User talk:WLU/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Malazan Category

Hey WLU, I got a bit ahead of myself and created a "Malazan" category for all the articles related to those books, but now I'm starting to regret it. I'm not exactly sure that "Malazan" was the right name for the category. Are the works by Esslemont considered to be part of the "Malazan Book of the Fallen"? If so, the name of the category should probably be "Malazan Book of the Fallen" instead of just "Malazan." I'm also thinking a sub-category of "Malazan Book of the Fallen books" would be in order, like the ASOIAF category has, but since I'm no expert on the series, I think I've already overreached myself. -Captain Crawdad 05:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I can by no means claim to be an expert on the subject, and I'm not really sure I understand what you did, but as far as I understand it looks like it makes sense. Night of Knives definitely concerns the Malazan category, so that seems fine. Malazan seems like a good overall category, but I'm thinking your inclination to re-name it MBotF might be best, that's the most comprehensive category and makes the most sense. However, my NoK signed copy (my girlfriend rules) has as a sub-title 'A novel of Malaz'. I'd say leave it for a while, request input from other contributors, but if you were going to change it, I'd definitely lean towards MBotF. It's not like it's cast in stone. Unfortunately since so few contributors add to the Malazan stuff, it's hard to do something really comprehensive. Have you read the books? They really are quite good (except Bonehunters, found that one a bit disappointing). Whaddya think about the changes to Cat's Claw?

Well, if you don't know what categories are, look at the bottom of any of the Malazan articles (at least, all those I found) and you'll see a link at the very bottom reading "Malazan". If you click on that, it will bring you to the category page, which will have links for all the Malazan articles (that I found). If you make any more Malazan articles, just stick the link Category:Malazan in double-brackets at the bottom of the page to include them in the category. Hopefully all this will help people find all the Malazan articles and contribute to them. Personally I only read Gardens of the Moon and enjoyed it, but not enough to motivate me to continue through the series.
Cat's Claw is looking very nice. Well-worded and referenced. -Captain Crawdad 21:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eccentric and concentric contraction

For anyone who's wondering and watching, I merged eccentric and concentric contraction into the article on muscle contraction - makes sense to have it there rather than explaining all the aspects of muscle contraction separately on three different pages. I welcome thoughts.

WLU 17:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2x fibers

That's very interesting. Despite my young age, I've been studying for years in the health field and have taken a personal trainer course from the American Council on Exercise (ACE). Even ACE refers to muscle fiber types in 3 categories: Type 1, Type 2A, and Type 2B. I'm not at all saying you are incorrect! I've caught ACE citing old, outdted information on at least 2 occasions before. This may be another occasion. I'm simply looking for clarification. So humans may actually have: Type 1, Type 2A, and Type 2X fibers? Is that correct? I also know that muscle fibers are often characterized by their features (Type 1 red and small, Type 2 big and white etcetera) but from what I understand, it is not actually the characteristics that determines what fiber Type a muscle fiber is. The determinent is based on the structure of the myosin heavy chains which is genetically determined. Do you know if that is that correct? I've actually been working on making my very own health book for over 3 years and I want all my information to be accurate. So I'd really appreciate if you could clarify this for me! :-) Jamesters 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Churg-Strauss

I'm completely mystified why you have decided to lowercase the "s" in every occurrence of Churg-Strauss syndrome on the Wiki. To be sure, eponymous diseases are always spelled with a capital (such as Rendu-Osler-Weber syndrome). I'm reverting back the changes; I hope you don't mind I'll be using admin rollback to speed up this process. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I wasn't sure which one to use (both Churg-Strauss and Churg-strauss existed as separate entries), I happened to pick the wrong one when I integrated the two articles and put in a redirect. I think I kept Cs when I should have kept CS, and put the redirect on the Cs page instead. Please go ahead with the changes, naturally I'd prefer that the information on the Cs page be kept and moved to the CS page rather than simply reverting both pages - I spent a good half-hour integrating the information and making sure there wasn't an overlap. Right now both spellings/capitalizations exists, I just wanted to make sure all the redirects headed towards the proper one instead of funneling to a second redirect. WLU 21:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ekova

