User talk:WLU/Archive 10

RFC on DR/N
I changed that to a simple straw poll as we don't mix the two venues. If you are in a DR/N it would not be appropriate to begin a formal RFC as that would mean we close the DR/N filing until the close of the RFC.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for letting me know. The multiple venues of discussion and resolution seemed to confuse rather than clarify.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can be. That is why we try to point to the best venue if DR/N does not achieve a resolution. But you are at least right that an RFC is the next logical course. Not a mediation or arbcom situation for sure (thank goodness) and too many involved editors for a third opinion. While there are the individual noticeboards, they are geared to specific subjects and situations which may not cover the overall problems that exist, which seem small in the overall scheme of things.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Jet lag edits
You reverted my edit of the jet lag page (my user name is: temperzee). My edit refers to a calculator that I created and use clinically to advise patients about how to counter this problem. I'm a physician (sleep medicine specialist) and my scientific references are listed on the calculator itself. Any explanation how to allow this calculator (which many find useful) to remain on the Jet Lag page is appreciated. Temperzee (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I will reply on that talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Drmies#neutrality
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Drmies. Senra (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gary Burghoff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stamp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

 * I'd have a happier new year if I wasn't suffering through a bout of H3N2 :(
 * But I'm very happy you're still an editor :)
 * So overall, it's shaping up to be a good year! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a flu shot, so I don't know what I had this year, but I've been sick for three weeks ... including fever, bronchitis, the works. I hope you feel better soon !  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it's a pretty terrible vaccine for a variety of reasons, which doesn't help achieve herd immunity since so many people think it's ineffective. Supposed to make actually catching it less severe, and I must say compared to what I've read about real influenza infection (rather than the colloquial definition) mine doesn't seem that bad.  You might have had H1N6 or something instead of one of the three strains in the shot.  Either way, it sucks and increases your chance of dying of a heart attack :(  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatdyamean ... having had it increases your chances for the rest of your life of heart attack? Ugh, I don't want to hear that ... I hope you are better soon !!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear - influenza does, not the vaccine. The Great Influenza was an excellent book I read on the subject overall, really quite terrifying.  Its description of people dying during the height of the epidemic is horrifying, as is its description of how they died.  Do you know sciencebasedmedicine.org?  I'm a big fan of the blog, they have an infectious disease doc who writes snarky commentary on various stuff, and has discussed the sequelae of influenza.  Stuff like "people die of pneumonia, not influenza" and how it thickens the blood for months after the fact (see here and here and here).  I think there's one that specifically addresses cardiac sequelae, but I couldn't find it on a quick skim.  Drugs are wearing off, so my attention is fading a bit, even as my sinuses throb.  Woe :(  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you two haven't been stimulating your innate immunities.[ ] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, there is so much wrong with that page. My head already hurt, now it hurts even more.  I think I'll go have 500ml of liquid suspension 200C homeopathic headache remedy, heated to 100C and infused with whatever madeup fake name they use for Mentha spicata.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, that was scary reading, WLU. But I found a line in that blog we can all use on article talk pages: "Don’t be asking me to do your grunt work. It’s called Pubmed. Use it." Oh, and now you clearly have a COI-- you may no longer edit flu or vaccine articles. Gosh, I hope you're better soon. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, gosh. I used gosh twice in that past.  Golly.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

