User talk:Taroaldo/Archive 1

Wentworth Miller
Why do you keep removing his Cherokee, Russian, and Jewish ancestries? The New Yorker, in an interview with him, clearly a reliable source, mentions Russian on his mother's side and also says that his paternal great-grandmother was Jewish. Mixed Media watch also has a direct quote from him, one in which he also mentions Cherokee ancestry. Mad Jack 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for going to talk. If you check my second revision, you can see I was in the process of adding Cherokee back in (the FedEx guy interrupted me in the middle of my first rev. and I missed it by accident).  When I looked at your first edit comment, I saw that my initial change from yesterday cut a bit too much, so I shortened the quoted part to include all of the ancestry in an easier to read sentence.  I thought this would meet with your approval, especially since you're the one who removed all of the ethnicity categories.  I think you said something like:  "I can't be the only one who thinks having more ethnicity categories than regular categories is excessive?"  The main reason I put in a direct quote is because some people kept changing back and forth between "English" and "Irish" and I wanted to resolve that because it was kinda silly.
 * In the mixedmediawatch article Miller says "I say I'm of mixed race, and if they ask for specifics, I rattle off the details: My mother is Russian, French, Syrian, Lebanese and Dutch; my father is African-American, Jamaican, English, German and part Cherokee." I think my last edit includes ALL of the ethnicities that are stated in Miller's own words. Cheers.--- Taroaldo 17:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi MJ. I just saw your final revision.  Looks good.  --- Taroaldo 17:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the confusion. Everything seems to have worked out now, cheers. Mad Jack 17:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, no problem. Two reasonable people can work anything out. We're cool.[[Image:Shade.png|16px]]    --- Taroaldo 17:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I did it after your report
I blocked the IP for a year at 22:37 UTC and then put that message on the talk page. Check the Block Log. Academic Challenger 23:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

CFS Comment
Taro.... I did not think what I added would be controverial, most everyone seems to agree that stress is a big trigger and increases symptoms, it appears pretty obvious to me that the recommended/studied things that seem to improve symptoms are stress relievers. Would like to leave it in and see if there are any that strongly disagree with it. Just because there may be disagreement does not seem to be enough reason to not include it. Thank you for listening to my thoughts...sno2 Sno2 07:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(My response):
Hi, I'm not sure if you reviewed recent discussion in the CFS talk page regarding 'stress' (I think a lot of it was under the Protection section), but this is an area where there is wide disagreement. A few notions:
 * the term stress is poorly defined (or at least there are significant differences in how individuals define it for themselves) leading to misunderstandings
 * strong value judgements are often associated with the word stress (this is not our fault, but it still needs to be a consideration)
 * CFS sufferers have been marginalized or ridiculed for decades, so it is understandable for them to be concerned with statements which appear not to take the illness seriously (I am not saying this was your intent -- in fact I am sure it was not your intent -- but nonetheless broad statements alluding to recovery simply by reducing/avoiding stress are inflammatory)
 * none of your comments are referenced, yet in the field of CFS research they remain controversial
 * GET is a controversial therapy, and while some studies have shown in has limited effectiveness, other research and patient reporting have shown that it can cause significant harm in some CFS patients. Using words like "especially effective" when describing GET could be seen as POV as there is no mainstream evidence supporting such a glowing claim
 * monitored exercise, meditation, tai chi, etc. are beneficial, I'm sure, but not simply because they are "calming". What this says to a CFS patient is "relax and chill out and you'll get better".  This is not the message CFS patients need to hear.  This also appears to be POV: I am not aware of any studies showing that existing in a calming environment is enough to alleviate symptoms

Another voice is certainly welcome in the CFS debate. There is a lot of contentious material in this page, and unfortunately there is little agreement (in large part because the disease still so poorly understood by the scientific community).

Certainly if you want to put the material back in, I will not revert it again, but I hope you will keep in mind some of my comments here.

This is an interesting subject and if you wish to talk further, either on my Talk page or on the CFS talk page, I will look forward to hearing from you. Cheers. --- Taroaldo 08:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Integrated reply as posted (Sno2 commentary bolded):
Hi, I'm not sure if you reviewed recent discussion in the CFS talk page regarding 'stress' (I think a lot of it was under the Protection section), but this is an area where there is wide disagreement. A few notions:

I have reviewed the discussion and I thought there was some agreement, the only thing new that I think I added was the idea that those things that seemed to help were things known to reduce stress...which kind of makes logical sense...if stress makes things worse then reducing it might make things some better.
 * the term stress is poorly defined (or at least there are significant differences in how individuals define it for themselves) leading to misunderstandings

I can see that but what other word is there...??


 * strong value judgements are often associated with the word stress (this is not our fault, but it still needs to be a consideration)
 * CFS sufferers have been marginalized or ridiculed for decades, so it is understandable for them to be concerned with statements which appear not to take the illness seriously (I am not saying this was your intent -- in fact I am sure it was not your intent -- but nonetheless broad statements alluding to recovery simply by reducing/avoiding stress are inflammatory)

'''I do not understand how my comment could be interpeted to be not taking the disease seriously. Especially in the context of the whole page.'''