  • The article was speedily deleted under convention A7 (see the criteria for speedy deletion). This was because the article failed to assert the notability of the group. Speedy deletion allows admins to delete on sight without further debate, which is why you couldn't find one. For future reference, you can look at the WikiLog to see when and where and why important actions (such as deletion) were performed. Because Ekova was speedily deleted, you can recreate the article at your leisure; the new version should assert notability via the band criteria, or it will likely be removed again. Hopefully that answers your questions, if you have more, do message me. =] ♠PMC♠ 22:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organ Hypertrophy

Sounds okay to add a section in the main article, perhaps "examples of hypertrophys" would be an appropiate section in the Organ Hypertropy article. That way more examples can be added. Links are good to illustrate further in detail the examples. Lord Metroid 18:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Dentritic Cells

Hi! I was not aware that you had already deleted a similar link already. In fact, I didn't know there was a redirect page with "Follicular dendritic cell" as a title. All I wanted to do was to create a "dry" link pointing to a non-existing page, as a hint for someone to create a page with that title. Sorry if I stepped on your foot! -- Hugo Dufort 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lupus

I'd be glad to. Thanks for the invite. --Waterspyder 19:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's looking pretty good. My main issue is that many former contributors treat Lupus like it is a single-faceted illness. Case and point: My particular manifestation is mild, I take plaquenil with no side effects, and twice I've had to take a short course of steroids due to a bizarre systemic reaction to living resulting in a rash and temporary blindness. My close friend of the same age has lupus, takes bloodthinners and steroids, and has undergone dialysis, chemotherapy and heart surgery to correct or alleviate effects of the lupus on his body. Do these even sound like the same disease? If you're up for some more writing I would love to see some elements from http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec04/ch032/ch032g.html# integrated into the article, especially the bits on classifying the disease and "mild or remittant" or "severe". Maybe I'll take another peek at it when I have time this weekend. --Waterspyder 20:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Understood. I was pretty tapped out myself at one point and I left something in the discussion about drug-induced lupus, and it's really neat to see how far the article has come. --Waterspyder 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bone

Good work on the article, WLU! I'm going to delve into it a bit further. Sorry, in advance, if I step on any toes by re-doing edits of yours. I'm approachable if you see any problems. Figma 17:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think where we're getting hung up is on the distinction between bone-the-connective-tissue and bones-the-organs in the intro paragraph. In other words, "bone" is not an organ, but "bones" are. Am I making sense here? Maybe we need to highlight this distinction.

Also, thanks for your feedback re: the numbered lists. I think I'll switch them to bulleted. Figma 21:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree, the article should be about bones, the organs. We can move all of the stuff about bone (as opposed to "a bone" or "bones") to osseous tissue and create a better disambiguation header to reflect that. Maybe move this discussion to Talk: Bone? Figma 02:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I feel silly.... should have looked at Talk: Bone earlier! They were having this same discussion at the end of September! Check it out. Figma 15:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk

I mostly edit for clarity, grammar and good referencing, I'm a new wikipedian, so I'm still learning.

WLU 13:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SBI/SLE/SUV?

Sounds like a bad television show. Seriously, I have had enough - I tried months ago and should have quit while I was ahead.

What I have ascertained from the studies I've read (and yes there are some that show an increase in connective tissue disease), is that none of the studies consider the long term effects of silicone gel in the body. It has been documented in peer-reviewed studies that silicone does migrate when implants are ruptured. There are no studies documenting the rate of rupture after 10 years, in newer implants (what Oliver calls 3rd and 4th generation), and none on older implants. There are none on the older implants because those implants are not sold anymore, and the manufacturers fund the studies, and funded them for the purpose of obtaining FDA approval on the newer implants. I will note one thing I caught in the article on implants. A statement was made that the rupture rate was 5-8% at 10 years. The authors (of the cited study cited) actually concluded "the rate of rupture increases significantly with age" and "a minimum of 15% rupture can be expected between 3 and 10 years." Another study showed a lower rupture rate (8%) but that excluded implants that had been removed for any reason (including rupture) and that study admitted that its results therefore likely underestimated the rate of rupture. None of the studies showing higher rupture rates were included because they were deemed flawed by the Wiki editor writing this.