COI tag
The COI tag should remain at hebephilia as long as someone directly involved in the controversy is removing opposing views from the article. I am trying to summarize the opposing views per consensus and in the critics' own words. Cantor removed three quotations and entirely remove a prominent critic from the article. That is completely unacceptable. Wikipedia isn't like how you and I used to operate on USENET. I am trying to work with you, not have an argument. Please do not remove tags until the matter is resolved. Jokestress (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made my comments on the matter on the talk page, please refer to my rationale there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hebephilia
Hiya WLU, how are you? I hope all is well. I am Literaturegeek on my new non-geek username, lol. I am contacting you as you have these cool skills of good policy and guideline based editing in controversial articles. I am wondering if you have the time or interest in dropping by the hebephilia article - it is controversial for a number of reasons. At least one psychologist there has admitted to having a COI - which is fine but worth noting. I tried to update the article after I read in a psychology web site that it had failed to make it into the DSM-V and the reasons that it was opposed but these edits keep getting reverted/deleted or opposed on the talk page. I may very well be wrong in my edits - sexology is not something I know a lot about - your opinion would be of value. If you are busy don't worry. Have a Happy New Year!-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  02:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems is that we don't have a wide range of sources to choose from as it is not heavily researched, so it can't be resolved by strict interpretations of WP:MEDRS or WP:RS in my view - a strict interpretation of WP:NPOV using the sources available is needed I feel. Your views are welcome. :)-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  02:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're the third or more person to change their name in the past couple months that I know of. It's like there's a new fashion and once again I'm missing out.
 * All is not well, H3N2 is kicking my ass despite my vaccination. It's quite the epidemic where I'm at, and I get to be a carrier, horray!
 * Looking over the talk and main pages, you're editing with editors I know and respect greatly. James Cantor, Legitimus, FiachraByrne and FormerIP are all solid, experienced and knowledgeable contributors (though some may not be as familiar with policies as they are with the scientific literature).  I'm not particularly interested in the page topic, making it less likely I'll dive in.  But I do see some low-hanging fruit, notably the number of sources not included on the page.  There's a list on the talk page, a couple in the EL section, and the page itself isn't over-long.  My advice on controversial pages is pretty much always the same - find the best sources and integrate them, and if there are controversies then do your best to explore both "for" and "against" arguments.  Skimming the article and history, there don't seem to be a lot of points missing and the controversy seems to be over a relatively small number of statements.  I'll give the page a parse and make some minor changes, but I can't promise I'll really sink my teeth into it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Grrr that sucks; I hope that you are feeling a bit better today and are on the mend. I am thinking of getting the flu vaccine - I got last years one. Do you think you were just unlucky or is this years vaccine a bad match? Oh that is good to know most of the editors there are well established. I think we will all make good progress together on the article. You are doing an excellent job as usual, especially for someone who is not very interested in the topic! You are pretty smart and seem to be able to master new things quickly!-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  19:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No idea, there'll probably be an analysis of what happened in pubmed in a couple months though. Above I recommended The Great Influenza by John Barry, and I'll do so again.  In addition to some very interesting history of medicine on the cusp of the transition from prescientific to scientific (and the epidemic of course) it spent a while talking about the virus itself.  Apparently when the immune system gets around to recognizing and wiping out the virus, it does such an effective job it essentially causes extinction of that particular strain (which is why the same strains appear at roughly 20-year intervals).  If a vaccine is well-matched within a specific season, it can terminate the specific strains vaccinated against, and do so to such a degree that the unvaccinated strains become dominant and the vaccine becomes a victim of its own success.  Good book.  It could be the vaccine was effective, but because it's not live virus it's not equivalent to a real infection which produces billions upon billions of viral particles with innumerable variations and accompanying antibodies.  So you can still get the 'flu, but it's not as severe.  There's so many variables, it's hard to know what happened.  All I know is I'm feeling better and this makes me happy.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I never thought of that - about the vaccines becoming victims of their own success and promoting new strains to become dominant. Makes sense from what is known about antibiotic resistant bacteria - same kind of thing. Apparently, I was reading that if you either get exposed to swine flu or receive the swine flu vaccine you get super-immunity to almost all variations of flu, including bird flu and the 1918 spanish flu. I can get you a couple of abstracts if you are interested in reading. So if you get the flu your body will defeat it much quicker. I believe you will have received the swine flu vaccine. What form of vaccination do you think is best? I know there is now a intra-nasal flu vaccine and then there are the live vaccines (but can't reproduce) and then there are ones where the flu is split into particles and dead flu I think - so confusing. Which is the best one to get?-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  02:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite the same thing as bacteria - that's evolution working at the bacterial level. This is the body work at one level to eliminate a strain, and old strains merely fill the void because they're moving into an "empty" biological niche. So says I, pedantic nit-picker.
 * I would be interested in seeing some abstracts, since I was under the impression that there was no single vaccine that could prevent all strains. Ever read the blog ERV by Abbie Smith?  A while back she had a post (which I can't find) that indicated the production of antibodies was essentially random, the same vaccine/infection produces different antibodies in everyone.  Some people are lucky enough to produce a specific antibody against a conserved part of the influenza virus, and as a result are immune to all strains.  However, this is person-dependent (and again, random) not vaccine-dependent, so there's no way to reproduce it yet.  From what I understand, 1918 was H1N1 (confirmed by viral cultures from bodies frozen in permafrost since then) which is why public health officials were panicked about a major resurgence.
 * As for which one is better, I'm really not sure. From what I understand, the nasal vaccine is whole-killed particles, so a more "comprehensive" immune response, I think it's more effective but I'm not sure.  Neither one is anywhere near so effective as really getting sick, but they're far superior in terms of risk since you have zero chance of dying of pneumonia.  In Canada where I live you can only get the killed virus/injection type, so I've never had the chance to try intra-nasal.  I've never looked into it in detail.  I think the advantage of the injection type is you can 'stretch' viral cultures further, which was an advantage in 2009 since the H1N1 strain they were using was not spreading very well.  Anyway, I doubt there's any super-response to H1N1, I got the vaccine in 2009, my wife got sick, and I've been vaccinated every year since, and all versions had H1N1 viral particles in them - but I still got sick this year.  So if there is such thing as "super immunity", I didn't get it :)  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I have not read Abbie Smith's blog - will give it a look. Here are the references., Do you not mean the nasal vaccine is live (but can't replicate)? I think when they say super-immunity that they don't mean you can't get sick but rather you will have some immunity against a wide range of flues so that lets say a really novel strain infecting humanity came out of bird flu you would still probably get sick while everyone else would be get extremely sick and many dying. It gives you an immune advantage but not total protection. Exposure to normal seasonal flu does not provoke the production of this wide range of flu antibodies ordinarily according to the sources. See what you think of those sources. :-)-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  03:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