 * none of your comments are referenced, yet in the field of CFS research they remain controversial

'''Referencing them would be repeating references throughout the page. Will see if anyone has disagreements with my comments and will then see if I can find specific references, an example would be that light exercise leads to reduced stress in disabled.'''


 * GET is a controversial therapy, and while some studies have shown in has limited effectiveness, other research and patient reporting have shown that it can cause significant harm in some CFS patients. Using words like "especially effective" when describing GET could be seen as POV as there is no mainstream evidence supporting such a glowing claim

It appears pretty obvious to me that if your mustles are deteriourating as mine are ...then any increase in your capability to do things you might wish to do would lead to stress reduction....anyway will save this explanation for those who might disagree.


 * monitored exercise, meditation, tai chi, etc. are beneficial, I'm sure, but not simply because they are "calming". What this says to a CFS patient is "relax and chill out and you'll get better".  This is not the message CFS patients need to hear.  This also appears to be POV: I am not aware of any studies showing that existing in a calming environment is enough to alleviate symptoms

'''POV...??...definition. Somewhere down toward the bottom of the page these things are mentioned as helping some people. I do not state that living in calming enviroment will alleviate symptoms. You are reading into what I wrote.......however my experience has been the only way for me to stay out of hosp is to live like hermit, in as close to zero stress enviroment both mental and physical as I am able...I am lucky enough to be financially able to do that.'''

You may have noticed in my comment that I have used a bunch of wishy washy words....may, some, could etc. since I do not see how anyone can make a definite statement about this disease.

Another voice is certainly welcome in the CFS debate. There is a lot of contentious material in this page, and unfortunately there is little agreement (in large part because the disease still so poorly understood by the scientific community).

Certainly if you want to put the material back in, I will not revert it again, but I hope you will keep in mind some of my comments here.

This is an interesting subject and if you wish to talk further, either on my Talk page or on the CFS talk page, I will look forward to hearing from you. Cheers. --- Taroaldo 08:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

'''Thanks for the welcome....have learned a lot since I ran across the page, from the page. Do not know if I will have much to add, as am not a researcher just one who has had to live with this thing.'''

bye for now....have fun......sno Sno2 09:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Question about History pages
Hi. No, the history cannot be changed, but you can log in and edit the signature of the IP address if you want to make it clear in the comment that it was you. At the same time you can leave an edit summary describing what happened. That's about all that can be done.  Leebo  T / C  19:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks - that's what I thought, but just wanted to doublecheck that there weren't any special admin options in this regard. --- Taroaldo 19:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's possible for administrators to remove edits from the history, by deleting the page and restoring all the other edits, but it's not really used for that purpose.  Leebo  T / C  19:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome!
Thanks for the note. NawlinWiki 17:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. I guess. :p vid 19:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

CFS edit war
It was actually you who broke the 3RR rule by doing 3 identical reverts in 24 hours. I reverted 2 of your reverts, and the 3rd time added more info that I thought would satisfy you.

In addition, you gave invalid reasons for the reverts (saying it was outdated info, which it isn't). It is one of the major proposed etiologies for CFS (and the one that has the most evidence behind it), which makes me think it is suspiciously POV for you to remove it. --Sciencewatcher 20:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree for the following reasons:


 * Your first revert was inappropriate because you made an accusation of WP:NPOV. NPOV is irrelevant when removing potentially controversial information which has had a "citation request" tag on it for 5 months.  It was appropriate for me to remove such material.
 * When you reverted my edit again, the only problem you said you had was with the line I removed on depression being a common symptom of CFS.
 * So in good faith, I left the disputed material in the article and removed the material with the 5 month citation tag, which you did not indicate you had a problem with.
 * My reason is valid as "most" physicians do not believe that CFS is a psychosomatic illness. Try reviewing current literature.
 * You are in violation of WP:3RR. As it states: "If you seem to be the only person who feels that the article should be the way that you have made it, perhaps it is better the way everyone else thinks it should be." In fact, there does not appear to be support for your position.
 * Other editors have attempted to work with you and work on the disagreements in the Talk page, but you continue on in a one-track fashion. You made several potentially controversial edits recently which other editors have not reverted.  Other editors have been trying to accommodate your views.  However you remain stubbornly uncooperative and are unwilling even to change one small sentence which is completely unsupported. --- Taroaldo 20:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You reverted 2 edits, and there was only space in the edit summary to discuss the first. However both were actually disputed and you definitely broke the 3RR rule by reverting it 3 times. And the 3rd time I put in a citation. The NPOV accusation is valid as you removed something that does not agree with your POV. I am in the minority here because most of the editors on the article share your POV. That does not mean that you are right or that your POV should prevail. I have been highly reasonable here, it is you who is being unreasonable and bullying me by ganging up with other editors who share your POV. --Sciencewatcher 21:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am watching football right now and have already wasted a good portion of my afternoon on this. Thank you for your additional comments; I will respond as soon as possible, although it seems to be a futile exercise. --- Taroaldo 21:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Response, as promised: You have created a situation which is favourable only to you.  Everything functions well as long as you agree, but if a wide consensus develops which you do not agree with, then you claim that others are "bullying" you.  Based on this dynamic, a consensus of any kind could only occur if it agrees with your position.  What you claim as "editors ganging up" on you is in fact a response you bring about yourself by refusing to acknowledge the views of others, even when the consensus opposes your opinion. --- Taroaldo 05:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Your AIV report
Thank you for making a report at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Sandstein 05:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I respect your judgement on this matter. I will note that I made the AIV request after reverting significant vandalism that 24.71.235.29 did to another user page because that user had issued a final warning.  As I also reported, this user's contribs show that most edits have been vandalism. Thanks. --- Taroaldo 05:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yamamoto Single Tail Grubs
Gary Yamamoto Single Tail Grubs is back as Yamamoto Single Tail Grubs. - CobaltBlueTony 20:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. The user has several spam pages and they've received a final warning now, so they'll be blocked if it continues. Cheers. --- Taroaldo 20:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly erroneous A7
2005-2006 ECRHA Regional Championships. The speedy criteria are hard and don't stretch - please take more care with these. (This is becoming a matter of public concern and PR problems, so a few people are looking at all CSDs and particularly A7s lately.) Thanks! - David Gerard 16:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Clearly erroneous" in your opinion perhaps. The article was established without any context.  It was simply a few tables of results without even a clear indication of where they were or why it was notable. When the article was created, there wasn't even an explanation of what the "ECRHA" acronym means. The speedy criteria are hard for a reason.  Wikipedia is not a repository for miscellaneous information of any kind.  2005-2006 results of the Eastern Collegiate Roller Hockey Association would seem to qualify as pure trivia.  I see that some actual prose has been added to the article since the Tag was applied.  That's progress, but it still doesn't answer the question "why should this be included in Wikipedia?"  Cheers. --- Taroaldo 18:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate request
Hi,

Sorry for the confusion. As you can see I added my request one minute after you (possibly only seconds after you). You can also see the my post was quite long, thus it took me about 2-3 minutes to type it up.

Given the above, you can reasonably assume that when I started to post (by clicking the "edit" button) my request, yours wasn't there. I didn't meant to, at all, make duplicate reports. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.Bless sins 21:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's glad we've worked that out. :-) On a technical note: maybe posts are not sorted by time-stamps, but when the user started making them (by clicking the "edit" button). Perhaps you, or someone else could get that fixed.Bless sins 21:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa-West Nepean provincial ED
Dude, give me time to atleast finish the page before tagging it as no resources etc. --Petrovic-Njegos 21:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. The tag was put on to try to avoid having a CSD tag placed on it. CSD tags can go up less than a minute after a new page goes up.  Since the article shows some election stats, a quick source from the organization in charge of running Ontario elections could easily have been added. Adding relevant categories is also something that can be done at the outset. This was an effort to help the article rather than hurt it. Hope you understand. --- Taroaldo 22:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

another clearly erroneous A7
The article "Revisiting the purpose of life" is certain unsuitable for WP, but it is not about a un-notable person or business or club or web site, and those are the only types of articles where speedy for non-notability can be used. I changed it to a prod. Do not overuse speedy--it causes real problems for both the newbies, who do not understand why their articles get deleted, and for the admins, like me ad David Gerard, who have to clean up the problem. Read Wikipedia:Deletion Policy and WP:CSD - speedy is only for particular types of incontestable deletions under narrow criteria. We appreciate your patrolling, but please do it right. DGG (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * and please read WP:BITE. a newbie, who is probably simply inserting material from his or her school papers, is not a vandal but just someone unaware of our standards. with a proper explanation, that person may learn to become a useful contributor. Even if not, it helps to {{:WP:AGF]], not give final warnings for a first round of several incorrect pages where hshe or he did not yet have an opportunity to learn. DGG (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Tenun Pahang Diraja
Yet a third administrator --removed the speedy tag from this, and quite correctly so. Watch out. Please show that you have learned to follow the standards here. DGG (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Railroad stations
All railroad stations are considered notable at WP. Sounds silly, perhaps, but that's the practice here. so dont tag them as speedy, even if the article is only a stub.

now that these things have been pointed out to you, I expect that you will be tagging more appropriately. 20:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you have just archived a number of reminders about your over-use of speedy deletion criteria. I take this to be an expression of your having read them and understood them, so I and the other administrators who have been placing them can now expect you to do things in accordance with WP:CSD. DGG (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC). (Yep, I see it was a standard end-of-month-; that reminds me that now its time for me to do mine)DGG (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)