As to SLE -- I would never take cats claw or the like for SLE, because I have seen no studies that suggest it is effective, and the risks of not mediating my illness are too great to chance it. Unfortunately, there are scant peer-reviewed studies on any of these alternative drugs that I know of. The problem with pharmaceutical research is that manufacturers have no financial interest in funding studies on remedies or potential remedies they cannot patent. To complicate matters, increasingly the "peers" who review the studies also have a financial interest in the results. This is true of all medical research, and it is an admitted problem. For decades, for example, the only available "research" on cigarettes was published by the Tobacco Research Institute, funded and controlled by cigarette companies. For a fascinating history of this issue, see Cornered: Big Tobacco at the Bar of Justice. It took 50 years or more to finally expose tobacco "research" as bogus, and it was finally exposed by those dreaded tort lawyers. I will not deny that dedicated doctors did not have a part in exposing this, as well. Not many doctors had a financial interest in tobacco - unlike say, many pharmaceuticals, medical implants and even clinics (which was another exposed conflict-of-interest).

In the US, anyway, the threat of liability is one deterrent to publishing bogus (or incomplete) studies. Just yesterday, a cholesteral drug was pulled by the manufacturer before it came out of clinical trials and was approved by the FDA. That mfg only had to look at Merck and the recent lawsuits on Vioxx (which was FDA approved) for its motivation to pull the drug. However, there is some precedent now in the US that once drugs are approved by the FDA, an injured consumer is barred from suing. The theory is that the manufacturer relied to its possible detriment on the FDA approval. That also becomes a problem when the FDA does not demand adequate assurance, as it arguably has not done in a number of cases. (The FDA has, in fact, come under highly publicized attack for this.) Unfortunately, research is expensive. The only alternative is government/taxpayer funded research, and that is not likely to happen. Therefore, we are stuck with what is available. But some research is better than no research. That does not negate the problem.

Going back to implants... for years and years there was no published research. Implants were not regulated by any agency, and when the FDA finally began "regulating" medical devices, it grandfathered in these implants. Additionally, plastic surgeons continued to change the design, for various reasons ..to make them more 'natural' in appearance (thus making the shell thinner and rupture more likely), to reduce capsular contracture (using polyurethane or double lumen) etc. For that reason, even when implant manufacturers were required to "study" them, there was no consistent follow-up.

Women now have had implants for 20, 30, 40 years and the likelihood that they are ruptured is very high. These women often do not have the resources to have reoperations, insurance usually does not cover it, and there are plastic surgeons who refuse to remove implants unless the woman agrees to reimplant (yes, it is true). These women who do become ill are told that their illness cannot possibly be caused by implants - that was true even in the adjunct studies, when surgeons were required by the FDA to report such complaints. These women are considered "anecdotes" or are dismissed as crazy, "conspiracy theorists" and the like. Now that the US FDA has approved implants for women 22 years old and older, and plastic surgeons claim that they are the most "studied device in the world" the manufacturers are faced with virutally zero threat of liability.

As you probably know, lupus is only a shorthand for any one of several types of lupus such as SLE, discoid lupus, etc. Contrary to what one "doctor" implied on the Clin-Med website, this was not a vague "oh i feel bad it must be an immune problem" by the "uneducated", for whom he admitted such antipathy. I have been diagnosed with SLE (systemic) on the basis of many clinical symptoms, and consistently abnormal lab tests which included ANA as well as specific antibodies for lupus, urine tests (testing for possible kidney involvement) etc. I also was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis based on clinical symptoms such as ataxia, numbness, vertigo and also objective tests (all of which were abnormal) such as MRI of the brain, MRI of the cervical spine and a spinal tap.

So you can see that I was one of those anecdotes. I was not called "crazy" or a "conspiracy theorist" when I became sick. My internist had known me for 10 years, and I never bothered to tell her I had 20 year old implants. I never registered for the class action, or thought about the implants because I was swayed by the reports that the women who sued were probably greedy, hysterical or worse. Besides, I was in graduate school then and my internist had a hard enough time getting me to go see her, let alone a specialist. That changed when I became so sick I could no longer function. Within 6 months, I was diagnosed with mulitple autoimmune diseases - including multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus, autoimmune thyroid disease.