She's entertaining, in addition to writing neat stuff about virology she also swears a lot and hates creationists. Here is her blog. I wasn't sure what the nasal vaccine was, but we've got a page on it - Live attenuated influenza vaccine. Do you know how they attenuate viruses? They pass it through multiple non-human hosts to reduce its lethality and infectivity in humans, but it's still living and able to replicate. It just does so more slowly in the human.

My thoughts about the sources are primarily, "wow, this is over my head" :) Still, what I could grasp was interesting.  I wonder if the H1N1 strain is unique in some way that makes it more infective and produces qualitatively different antibodies.  Meh, I'll probably never know.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that was how they made live vaccines for humans - fascinating! Yea, I think it is possibly because it is quite novel compared to normal seasonal flu so the body goes in panic mode and makes such a wide range of different antibodies to try and kill it and possibly also because swine flu 2009 was an unusual mix of several strains of flu.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  16:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're interested in some books on vaccines, in addition to John Barry's excellent The Great Influenza I highly recommend Vaccinated by Paul Offit about Maurice Hilleman and Vaccine by Arthur Allen. Allen is a journalist, but it's still very good (and thick!) and does not focus on one particular person but rather the whole topic. Offit's book has a step-by-step discussion of what Hilleman did to create the mumps vaccine, and why - which is very interesting since most of us don't see much beyond "the vaccine was cultivated in eggs" in the pubmed articles.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the book suggestions. :-) Will check them out.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  02:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Precious
  fringe topics

Thank you for quality contributions to fringe topics, making ritual abuse and "ill-conceived, unsubstantiated pseudoscience" known as such, for improving breast cancer awareness, for dispute resolution, and for the recognition of "contributions of high quality in both prose and sourcing", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why thank you :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

 * Most welcome :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Care to comment?
Hi WLU, you were very objective in your assessment of the situation at chiropractic during the recent RFC; I was hoping you would provide another objective assessment here. The controversy is over the addition of 'chiropactic is a health profession' to the lead, which was reverted. Any insight would be appreciated. Regards Puhlaa (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Jokestress at Talk:Hebephilia, taken to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Hey, WLU. I'm alerting you to this. Flyer22 (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Glad you liked it :)
 * I still have a lot more work to do :( WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request notification
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

