: I deliberately do not remove the notability tag while the deletion process is running, but only after the the article has actually been sorted (i.e. deleted, merged, or it notability been established). This prevent the article from accidentally "falling of the to do list" if e.g. somebody contests the proposed deletion. Please don't remove the tag before that. See also #6 here. --B. Wolterding 11:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Notability tag
Thanks for the "heads up"' on my talk page. This is embarrassing. (What does the tag look like?). Please direct me to an article where one is in place. I also noted in the correspondence from B. Wolterding above that there may be some differences of opinion on this matter. Maybe you can "put me in the loop" if there are changes. I have been working on the Nov/Dec articles lacking importance fairly regularly but seldom add my name to participants lists. It is a good project. Cheers! --Stormbay 17:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

9/16 Vandalism
Hi. :) I got your note on my talk page. I agree with you that it seems likely that this individual has a personal investment. He or she has currently been blocked for the behavior, and the problem may be resolved. If it isn't, or if others become involved, we can continue cleaning inappropriate changes to the page, warn the editors for violating policy with escalating blocks if necessary and consider page protection if the problem becomes persistent. Frankly, I'll be surprised if the article is around that much longer. I would have nominated it for AFD based on non-notability myself if I had not been the one to strip it of so much information. Even though I removed the information according to BLP policy, it still feels disingenuous to nominate it immediately after. And don't worry about bringing me in. :) I man the BLP noticeboard on a voluntary basis, and retaliatory vandalism is nothing new. My page has been vandalized two, maybe three times already since he made his visit. Some editors put up "vandalism" counters on their pages as a kind of badge of honor. I don't go that far, but it doesn't distress me. --Moonriddengirl 02:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update
Here's a brief update in some of the recent developments of WikiProject Pharmacology!


 * Aspirin has just completed its two week run as the first Collaboration of the Week! Many thanks to those editors that contributed; the article got a lot of good work accomplished, and in particular, much work was done in fixing up the history section. It's still not quite "done" yet (is a wikipedia article really ever done?), but after two weeks I think it's more important to push onwards with the development of the new collaboration of the week program. I will be fixing up Aspirin in the next few days and possibly nominating it for either GA or FA status.


 * Muscle relaxant has been selected as the new Collaboration of the week until October 2, 2007! This article is currently rated as a "stub", so it's got quite a bit of work cut out for collaborators! Admittedly, featured status could be a long way off,... but still attainable! At the least, maybe we could at least get it up to meeting the Good article criteria? Please stop by the article and help improve it.


 * Resveratrol, having recently achieved GA status on August 16, 2007, is now making a run for featured status. This is quite a fascinating compound. If you can, please stop by its discussion page and leave comments in support of it.


 * Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing or dispensing medical advice amongst users. Specifically, talk pages of articles should only be used to discuss improving the actual article in question. To help alleviate this situation, the template talkheader may be added to the top of talk pages, reminding users of the purpose of such pages. Additionally, unsigned comments and comments by anonymous users that are inappropriate may be removed from talk pages without being considered vandalism.


 * There was an interesting article on ZDNet last week about Hewlett Packard licensing its patented microneedle technology used in common inkjet printers to be used in transdermal patches to deliver a time-controlled release of drugs to patients. This information could be added to articles such as route of administration or drug delivery.

You are receiving this message because you are listed as one of the participants of WikiProject Pharmacology.

Dr. Cash 04:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I am unfamiliar with a way to send you a message on here, so I hope using this is ok. I was wondering if you think I should remove those entries that I have placed on the Edward DeVries website? The reason I posted them under the Discussion section was because I knew the information did not belong on the main page, but at the same time I wanted anyone, especially Churches that might come in contact with this man to know what was really going on. If they breach any kind of protocol and should be removed please let me know and I would be willing to delete them myself, provided I can figure out how to do that. :) One last note on the matter, various Church authorities as well as the local law enforcement agencies have become involved in this matter due to some things this man has recently done in the state of Colorado, so it is a fairly serious matter, which is why I was so concerned in the first place. Feel free to delete this as soon as you read it, because like I said It is the only way I could find to send you a personal message.  Txconservative1 22:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)txconservative1  thanks for your patience

I totally understand about not using wikipedia for those types of interactions, and I apologize for any trouble I may have brought your way during any of this. That bit from the Colorado Baptist Association is true though, and I will see what I can do about getting them to put it online incase you want to check it out for yourself. I hesitated on using the director's name and placing his contact information online without his permission which is why much of that appeared to be unsourced information. The last thing I want to do is bring retaliatory measures against those I am trying to help by giving out who they are to the wrong people. So as far as I am concerned I personally am done writing about the man online, I am letting the authorities handle this one since it has moved in that direction. If you did want to contact Colorado for yourself you could speak directly with someone who could inform you about their concerns on this matter. I however am unaffiliated with them, but here is their address none the less. www.coloradoba.org  But thanks again for your patience and help with my attempts at using wikipedia  Txconservative1 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)txconservative1