It was a friend (an MD) who suggested finally I have a breast MRI (which showed rupture). By the time I had my implants removed, I carried an epipen because I had woke up with hives and went into anaphylactic shock. Putting the pieces together after-the-fact, I realize that the implants propably ruptured with a mammogram five years before. The FDA states that mammograms can cause rupture, and I had only had one mammogram. Additionally, my first symptoms (itchy rashes which no dermatologist could figure out) began almost immediately thereafter. I learned to live with those rashes, after spraying Raid everywhere to kill what I thought may be small insects stinging me, and trying every cream and prescription known to man (that probably is an exaggeration, but I tried many). Those rashes that I had for 5 years went away after I had my implants (and the scar tissue around them) removed. Completely. Could it be psychogenic? Sure. Anything can be labeled as pschogenic if you take it to the extreme - and this would be taking it to an extreme, especially since i never befor had considered the implants might be a problem.

Since surgery, my blood tests returned to normal, and have remained normal. I discontinued interferon for MS, because for me the risks outweighed the benefit. However, my rheumatologist insists that I will need to take immune-mediating drugs for the rest of my life. I do wonder if some women may be more susceptible to an environmental trigger like migrating silicone. And if that is the case, would the lupus be reversible as is drug-induced lupus? I do not know. The problem is that we will never know, because nobody cares enough to research it, and there is no money in it.


BACK to the SLE article---- I don't care if the SLE stays as it is. The statement is true, as far as it goes. I care more about the breast implant article, but have given up on it, since one plastic surgeon has argued for omitting relevant information. A few of the examples include the following:

  1. Omission of the FDA recommendation that women with silicone implants have MRIs 3 years after imlantation, and every 2 years thereafter to screen for rupture (which is asymptomatic). He argues that it is not a worldwide standard. It is true that MRIs are expensive (~ $1500 a pop), and probably will not be covered by insurance. MRIs are the most accurate tool (86%) we have to detect rupture. Additionally, mammograms can and do cause rupture. However, most plastic surgeons still tell women to continue having mammograms, regardless of the age of their implants. Of course, the older the implants, the more likely they will rupture. This is the case, despite the fact that there are no long term studies of the effects of rupture, for any style of implant. And it is obvious from this surgeons comments, that most surgeons will not tell women to get MRIs as the FDA recommends.
  2. Inclusion of one specific study to quote a low rupture rate at 10 years -- this despite the fact that the authors of that study admitted the rate is likely an underestimate, because women who removed their implants (for whatever reason) were excluded from the study. And the author's statement is deemed too much 'detil' to include. Every other peer-reviewed study suggests a much higher rupture rate. The next study with the lowest rupture rate states "a minimum of 15% at 10 years." But in the article, it is now stated as 8-15% at 10 years. Thankfully, the surgeon did change it to 8-15% after I pointed out that the 5-8% he originally wrote was simply a misquote of the study he cited.
  3. The omission of the FDA condition that women be 22 years old or older to have augmentation with silicone implants (reconstruction is approved). That isn't necessary in the article because surgeons can choose to ignore it, as an "off label" use.

So, this is what is happening. Since a medical doctor is considered more credible than an epidemiologist (who has argued for changes), an internist, another plastic surgeon, or a mere woman who had implants, the BI article will remain as it is, and is even locked this way. Anyone who has disagrees is called "political", a "single purpose editor" (with the implication of deceit) , "uneducated" or worse. Not one doctor who "reviewed" the BI article caught the actual misquotes. And the slanting of the article by omissions or selective choices is accepted since it is not obvious without further investigation, and generally supports established wisdom.