being a heterosexual may systematically bias your viewpoint
"being a heterosexual may systematically bias your viewpoint" and therefore your edits should be considered suspect. Really? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody can edit from nowhere but that doesn't mean everyone's starting point is unproblematic. Being a transexual woman is less a problem than the fact that Andrea James has undertaken real life and on-wiki activities that significantly affected (choosing an extremely, essentially inaccurate word) the lives of several scholars.  While her COI as a transexual woman might mean care and scrutiny of her edits, her actions as an activist on and off wikipedia are the history and reason that a topic ban may be appropriate.
 * Actually, thank you for this point, it has forced me to rethink the issue and highlighted the real problems. Unfortunately I've removed the section so now I can't edit it, but I will point to this discussion if it comes up in the future.  Had I the ability to access the database directly, I probably would have phrased it as "being a transexual activist who has used intimidation and fear to silence scholarly debate and make a researcher's life miserable indicates that your viewpoint may be too biased to deal with a topic neutrally".  It's the actions that were the problem, not the person.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * When someone shoots a thief who is entering his home, who should be punished? The thief or the home owner who defended his house? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you make your point clearly and without analogy please? It will help me focus my understanding, comments and replies.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me say this. In my opinion, you are blaming the victim for lashing out to the abuser. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Who would you define as the victim and the abuser here?
 * Also, how is such an argument relevant to the neutral summary of reliable sources, the core content policies to determine page content? If you think James Cantor, or J. Michael Bailey saying things in the scholarly literature about transsexual people that Andrea James found personally hurtful is justification for the wikipedia community to allow Jokestress, I strongly question this and point to the following which seem to bear me out in a wikipedia context:


 * Wikipedia is not therapy
 * Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs
 * Wikipedia is not the place to advocate (the policy)
 * Again, Wikipedia is not the place to advocate (the essay)
 * My belief is that a good outcome of arbitration would be a mutual interaction ban and a topic ban (complete for Jokestress, and a formal limitation of James Cantor to talk pages with no edits to sexology articles).
 * Perhaps I am cold-hearted but I think the personal offence felt by Andrea James at J. Michael Bailey's book/James Cantor's articles/Ray Blanchard's theories is less important than ensuring the relevant scholarly and popular debate is faithfully reported on the wikipedia pages. This seems like one of the situations where nonfinancial COIs must be recognized as impacting the quality of the editing and debate on a page.  For instance, Jokestress's objections to my own edits seem rather spurious and based more on the fact that I happen to get along with James Cantor (or some other reason I'm not aware of) than any actual substance.  Rarely have my edits been criticized for improperly summarizing a source, and I have frequently integrated sources on the basis of her comments (which I've also done for James Cantor).  If she can't assume good faith after our few, civil and largely trivial interactions in which I've responded very reasonably to her comments, that seems to be quite a red flag for her ability to neutrally and calmly the pages.  Can you point to any edit I have made that gave her any reason to question my integrity or neutrality as an editor on these pages?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your amended description of Andrea above is a perfect example of why you are not neutral. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess that's up to the arbiters to decide, but it would be nice if you had something of substance to say either about my points above (specifically how policies support editing, not personal experience or affront) or could point to an edit I have made to an article or talk page that illustrates my problematic and biased editing. Worrying about Andrea James history of activism (which is closer to "an effort to ruin J. Michael Bailey's life) against people she disagrees with seems quite rational.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent addition to your statement
I have seen that you divhided your last addition to your statement. Although this may hide the content, it still breaches the 500-word limit. I'd recommend to remove it and add a diff linking to what you wrote. That way, everyone will be able to read your thoughts and you won't be above the word count.

From the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ  21  20:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do, thank you. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome WLU. Have a nice day. — ΛΧΣ  21  21:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Et vous aussi! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sexology arbitration case opened
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 22, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 03:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Psychology topics on Ted Bundy article
Looks like you are busy with a thorny issue already, but if you get a chance I'd appreciate it if you stopped by Ted Bundy to take a look at issues related to how the article discusses what mental illness he might have had. The talk page has a section on diagnosis, though it is already long and full of the typical long-winded pontificating, so here's a quick summary:


 * Some editors demand the article state that evidence exists supporting a diagnosis of DID and use quotes from people saying he was like a different person from the man they knew, etc. as evidence. That's WP:OR and also violates WP:NPOV because Wikipedia can't say outright that evidence exists for it when it's a controversial diagnosis in general and when in this case specifically it's highly dubious.


