User talk:The wub/archive08

Fair use debate regarding television screencaps
Currently, there is a debate on Talk:List of Lost episodes regarding whether or not use of a 1/30th stillframe visual excerpt next to a list of audiovisual works (such as List of Lost episodes or List of Family Guy episodes) is in accordance with WP:Fair use, and has even resulted in the protection of the page.

If you have any opinions regarding fair use on the List of Lost episodes page, please feel free to express them as I believe these two pages are sister projects.

Cws125 05:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ceiling cat
Can I request you unsalt this so I can make a worthwhile article stub out of it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Depression Category
Hello,

I see that the decision was to keep the Category:People diagnosed with clinical depression. My original proposal was not whether or not to keep it but to change the name. If the name remains the same, the problems I outlined still exist.

Regards,

Michael David 22:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting problem. I am inclined to agree with JeffW though, categories ought to have well defined inclusion criteria. The current category should be reserved for those who have been diagnosed, and supporting evidence should be presented. This would certainly conform to policies on verifiability and no original research. I'm not sure whether a broader category of people are widely thought to have suffered from depression would be a good idea or not. Perhaps it would be a good idea to seek input from members of WikiProject Psychology and WikiProject Psychopathology. the wub "?!"  07:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello,


 * I took your advice and looked at the participants of the Psychology & Psychotherapy Projects. None seemed focused enough.


 * My concerns with the Category are, basically, two-fold: 1) The disservice it does to the person being listed in a readily-available, online source that states they were “diagnosed” with a psychopathologic condition if they were, in fact, not so diagnosed. How would you feel if you were so listed? 2) I spoke with a lawyer regarding this and was told a person so listed could have grounds for a lawsuit.


 * If this is not resolved within Wikipedia I will do the following:


 * We have an E-mail network where I can send messages to thousands of practitioners, rehabilitation centers, and other professionals at one time. We use this to disseminate new information that’s come along in the work. I intend to use this network to alert the profession of the Wikipedia Category.


 * Regards,


 * Michael David 12:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it seems to me we are in agreement here. If it can't be verified that they have been diagnosed, and isn't referenced in the article, then they should not be in the current category. Feel free to go ahead and remove the category from any articles where references are not provided. the wub "?!"  15:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support on this issue. I enjoy contributing to and learning from Wikipedia. I have a wide variety of interests. But 40 years of work in Clinical Psychology has made me particularly protective of it - in particular, the patient’s right to privacy. Unfortunately we still live in a society and culture where a person with any hint of psychopathology is considered weak, and sometimes dealt with cruelly – even with fear. I do intend to visit the Category from time to time and check the bios of persons who have been included. I’m probably in for an argument to two. Thank you again.


 * Be healthy,


 * Michael David 18:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Help! with Tennessee Williams Article
Hello again,

I’m not sure who to go to with this, but perhaps you can offer some assistance. Believe it or not it involves the Depression Category! Specifically: The Article on Tennessee Williams was without citation as to his ‘depression’. I placed the ‘citation needed’ flag into the Article and removed the Category from the Article. Another editor then added a citation with a link. However, access to the information in this link requires a paid subscription. I noted this and reversed the edit stating that all sources must be freely available to all Wikipedia users. I now seem to be caught in an edit battle. If you have the time, would you please go to the history page of the Tennessee Williams article and then offer me some advice?

Thank you,
 * Michael David 22:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Current events redesign
Just wanted to say I absolutely love it! Such a change is long overdue. I have posted a notice on the bulletin board of the Community Portal to try and get more input. the wub "?!"  22:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. For some reason the message on the current events portal is sparking enough discussion. joturn e r 22:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for helping rename Category:Pederastic lovers, however in the process the intro text of the old category has been lost and the category now appears as a red link. Could you please fix this problem, I do not know how to. Thanks, Haiduc 01:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Found it, all is well. Haiduc 01:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

deletion
Hi Wub

why have you deleted my Muggle Protection Act stub article? yes, it's empty, apart from the stub tag - and, importantly, the categories - but isn't that what stubs are for?

OrangUtanUK 14:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Wub!

Thanks for the useful feedback. I thought it might be something like that. I've been trying to follow the "back end" pages of Wikipedia, but there's an awful lot of them. I thought there was a 7 day delete delay on Stub pages with a Context link? Never mind, I'll take your advice and include an Underconstruction template; and also make sure my stubs in future are a bit fuller.

Cheers! OrangUtanUK 16:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)