When I was younger, I trusted doctors because they were doctors. As I grew older, I learned how foolish that was, and so I "trusted but verified". After what I have seen in the last couple of years and most recently on Wikipedia, I no longer trust at all. I have seen the very worst of combinations -- arrogance and a closed mind. It is chilling.Jance 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same. One more thing about all this. In fact, there are many doctors who are concerned about the long-term effects of rupture, especially the rheumatologists. Why? They have seen many women who have had ruptures, have also seen their health improve after removal, and know there are no long-term studies on rupture or its effects. However, they would be ridiculed if they stated so publicly. Why? Because of the lawsuits in the 90s, and because there is a grain of truth about both the lawsuits and the complaint that some (many) women complain that their general aches and pains are immune problems without a shred of evidence to document it (to quote JFW). There are women who assume any health problem they have is implant-related. And in fact, one category of the "disease settlement" that awards the lowest amount supports this - realistically, any woman over 50 who complains about aches and pains could qualify. It is astonishing, but that was the settlement that the manufacturers and lawyers agreed to. There are hundreds of thousands of women in the settlement, and so there are also many who don't have immune dysfunction. And many who claim that their osteoarthritis, skin cancer, headaches, general muscle aches, irritable bowel etc etc are implant-related. It's really hurt. Jance 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I will get you some links, after my dentist's app't. I suspect you should not include them, or you will incur the wrath of Oliver. There is not a breast implant he doesn't like. There is a long history there. The FDA recently approved silicone implants, which was unfortunate, given the lack of long-term studies. There is a huge body of short-term studies, on which they relied. Oliver admitted there are no studies on earlier styles/types of implants (he said it is difficult to make sense of them; truth is they don't exist)

I assume you are in grad school in math or some such related field. The unfotunate thing about the anti-medicine is the anti-statistical support of any of it. There are problems with medical research, as you know, but what is the alternative? We don't know much about what is helpful or harmful about the alternative remedies, most of which are based on 'anecdotal' reports (from thousands of years..lol). Anyway, I have to go - late. I"ll dig something up for you later. By the way, I like math, too - that was my undergrad (math & elec engineering). Jance 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks WLU. I will do so - I just got back from the dentist and have a swollen and sore mouth. So if I don't get to it today, I will get you something soon. Someone you might find interesting is Dr. diana zuckerman. You seem to have similar interests as she. She has been trying to help with the BI article, but it has been a struggle. She is also a delightful person.Jance 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC) My undergrad is, as I said, math & EE. I had some grad work in EE, but then got a law degree. That was before I became so very sick. Now that my health has improved, I am working part time as an attorney.Jance 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This danged thing is case-sensitive. Try Diana Zuckerman. She is both an 'external' person and a Wiki editor. She has edited the BI article, but is new to using Wikipedia (as am I, for that matter). You can see her background in the article.

[edit] Diana

I don't have any problems with what you edited. Diana did not first write the article on herself - in fact, she didn't want an article. The editor who did start it quoted almost verbatim what the plastic surgeon I so dislike here has said. It was insulting. Diana changed it, understandably. I surely welcome any improvements, and I can't imagine Diana would not as well. She is even newer than I am to Wikipedia, so be a little gentle. And thank you for the input. I will also get you some links tomorrow. I have a hearing to prepare for, but I will make some time. Jance 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zatch Bell!

  • For some reason, you reverted to a version of the page with mistakes, inappropriate fansites and deleted categories. Your revert has been reverted. Regards, Danny Lilithborne 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] well welcomed

As for the EL deletions, oh drat. (RSI and Tendonitis) In time, I hope to understand how the other ELs on the pages stayed and my lovely, informative links dissolved, but till then, drat. (slow but steady learner here)

As for the welcome, oh joy! (sincere tone on that!) I feel thoroughly welcomed and instructed and amused (I *did* just read your User page, WLU :D ), and I wish I had a bunch of time. I turn to Wikipedia for so many things, and I've suffered on the brink of repetitive strain injury, and I have had to learn a few things that I ... must find the time to write up a bit on these pages. (Time, there's the rub.)

This is my thank you note. I am delighted to ... almost ... be contributing to Wikipedia.