 * Only one source suggested Bundy might have had DID, and that was a defense witness trying to give some reason to support an insanity defense (since he had no other possible defense with all the evidence). I don't have a problem mentioning the DID theory as long as it is given in context that it was a defense witness (and name her, as she has a Wikipedia article). I also think the section should be short so as not to give WP:UNDUE weight to it.


 * Bundy is one of the most (if not *the* most) famous examples of a psychopathic killer, cited as such in hundreds of reliable sources. Some editors want to totally remove all mention of this (and are generally the same editors pushing for the DID part, go figure). Part of the confusion is that they seem to want to believe ASPD and psychopathy and sociopathy are all completely separate, and it doesn't help that the other articles on that topic here aren't written very well.


 * Editors are trying to ignore sources that are clearly reliable if those sources say something they personally disagree with through whatever wikilawyering and, generally, statements of what they personally think about topics, including one person claiming an unnamed friend is an expert who backs him up 100%, of course.

Anyway, if you and/or other editors that work with you regularly would care to stop by, I'd appreciate it. I'm trying to back off since I am getting outvoted, and I don't deal well with people aggressively calling me "misinformed" and so forth on topics I've been studying most of my adult life and totally twisting what policies say (one editor has tried to claim Robert D. Hare is a WP:FRINGE source, for example). DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm just not editing very much these days, and don't seem to have the time or energy to work on my usual set of pages - let alone a new set I know nothing about. Perhaps one of my talk page watchers would take you up on your request.  The only suggestion I might have would be noticeboards.  Sorry :(  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Fang Zhouzi
Hi WLU. I'm asking you since you have made major contributions to the article—could you help keep an eye on the changes to Fang Zhouzi? I have it on my watchlist, but I'm hesitant to revert additions for fear that I'm reading an intention to portray the subject in a negative light where there is none. With, it's generally what I find to be undue weight given to certain issues, and not really unsourced claims and such, which makes me doubly ambivalent about reverting.

Basically, if you think something is a BLP issue / given undue weight, etc., could you please raise it on the talk page? There's a good chance that I agree, and am just unwilling to raise it for fear of even more fruitless impasses at the article (since it receives little attention from others). If at least two Wikipedians find an addition inappropriate, that's a better indication that it is than my own suspicions alone. Thanks.

P.S. I'd also appreciate it if you could review the dispute about the section on his criticism of Christianity. I took it to BLPN for a second time, but no one seems to care... (Or do you think I should take it to 3O?) I find 林木森森's version to be in violation of the spirit of NPOV—if you think I'm wrong on that (even if you agree that my version is better), I'm willing to just drop it, but I really want the issue settled once and for all (or indeed, just for a while). wctaiwan (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

IP edits and Cantor's comments
Not sure if this requires input or correction but just wanted to make sure you were aware of it. Best, Fiachra. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ugh, things just got uglier.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, please don't feel obliged, but I'd be interested in your take on the following page move proposal: Alternative medicine FiachraByrne (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Double-ugh. Maybe.  I'll probably read it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Revert
That's weird. I've rolled my revert back. I was using a very old and very clunky desktop yesterday, and I must have mis-clicked when I was opening some tabs. Sorry for any confusion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Probation notification
I realize you're probably aware of this already, but procedurally I need a diff of the notification so I apologize for how rude this may seem. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. ''The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.'' -- v/r - TP 17:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm a firm believer in WP:TTR. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am going to retire from this article for a while, but was sorry that you removed the "date rape as exciting" bit. I did not add this, it was added by one of the gung-ho MRM folks and to me nicely summed up the movement.  Perhaps I errored by putting it so up front but I really believed that it belonged there.  Of course editors are probably better off checking their real beliefs at the door.  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That was grotesquely inappropriate. For one thing, I couldn't find it on google books (perhaps its there and I'm looking at the wrong edition).  For a second, Farrel was not speaking about the MRM, he was talking about his own youth.  It was an egregious example of a coatrack that was wholly irrelevant to the page and seemed to exist solely to make Farrel, and by association, the movement look bad.  While I may think the MRM editors, and the movement, are rather unpleasant sorts with little insight, that doesn't mean I will ever support the sort of irrelevant inclusion that COAT and NPOV exist to keep out.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Sexology Arbcom workshop closed on 14 March
Please stop commenting on the workshop page. Jokestress (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Old newspapers
Can you clarify the problem with referencing old newspapers to demonstrate old events? Also German Wikipedia was not being cited as a reference/source, I was just noting that a page exists about a German man on the German wikipedia, which does tend to happen sometimes since nations tend to know about and report about (in their own language) local individuals of note moreso than international sources.

