User talk:Crohnie/Archive Apr 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Signed on with son's computer

I didn't want anyone questioning the difference in IP addresses. I hope this is ok to do, it this is a problem please let me know. --Crohnie 19:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Crohnie, just a quick note to set your mind at rest. It's completely acceptable to sign in from different computers - in fact that's one of the benefits of registering an account. As a registered user you can make all your edits under a single identity, regardless of the computer you're using. Another benefit (if such things bother you) is that you actually gain a greater degree of anonymity by signing in, as your IP address is then only viewable by administrators with access to the checkuser tool, who would only be likely to use it in a very limited set of circumstances (see the link). Good luck with your editing; if you have any further questions, I'm among thousands of Wikipedians who will be happy to help - just leave a message on my talk page and I'll get back to you when I'm next online. All the best, --YFB ¿ 04:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I responded to you on your talk page, thank you for your comments. They helped. --Crohnie 22:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mentorship

In response to your question on my talk page, I think you do need a mentor. You have been offered an adoptor, and I suggest you contact them. Otherwise I am still here to help occasionally, but not as a formal mentor who knows the ropes better than I do. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 23:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


This user has been offered adoption by InvictaHOG
(If you wish adoption by another user click here)

Yes, he said he would adopt me but disappeared. I haven't heard from him in a long time and the last I saw he hadn't posted for awhile. I wrote on his talk page on Jan. 23 & 24 (I think those are the dates) but he never responded back to me. --Crohnie 23:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I can recommend User:Lethaniol. Fair, firm, and not partisan. That's the best kind. You don't need a "yes" man if you are in a conflict situation. You need someone who sees things from a different POV and can offer constructive advice. Make a request on the talk page. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 23:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't need a yes man, I just need someone with a lot of patience as you know. Do I do this on his talk page? --Crohnie 23:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I figured this out myself, thanks again for your help. --Crohnie 23:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption Request

Hi Crohnie,

Thank you for request for Adoption, but I afraid I will have to decline, for the only reason that I feel that I can only take on one Adoptee who is involved in controversial editing of the same articles. Now I am not saying you have made any controversial edits, but if you look at this current case ArbCom [1] you can see that the topics you have been editing fall into the controversies involved in this ArbCom.

Having said that there are plenty of other Adopters who may be able to help you see [2], and until you find another adopter, I am happy to answer any technical questions on how to edit Wikipedia - obviously I would prefer not to get involved in any questions about how to interpret policies or user conduct with respect to the controversial topics. So please ask any technical questions at my talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 14:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear you may leave, what I suggest you do instead is start editing on these controversial articles slowly e.g. on the articles themselves copy edit formatting, spelling and grammar, for bigger changes/additions suggest them at the talk page, and let others enact upon them initially. Cheers Lethaniol 14:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pyoderma

Hey Crohnie, no hurry, thanks for getting back to me. I sent that email. By the way, if you ever need any help with anything, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page, I'm always glad to help and am very patient :) I'd also be glad to formally adopt you if you like (which as I understand it amounts to the same thing--you ask me about anything you have questions about). I don't have experience with the getting permissions for copyrighted pictures, but as I understand it the copyright holder needs to email the foundation granting permission to use the pictures. Let me look into this and then I can guide you through the process.

With the decision about the pictures, I think the best would be to upload all the pictures and post them to the talk page so all editors can give input about which ones to use. I don't want to be the arbitrary authority or anything :) Anyway, thanks again. I'll get back to you when I've looked through the permissions thing. Peace, delldot talk 20:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I would love to have you as my mentor. If you have patience with someone with serious medical problems and a slow learning curve then I accept. If I am too much to handle let me know.
I got your email, thanks, what I did was forward it all to you ( the pictures and the email giving me permission from the personal owner who sent me the pictures.) The pictures are not copywriten, they are an email friend's personal pictures he took, this is so you are clear on this. I looked and tried to download and fill out that form and didn't understand it as of yet. As for putting the pictures on the talk page, they are very graphic so I would love your opinion about them. As for downloading them anywhere, I tried and couldn't do it. I tried for over thirty minutes before asking you to email me. I hope the pictures are ok to use because they really show what PG is. Thanks for your help. --Crohnie 21:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Good news. I've been chatting in the IRC channel and folks there agree that you don't have to go through the formal process of getting him to email the foundation, since the pictures have never been published. You can just upload it and assert that your friend (who does, I think, technically hold the copyright) gives permission for them to be released under the GFDL.
We do need to get him to email you another email giving express permission to release them under the GFDL, though, because in the email you forwarded me it wasn't clear that he understood that he was giving permission for them to be used by anyone for any reason, not just on Wikipeida. So he should say something like, "I own the copyright to the images mentioned in your email. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, no Back-Cover Texts, and subject to disclaimers found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL" And definitely let him know we won't use his name or any personal info. Once we have that email from him, I can guide you through the steps of uploading the images. Peace, delldot talk 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I just emailed him, will get the email to you as soon as I receive it. Thanks!--Crohnie 22:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem, just ask about anything you want to know. If you need me to go slower or anything, just ask, I'm very patient. Is there anything specifically you want to start working on?
Cool that you emailed your friend.
Also, I had an idea for the pictures. I was thinking that since they're graphic, we could put them in a special template with a "show" "hide" button like {{afc top}} so people could decide whether or not they wanted to look at them. But I discussed it on IRC and apparently its use is contentious. So I'll have to figure out from others what the problem is and if there's any way to address it. Anyway, what do you think? Peace, delldot talk 01:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I got the email last night so I'll send it to you. Right now I have been slowly working the sandbox with tutorials. Other than that I have been contributing to talk pages with my idea on articles like Clayton's college to help get balance and school information in it. This it the only article that I got told to be bold and to put my found info into the article, which I did and then two other editors just polished my imput. I have to admit it was fun. I have to work today so I'll be gone most of the day here soon. I work for my son who helps me get out and about and use my brain a bit. Actually I like it, I feel so much better usually doing something useful. I have hopes this site will give me the same feeling of usefullness.