Vandalization
I'm sorry. I think it was my little brother's work. Hope it was taken care of. Casimiri 08:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Steve, you might need to look into this potential meatpuppet situation further for possible WP:SSP report. -- Jreferee   T / C  16:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Regarding the article Patrick Elwood, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "It is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because anchoring on a major Fox affiliate is an assertion of notability. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:PROD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Pease stop you speedy delete tagging
I have denied several of you speedy delete request and I no doubt will spend the next hour having to deny more of your speedy delete requests. Speedy delete is not a way for you to clean up articles tagged with Notability, Unreferenced, etc. You are creating non-work for other and taking away their time from legitimate work on the Encyclopedia. Please stop your speedy delete work. Try participating at AfD and DRV more to get more experience with Wikipedia's policies first before requesting more speedy delete of articles. Also, you can help by going over the articles you tagged for speedy deletion and consider removing the speedy delete tags. Thanks. -- Jreferee   T / C  14:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some advise - In posting speedy delete tags, the first thing to go for is CSD G12 Blatant copyright infringement. If you see a resume or other text that looks like it was copied from somewhere else, take a sentence from the article and post it into Google. If you come up with a match, tag the article as CSD G12. I deleted one of your CSD A7 request under CSD G12 after this google search. Where CSD G12 applies, usually CSD G11 applies. Sometimes you get the trifecta: CSD G12, CSD G11, CSD A7 - the more reasons you can list for speedy deletion, the more likely the deletion will be upheld at WP:DRV. Many of the older articles could have been handled with a PROD - where deletion occurs after five day of no response to the PROD. I replaced several of your speedy delets with my standard prod post: "The topic may not meet the general notability guidelines and the article may be deleted if not edited to include reliable source material. To meet the general notability guidelines, please add material from reliable sources that are independent of XXXXX. Removal of this PROD notice without making the requested improvements may make it more likely that this article will be deleted at Articles for deletion." XXXXX usually is the name of the article. For articles with a talk page, they are likely older articles and may have been listed for deletion previously. A few of your speedy delete request survived AfD. If they survived AfD, speedy delete is more difficult because it requires an opinion about the article and a clear position that the AfD was misinterpreted. Before requesting speedy delete of articles with a talk page, look over the article history to see of there were prior AfDs, prior PRODs, prior speedy delete requests, etc. If one editor posted a deletion-type request and another editor denied that request, that should be taken into account before posting a speedy delete request. Most speedy delete requests come from New pages patrol. I did see that you took a few to AfD, so you do seem to be trying to make good decisions. -- Jreferee   T / C  15:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Per your comment on my talk page, I figured that you were relatively new to speedy delete tagging. Feel free to start again a little slower, using the actions by the speedy delete admin to get feed back on the articles you tag. Within a few days, you'll be up to speed. -- Jreferee   T / C  16:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Peter Lehmann
Just as an example of your irresponsible use of speedy delete - I'd already done a fairly detailed explanation some months ago of why the Wine Project would possibly regard an article on Peter Lehmann the winery as potentially of Mid importance to us on Talk:Peter Lehmann - and had had a reply in agreement - yet you blunder in with the SD. OK - we've not got round to it yet, but then until relatively recently we still had Top stubs to kill, never mind High Stubs - we're getting there...... Please be more considerate in future, particularly when a debate on the WP:NOT of an article is already going on. FlagSteward 21:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update
Here are a few updates in the realm of WikiProject Pharmacology:


 * The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week has been changed to Collaboration of the Month, based on current participation levels. It is also more likely that articles collaborated on for one month are more likely to achieve featured quality than articles worked on for only a week or two.


 * The current Collaboration of the Month for November is Receptor antagonist. Please take a look at that article and contribute to it if you get a chance. Ideally, the article should adhere to the featured article criteria.


 * Therapies for multiple sclerosis is currently a featured article candidate. If you are familiar with the featured article criteria, please visit WP:FAC and review the article.


 * Anabolic steroid is the wikiproject's newest Featured Article, having been promoted on October 8, 2007.


 * Theobromine was delisted as a Good Article. The Peer review and GA reassessment discussions provide suggestions on improvement. Muscle relaxant was recently reviewed for Good Article status, but not promoted. Please see the full review full review here for details.

Dr. Cash 22:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)