Can you explain (and perhaps tag using templates) which 'primary source' issues you are taking with the information? Not as much history exists about the MRM, could you explain some superior examples such as what feminism uses to reference its older history? I would be glad to substitute superior alternatives, but I don't see the issue with using what we have for now. If some of this information is not yet suitable for the article could you please at least export it to the talk page for conversation and development rather than just erasing outright? Ranze (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This sort of thing should be discussed on the FRM talk page, please raise your concerns there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

MfD for You should not spread your fetish across Wikipedia
A now indeffed sock nominated WP:You should not spread your fetish across Wikipedia for deletion; see here. It looks like no one notified you—sorry I did not notice that earlier. Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Lawrence Pazder.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Lawrence Pazder.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology closed
An arbitration case regarding sexology has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia).
 * 2) User:Jokestress and User:James Cantor are banned from interacting with each other, commenting on and/or commenting about each other including their professional lives, works and on-wiki activities. This applies to all namespaces, but excludes dispute resolution that explicitly relates to both parties.
 * 3) User:Jokestress is indefinitely banned from the topic of human sexuality, including biographical articles.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 12:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Acupuncture and Biomedical Correlate
Review request for a review on the ACUPUNCTURE page, first paragraph. See the Talk page, "Physical correlates of acupoints" section and "Physical correlates of acupoints, Part Two." I am concerned that an ethnocentric bias on the part of editors has prevented a simple edit. The editors stand by some very shaky references and will not accept references from the most prestigious universities in the world, including those in China. At issue, the current article reads inaccurately, "Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological correlates for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians and acupuncture points," and yet I have sourced numerous peer reviewed studies from reputable sources showing MRI brain activity, hemodynamic and oxygen pressure correlates. Please review, I think you will find the hard science very interesting. Please let me know if this request is OK. TriumvirateProtean (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Your entire objection, from what I can tell of your actual edits (your talk page postings are quite long) seem to be based on Hong et al. 2012. This is a primary source, which according to WP:MEDRS are to be used with caution, if at all.  Given the actual study - a single measure of a small number of subjects, on a single acupuncture point on the wrist - there is no reason to claim vindication of all acupuncture points on all humans justifying all claims made about acupuncture's health effects.  I wouldn't even note this in the body unless there is considerable replication and extension.
 * Also, it would be extremely helpful if you changed your signature to match your editor name, as otherwise it is confusing and difficult to link your actual talk page postings with your mainspace edits. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback. I cited many other reputable sources, all were shot down. However, the sources in place are not very good if not inconsistent and don't even stack up to the array of references I have given from multitudes of sources, each with quotes and explanations. I am not trying to assert that all acupuncture points have been measured with correlates, but the current acupuncture says there are no correlates whatsoever, which is a misrepresentation based on papers and studies of small scale that are not peer reviewed or based on placebo controlled, randomized trials. I appreciate the effort.TriumvirateProtean (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * For the love of God, please change your signature block.
 * I've looked at your references and am unimpressed. When a real signal exists, science will, over time, converge on that signal and reduce the noise.  While it is possible there are specific effects for specific points, I don't believe there is a consensus yet regarding which points and which specifics.  Looking at Choi et al., from what I can tell the only source that can actually be used, it's at best suggestive.  Science has not yet converged on an answer.  If your sources were shot down, then you either need better sources or need to cite the policy-based reason you think the "shooting down" was not appropriate.  I frankly am uninterested in reading a massive wall of text - all I want to see are the references, which I will parse similar to my response here.  Based on this source, it is far too early to state that this is a slam-dunk and that acupuncture points exist.  Please focus your efforts on recent review articles, not primary sources, as that will produce the most fruitful discussions.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I too am unimpressed. Just because the brain reacts ("showing MRI brain activity, hemodynamic and oxygen pressure correlates") when a needle is poked into a point, claimed to be an acupuncture point, is no proof of anything special with that point. A needle poked at ANY locality nearby will also elicit measurable responses in the brain. Big deal. The ONLY thing being proven is what's obvious....brain cells are connected to body parts. Duh! There is still no evidence of predictable cures for any disease. There is still no evidence of a clear physiological or histological difference between acupuncture points and nearby points. No anatomy or histology textbook contains such information. Felix Mann, an extremely important and major figure in acupuncture, was correct: "The traditional acupuncture points are no more real than the black spots a drunkard sees in front of his eyes" and "The meridians of acupuncture are no more real than the meridians of geography." His views should not be suppressed from the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Question about BLP policy
Hi WLU. When editing a BLP, does the policy apply also to an organisation associated with the person? Or just the person himself/herself? I am looking at WP:BLPGROUPBLPGROUP which seems to suggest it does not apply, and only normal policies do. The article in particular is a BLP on Kalki Bhagavan, a religious guru. There are a number of reliable sources in relation to the activities of his organisation, but a very limited number of sources about the man himself. Cheers M Stone (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on BLP by any means, I actually avoid contributing to a lot of LP pages because of it (too complicated). My understanding of it is that BLP applies everywhere - talk pages, discussion boards, and certainly main pages.  BLPGROUP is more about corporations, which are considered persons through a bit of trickery - the standards for corporations are lower.  Individuals within the corporation however, are bound by BLP.  Basically, if you're saying something about a group - the standards for sources is a bit lower.  If you're saying someone about a person who happens to be a member of the group, your standards are higher and you must exert greater caution.  If the sources are primarily about the group Bhagavan leads, you can't say much about the man himself unless the sources specifically make a point that applies to him.  If there are few sources about Bhagavan, you might want to merge his page into his group's page.
 * Much wiser guidance can be found on the WP:BLPN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it may call for the creation of a separate page covering the group. M Stone (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HITLER listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect HITLER. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:HITLER redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 08:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Paul Loeb
Back in 2009 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Help request
I am new and I am not up to speed on editing yet. I saw this paragraph in an article you had worked on and it seemed...POV...not sure of the word to use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Kelley