As for the picture, when they were first available a lot of people wanted to have them emailed to them and they had no problems with them being too graphic. Then again, this is a different kind of site so the hide button might be a good idea with a little note or something warning it is graphic so that anyone going to look know it is graphic. I know the pictures are really graphic but they really should be in the article because this is what PG does to a crohn's patient. It's not pretty, but it is very painful. --Crohnie 12:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Yeah, the Crohn's pictures are pretty graphic. And I think there's no question that their use is justified; they can demonstrate aspects of the diseases that you just can't convey with words alone. And wikipedia is not censored. But I think it would be handy to have a hide button, since some folks may be sensitive about it (e.g. I saw a note on the Crohn's talk page saying that one person wanted them taken down). But I guess that's been tried and some folks didn't like it :(

About the email, I think you'll have to get him to send it again :( He has to explicitly state that he releases the pictures for use under the GFDL so that anyone can use and distribute them for any reason. You should ask him to cut and paste this wording: "I own the copyright to the images mentioned in your email. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, no Back-Cover Texts, and subject to disclaimers found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL" Sorry for the rigamarole, I hate to put him through the hassle. Good luck with everything, let me know if you have any questions or whatnot! Peace, delldot talk 16:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I sent him what you say above just now. I should hear from him soon. I also corrected your spelling of crohn's. I guess it's kind of a pet peeve of mine! :) Question: is it ok to put it towards the bottom of the article with a warning that the pictures are real graffic and then post the pictures below this warning? --Crohnie 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pix

No hurry about the pictures, I just feel bad to be badgering your friend. I agree that they will be really useful. Keep me updated! Peace, delldot talk 22:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologized to him too about feeling bad about asking for more of a release but he should be ok with it. He understands what we are trying to do and with your explaination he should have no problems with it. --Crohnie 22:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks again

Thank you! I think you're much more patient than I am. I'm disabled too and had to learn to appreciate what I had left in terms of memory, concentration and "up-time". As to learning to edit Wikipedia, I know from experience that it may be tedious at times and think you are doing a good job. AvB ÷ talk 23:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Sorry to hear about your friend! No fun. Hope he gets better soon. No hurry with the pictures. Let me know if you need anything. Peace, delldot talk 20:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Crohnie, thanks for your patience and open-mindedness at Talk:Stephen Barrett. Despite accusations that our discussions are going around in circles, I believe your willingness to compromise and/or change your mind shows that things are indeed moving forward; not round and round. I hope others can follow your meritorious lead. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, with being a new editor here I guess I'm just starting to see the differences in opinions and how strong they are. I personally don't care one way or the other since I think adding this little bit that I suggested is trivial information. I hope the others there can get past the quarrelling and figure out the proper way to get information in without breaking the rules of Wikipedia that is to guide all of us. I guess we'll have to wait and see how others respond to this idea. :) --Crohnie 16:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that your contributions are trivial. New editor or not, your suggestions are of tremendous value to us all. Thanks again. :) -- Levine2112 discuss 17:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] recovered from Shot info's talk page

Crohnie, I wrote the following response to you on User talk:Shot info, but that user chose to delete it. Please let me know what you think:

Perhaps we should bring these discussion back to Talk:Stephen Barrett. I would like to point out that Crohnie's suggestion inserts the fact wthout any weasel words whatsoever. It isn't criticism, though I can see how it can be used as criticism; regardless, it isn't criticism. It is a biographical fact with notability extending into several lawsuits and widely-read publications. I digress. This should be saved for the discussion page.