--a.r.dobbs 15:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Muscle

Thanks for the sarcomere image for the Muscle contraction article. Any images and improvements are greatly appreciated! The article is really improving.GetAgrippa 18:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that is a great idea to compare shortening velocities of various muscle preps. If you have a table or some info that would be great.GetAgrippa 22:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar Award

The Original Barnstar
for your tireless and excellent contribution to Resistance training, Weight training, and Strength training. Feel free to add this to your user page. --Maniwar (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! I always wondered how people got these! WLU 03:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autism and Boys

I wanted to say "Thanks" for being so kind, about my first entry into the world of Wikipedia - and imformative. I hope you'll keep on keeping on, Lizziemac

[edit] Merger of Strength Training, Weight Training, Resistance Training

Thanks for clarifying to everyone that the work is done so that they stop voting! :) I went ahead and took it another step and archived all merger discussion from all three pages, so people will really have to go out of their way to screw it up. --Robb0995 07:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bone/Protuberance link

What's so wrong with the protuberance link on the 'Bone' article..? Electron9 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Just a note to let you know, your talk page, or one of your talk pages (I'm confused on the whole matter) shows up on Category:Bibliographies by author as a result of a straw poll of some sort. Thought you'd be interested. WLU 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Took me a minute to understand why! I rewrote the Robert A. Heinlein bibliography page as a draft proposal in User talk:Jim Douglas/Robert A. Heinlein bibliography, and added a note about it on Talk:Robert A. Heinlein. For various reasons, I haven't gotten around to moving it over yet. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Could I remove the category links from the page then? That'd clear up my most immediate concern on the category page itself WLU 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if it's a concern, go ahead. I'll sort it out when I get around to replacing the existing article. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An embarrassing oversight

I can't believe that I forgot to add you to my list. Rest assured that I'm going to fix that. It seemed that you had dropped off the radar but maybe we've just been moving in different wiki circles. No barnstar needed of course, wink, wink, nudge, nudge. NeoFreak 22:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help me!

I'd like to place the Ray of Sunshine award on someone's user page, from the PUA Barnstar page. 4th row, 3rd column. Help me! WLU

  • There is no official template for the award but you can place it on someone's user page by implementing the following coding ;) :

[[Image:Rayofsunshine.jpg|thumb|100px|Insert whatever text you want here]]

Hope this helps!¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Almonds

From dsduani: WLU, I am new at this and wonder if this is the right place to respond to your edits. Let me know if this is not the case. In your recent edit on almonds you stated that almond is often substituted for vanilla by diabetics. Both almond and vanilla extract have about the same amount of sugar and calories so I'm not sure if this is useful information. Diabetics may substitute one for the other but I don't think it has any effect on their diabetes or diabetic diet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dsduani (talk • contribs).

I'm replying on your talk page. WLU 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My smile for the week

I just wanted say "thank you" for the barnshine. I keep meaning to say so but everytime I log in I see something that irks me and then off I go. I'm kind of a flake like that. I noticed your ArbCom deal, good luck with that. I hope a happy solution could be found for all parties involved, even if you and I are often on the same page when it comes to all of that. Cheers. NeoFreak 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emboldening

(moved from user page WLU) Just thought I'd give you a chill by answering over here. Regarding the use of bold/italics, I can't quote you the official rule, but in the "real world", titles for long works are either italicized or underlined, and as far as I've seen on wikipedia the same holds true here. Bold is only used for the subject of the article in the first sentence and generally for emphasis. -Captain Crawdad 18:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about the user page thing. Total brainfart. -Captain Crawdad 19:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images need removed

Please remove these images from your user page as they are in violation with WP:FAIR#Policy, number 9, since no fair use images can be used on user pages. Thanks.