"In the 1970s, Kelley looked forward to a fair and proper evaluation of his controversial metabolic diet methods, but he eventually became despondent and paranoid due to fierce opposition from the medical orthodoxy regarding his treatment plan. He wrote a book entitled "One Answer to Cancer," detailing his experiences as well as his methods. By the 1980s, his marriage had broken up, he had lost control of his once-thriving organization, his dental license had been revoked, and his mental and physical health had deteriorated.[2] Kelley died of a heart attack on January 30, 2005 in Arkansas City.

It sounds like a PR pamphlet or an apology from one of the faithful. Mostly the first sentence. Could you give me a little input here? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.136.183 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on the Satanic ritual abuse talk page
It's becoming clear that KrystalMan and Jimjilin are up to some pretty spurious editing behavior. If you lodge a complaint and need a third party I'm happy to add what I've seen just recently. For now...reverting. --Rhododendrites (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * KM's problematic contributions are right now too low and sporadic to really do anything. Be prepared for some wikistalking though.  Fortunately it appears to be separated by several months between spurious reverts and talk page nonsense.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Looked at DID per your WT:MED post, and I noticed "During the 1990s showed" was awkward. Best! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 11:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Missed you
I missed seeing you around this summer. I hope all's well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just very busy with other things, personal and professional :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was just about to drop in and state, or send you an email, that I hope all is going well with you. I've seen you back on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes you are missed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

DID
Just put DID on my watchlist. Hope to see you back here soon. Best. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Precious again
  fringe topics