-- Levine2112 discuss 00:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I just transfered Shot-info's message to my talk page so that I can read the articles and and reread the guidelines he makes suggestions about. I didn't look at any of this like the way it's been presented so I want to do a little more research on it all. The rules are confusing and I guess I am slow! ;) I'll get back to you on this, but give me time because it takes me time to understand things. Thanks, --Crohnie 10:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but realize that the information about Barrett not being board certified isn't criticism. If it were, we would place it in the Criticism section. However, if we did that, that would constitute a violation of original research because we would be taking research and using it an original way (IOW, to criticize). Now then, if we had a good source that used Barrett's lack of credentials as criticism, then we could certainly add it to the Criticism section no problem. But all we have is Barrett himself telling Wikipedia that he isn't board certified, his lawyers writing about it in court filings, a number of lawsuits surrounding the topic and several widely read publications discussing it in a frank manner. My point here is that WP:WEIGHT bears no weight in the discussion of whether or not to add a sentence similar to the one which you proposed. If it did, please note that by my estimation our Criticisms section is currently only about one-tenth to one-ninth of the article space. This is a massive reduction from where it was last year when it was closer to one-fifth of the article. Regardless, the proposed information about Barrett's board certification is not criticism. If it were, then we would have to label the biographical section as the "Praise" section. (This is why I was trying to clarify with Shot info whether he thought it was criticism or not. Shot info was extremely reluctant to answer. I don't want to assume why, but I can postulate that it was because it blew hisWP:WEIGHT argument out of the water.) So far, there has been a lot of resistence to keep this information surpressed from the article. Everytime I show how the information does not violate a certain policy, I am either ignored or presented with a new policy. WP:WEIGHT is the latest attempt and as you can see it doesn't hold water. Anyhow, you have a lot to read and I commend you on furthering your knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Take your time and certainly feel free to ask any questions on my Talk page. I am by no means a Wiki-expert, but I am happy to share whatever I have learned about Wikipedia with you. Cheers! -- Levine2112 discuss 17:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"There has been a lot of resistence to keep this information surpressed from the article." This sounds like something directly from WP:TE#Characteristics_of_problem_editors. --Ronz 17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I hope to be able to read a few other articles and see what they sound and look like. Hopefully I will have a better understanding and will be able to discuss this all more intelligently and with better understanding than when I started. Thanks for all the help and understanding all of you, I really appreciate it.--Crohnie 20:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(This is why I was trying to clarify with Shot info whether he thought it was criticism or not. Shot info was extremely reluctant to answer. I don't want to assume why, but I can postulate that it was because it blew hisWP:WEIGHT argument out of the water.) You know Levine, I'm going to give up assuming good faith with you as you never seem to assume it with me. This behaviour of yours, trying to "force the issue" is unacceptable. As I pointed out to you, I answered your question, your problem is, I didn't give you the answer that you want. This is your problem, not mine especially given that you have a reluctance to accept any answer other than one that supports your own theories. It seems that the info Ilena posted about you was right after all... Shot info 22:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your comments to me about S.B.

First, thanks for the laugh, boy did you bring back memories with RTFM! :) Could you expand a bit more on your thoughts you had at Ronz's talk page? I didn't know if it was appropriate to respond to you there so I brought it to your talk page. But I would really like to hear more if you don't mind. Also, the compromising sentence that I suggested, do you think it still allows for a back door opening for the rest of the stuff, like failing the test, to get in? Was my suggestion inappropriate in your opinion? Have a good night, --Crohnie 23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot take credit for it, I'clast who has a liking for Linux used to use it a lot, and I didn't know what it meant until wikipedia came to the rescue when I typed into the search. But forging on, I personally have expressed the view that this particular point is just not notable. The easy test for notability is, how does it fit in to the article and have many weasel words and/or phrases and/or tricks of syntax are needed to "make it fit". With this example....lots, hence all the arguments about original research etc. The OR is needed to make it relevant, and to make it understandable, but without it, it makes no sense, it just doesn't "fit". Hence it is just not notable. But moving on from that, the point of the policies are to have some procedures in place to help us write an encyclopaedia, not just to be "right" or "factual". Hence if you look at other similar Biographies as Barrett's (James Randi was an example I used, but look at any others really) and you will see a glaring difference between Barrett and almost every other BLP in WP. Namely, Barrett's BLP is overly criticism heavy. Certain editors claim "well he attracts critics" but the question needs to be asked, does he attract more criticism that James Randi? And the answer is no. So why does Barrett's article concentrate on such unencyclopaedic content (the answer is WP:WEIGHT)? Simply put, Barrett's article, though full of "facts", it poorly written because it is just unencyclopaedic. Joseph Mercola is another BLP to review to see how Barret's article can be improved. Shot info 00:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shot_info"