Thunderbrand 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Squeaky here

Hi, thanks for the note you left me regarding my article on Bridget Taylor. A few points if I may. I'm new to this so I'm not really good at. I don't think you hate me and I see how much obviously better the article is with your edits. So I'm actually grateful. You are really good at this, I'm not but I'd like to learn. So seeing the changes that you made to my original, I can't help but agree they improved the article, every one of them. So no complaints here.You have my thanks. Just to clear up a couple of kind of misconceptions. I really had no agenda. I don't know Bridget Taylor, I wasn't promoting her in the sense of I think she needs to be promoted. If I was promoting her it's more because I have become a huge user of wikipedia myself. It's become the first place I go to research any subject, person, place or thing. Given that, I totally respect the fact you are such a great editor. As a user of the information provided here, I also hope that the subject matter is comprehensive, fact filled, current, and factual. So again, I am not offended by the need for editing; rather I welcome it. Getting back to my agenda. I became aware of Bridget Taylor through a child with autism and did some research on her background. I found that she is widely considered to be the leading expert practicing the use of ABA therapy and that she is truly a tireless advocate for autistic children and adults. My sole agenda honestly was not to promote her but to have her listed in wikipedia. When the parents of child get the dreaded diagnosis of autism, they tend to search for everything and anything in their power to help their child. I've learned in my research that Taylor 's work and practice are of the utmost importance, especially to the parents of very young children first diagnosed. The Alpine Learning Group is arguably (but not many would argue the point) the best placement for an autistic child in the country. So given what I had learned from my research I just thought it was very important to growing segment of the population that Taylor just be listed in wikipedia. Honestly, I'm without agenda. In fact, I'm not a "fan" of ABA therapy. It is, however, the only scientific method proven to help autisic children learn. Which is a valuable thing. A parent can use dietary supplements, adjunct therapies, etc. which I totally support. In the meantime while waiting to see the results, there is a small window of opportunity when a child's brain is still pliable and they are at their peak learning age. That window goes from maybe 3-6 years old. So, to me, it seems very important to use what we have available (ABA therapy) so that child, all autistic children make the strides they are able to make in learning, enabled by ABA therapy. So there you have it. My agenda: to add to the information available to those interested in a person who has made large contributions to the education of children with autism. Oh yeah, I wasn't sockpuppeting I just forgot to sign in. I'll get better at this I promise. Wikipedia is a very important resource to me and if I can help in some small ways to contribute to it, I must. I see how angry people get when they get edited but seriously I stand with you on every edit you made to the Bridget Taylor article. You know Ernest Hemingway said "the first draft of anything is shit." I think he understood about writing. And of course, it's true. So my article was a first draft really and you are a great editor. I'm in your debt. Squeaky2 07:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Races of the Malazan...

Hi,

Noticed your edit of Races of the Malazan Book of the Fallen, I've just got a question about Midnight Tides - when did the K'Chain Che'Malle show up? I don't recall a specific discussion of them, the only vaguely K'CC'M thing I can remember is the skeleton of Scabandari Bloodeye (sp). What part of the book was it in?

Thanks,

WLU 23:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, at the time of the edit it seemed to make sense, but when I think about it now, maybe not? I was thinking of the K'Chain fossils which Trull and some of the other Sengars stumble upon, and my brain was thinking "maybe fossils count if undead count". Now it's kinda going "ok, maybe not". Sorry :( . Sometimes I change stuff, and later (now) I realize it's stupid.
But I think I also brushed up the writing slightly in that section, so my edit(s) weren't entirely without purpose, even if the fossil stuff doesn't make sense.
Another thing. Did they appear in House of Chains? I know that L'oric saw one, or more, of their skykeeps in the weird spooky deragoth-infested past of the seven cities, but I can't remember if he saw any get killed or anything.--Mr Bucket 23:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Wow, my first barnshine! Thankee kindly. -Captain Crawdad 20:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Wow, my

[edit] Thank you!

Thank you for the great information you gave to me! --Justintime516 00:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have thought your "advice" through!

[edit] Re: Night hag

Why did you recently change this redirect? The change made the tag at the top of Night terror incorrect, and I was trying to decide whether to move the tag to Night hag (Dungeons & Dragons) or revert the redirect. --N Shar 03:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Your changes to Jessica Lee Rose have been reverted. As was already specifically mentioned on that page, only freely-licensed images may be used to depict living people. Please reread WP:FU. Thanks! --Yamla 23:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD notice

I noticed that you edited the Wizard's First Rule page a while back; as such, you may wish to know that the page has been nominated for deletion MPoint

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/l/u/User_talk%7EWLU_Archive_1_57be.html"