Thank you for quality contributions to fringe topics, making ritual abuse and "ill-conceived, unsubstantiated pseudoscience" known as such, for improving breast cancer awareness, for dispute resolution, and for the recognition of "contributions of high quality in both prose and sourcing", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 356th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The Courage to Heal
Hi WLU. If you can find the time, please monitor developments at The Courage to Heal. I think some of the recent edits that have been made there are dubious, but I haven't had the time recently to take a close look. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked over the most recent set of changes and aside from some template cleanup and quote fiddling that I might take care of, I don't see any major issues. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You might want to take a second look. MorningGlory3 seems intent on altering the article to portray The Courage to Heal in a more favorable light. You will note that that account seems rather fixated on that article, and hasn't made edits elsewhere. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was pretty terrible. Changes subsequent to November 15th were much worse, strip-mining anything from the 1990s before the sea-change in the opinions about repressed memories.  I've had at it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 07:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Incidentally, I'm in the middle of a dispute with a user over another article: The Dialectic of Sex. If you happen to have any interest, perhaps you could comment and provide a fresh perspective? Note that this is not canvassing: I don't expect you to necessarily agree with me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no time or interest. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine. Please continue monitoring The Courage to Heal, however, as there is ongoing disruption from MorningGlory3 at that page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You have been nominated for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!
You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. Thank you again for all you do! --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! A gift from fellow Wikipedians.
You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on 3/4/2014. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

CFS treatment page
If you have time, could you take a quick look at the dispute on the Chronic fatigue syndrome treatment page? --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Requests for comment/Bittergrey
Requests for comment/Bittergrey, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bittergrey and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Requests for comment/Bittergrey during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

something you were involved with previously has resurfaced FYI
Janet Reno. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  02:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm the editor who brought it up once more. I'm on freenode #wikipedia-en, nick Egnt if you'd like to discuss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.125.115.111 (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll discuss it on the talk page, thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=617079066 your edit] to Devlin MacGregor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * analysis, merely a list of unrelated examples of fiction that happen to use the same company name or perhaps not even the same company since apparently "the spelling may vary".  Wikipedia is [[WP:

Clarification motion
A case (Sexology) in which you were involved has been modified by which changed the wording  of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
  fringe topics

Thank you for quality contributions to fringe topics, making ritual abuse and "ill-conceived, unsubstantiated pseudoscience" known as such, for improving breast cancer awareness, for dispute resolution, and for the recognition of "contributions of high quality in both prose and sourcing", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Two years ago, you were the 356th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Memories of Ice.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Memories of Ice.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Midnight Tides.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Midnight Tides.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Night of Knives.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Night of Knives.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Invisalign
I was wondering if you might have time to provide input on a discussion here regarding an article where I have a disclosed COI. CorporateM (Talk) 06:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Notable list
Template:Notable list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Mail notice
Trhermes (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"Dissociative Identity Disorder" and recent non-disorder multiplicity articles
Check this out: http://www.vice.com/read/when-multiple-personalities-are-not-a-disorder-400 Note that we (Astraea) were interviewed in it, so I can't be the one to include it in the article if it is inclusion-worthy. I see this as folklore and therefore probably fringe, but thought I'd get your take on it. Also, artist Jim Bunkelman, whose wife was multiple and okay with it, is about to tell his story on NPR's Snap Judgment. He'll probably say the same things he said here: http://multiplicity101.com/?p=13 (note that this is a podcast by multiples and can't be cited under any circumstances). I think we're getting closer to a mainstream take on living multiple, but are not quite there yet. --Bluejay Young (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support the extensive use of it as part of the page, it's not a particularly reliable source, it's a popular interest magazine. It's possible to use it for a brief statement about how some people with multiple personalities see themselves (and some of the terms used), but no more than a couple sentences (neurodiversity might be somewhat comparable as a reference point, but that issue is more developed).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Simulacra and Simulation .jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Simulacra and Simulation .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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Creationists by Ronald Numbers.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:The Creationists by Ronald Numbers.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SANDWICH listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect SANDWICH. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:SANDWICH redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. McGeddon (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will comment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Past life regression page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=727378836 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F727378836%7CPast life regression%5D%5D Ask for help])

MS article
You rather hastily reverted an edit I made. I was just trying to make the distinction that the well-established geographical epidemiology of MS (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_sclerosis#Geography ) may or may not have anything to do with Vitamin D levels. You misinterpreted my edit as a claim that Vitamin D levels are related to MS and I was trying to make clear that that is not established. I was still in the middle of editing the section to make that clearer.Tetsuo (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are mistaking me for Alexbrn. My edit was regarding vitamin D toxicity, not geography . WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please leave the conversation intact on my talk page. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hell Minus One cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Hell Minus One cover.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Civilization one cover.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:Civilization one cover.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi
Please see Talk:Michael A. Aquino where I have been compiling research notes. Thanks, MW131tester (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)