I've been fishing for other information about the weight issue with no luck so far.
Because we're dealing with a BLP, it should be extremely hard for these types of problems to happen (as Martinphi recently pointed out). Read a couple of articles about the vilest people you can think of and notice how the criticisms are balanced. If you find anything remotely like Barrett being not certified, let me know, though I expect you won't.
On the talk page we've struggled with labeling the reasons why it should not be allowed. There are the BLP concerns, but those are really just filters that should prevent us from getting this far. Discussions of notability are misleading, because we're not talking about article notability (WP:N), but the notability and importance of specific information. It's best labeled as a WP:WEIGHT issue, but because we're dealing with information only rather than commentary, analysis, or opinion, it's useful to apply WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOR. Because this information is used by critics and is part of a long-running povpush, WP:NOT#SOAP also applies. --Ronz 16:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ronz, I am getting a clearer picture now of all of this. I really appreciate the patience to help explain everything to me. I won't have time today to get to article reading but if I do come across anything I will share it with both of you, Shot-info I mean too. Thanks again, it really is getting clearer for me and though I do have a slow learning curve do to meds and medical problems I have, I am really starting to understand these protocols and why they are so important to follow and not bend. --Crohnie 20:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
(replying from my talk). Not a problem Crohnie, just ask and there's plenty of editors who will help. Shot info 22:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm finding this a good exercise, going over past arguments and summarizing them. Maybe we can start an essay on "Importance"? --Ronz 23:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This sounds interesting, I'd help with guidance of course. I haven't seen anything 'be born' on Wikipedia and then become. --Crohnie 11:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deal

Hi Crohnie -- a belated thank-you for your posts on my talk page. (I've been keeping a low profile for a while, but this project is just too addictive.) Yes, please, keeping an eye on each other's edits sounds like a good plan to me. AvB ÷ talk 16:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Birthday!

I've enjoyed our discussions, and am impressed with your editing. Hope your birthday was a good one! --Ronz 22:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much Ronz, it means a lot to me that you took the time to drop in for this. I did have a good time. I work for my son in a home business and had to work that day but he took me out for a breakfast birthday (about 11 AM) and then had the waitress come by with a big piece of cake for me, and him of course. My lovely hubby came home with a beautiful card and a delicious cake called chocolate over load. Tomorrow we are getting together with the kids so I can get my real birthday present that I want, fresh Maine lobster!
I have been reading the different policies of Wikipedia and I have to say some of them are quite confusing on a first read for me. I still have more to go through and I am taking my time to make sure I understand what they are saying and how I should apply them. Notability was giving me a hard time to figure out how to apply it until this afternoon when I read talk Stephen Barrett. An editor wrote basically that he didn't understand why others in the media didn't pick up on how notable it was that Barrett didn't have board certification. You responded with "exactly" which made everything you and others have been trying to explain to me now quite clear. If this is one of items you have been trying to teach me, I now know exactly what you mean but more important, I know now how to apply it from now on. I still have to try to understand WP:Weight though. Do you take these policies and apply together or do you apply them separately, one at a time? For example, Barrett did not get board certified, this we all agree on. How would I apply weight to this? Do I just take the factoid and decide if it makes the article lean in one direction or the other, in other wards imbalance the article? Thanks for you kind words and for all you help and understand. --Crohnie 23:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
(So you're getting two birthday celebrations!)
One of the good things coming out of this discussion is that I'm finding ways to clarify the issue.
Notability as in WP:N applies only to articles as a whole. Stephen Barrett is notable, so we can justify having an article about him.
Notability for anything else is a combination of WP:SOURCE (mostly WP:V) and WP:NPOV (mostly WP:WEIGHT). Without the proper sources, we can't determine how to present facts, or even if they should be presented at all.
These are the same issues I realised Levine2112 was not understanding, that I tried to get him to come clear on (Which facts related to Barrett's credentials.... We don't deal with information out of context of their sources, so it's probably best not to even talk about "facts" in the same way that we don't talk about "truth". Further, we look to the sources to determine how significant the information is, which determines how we present that information. --Ronz 00:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
So, while we have have sources showing that Barrett was not certified, we don't have sources showing it as being important. --Ronz 00:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GOOD job

I saw a random edit iritable bowel syndrome on my watchlist, i click on the article and see the obvious vandalism... i go to the history page to see if anything else was done on the whole article, and you came around and allready reverted it!! So while i was on the article, it was still vandalized and by the time i clicked history bam like it never happened. Good job!!!!...While im here i guess i can ask u.. how do you give people warnings (do you have to be an admin? on their talk page to stop vandalizing.... as in tag them level 1 2 3? Do you inform a bot or? petze 11:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah all good, found a good page to get all that info LOl Wikipedia:Vandalism.. Will look into it in future. Cya petze 13:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 16 16 April 2007 About the Signpost
Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag" News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reindeer harvesting

I have replied here: User talk:Fyslee/Reindeer hunting in Greenland -- Fyslee/talk 10:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)