User talk:Daniel Santos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, welcome to my talk page. Please post comments below and sign your name with ~~~~.

Contents

[edit] Wolfowitz Doctrine

Hi, I got your email. But usually people just leave messages on talk pages - it is easier to track everything. Regarding your comment. I did not clean it up. I just removed AfD tag because people voted to keep your article. Anyways, you can bullet it. Also, I would recommend you to read some useful guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout. BTW, welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you'll stick around. Renata3 00:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

With regards to your comments on Talk:Hardware Direct MIDI Routing: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

tgies 06:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply notification

I've replied to your comment on my talk page and figured I'd let you know here as well for your convenience. tgies 07:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And again. tgies 08:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
And now I've replied to your comment on Eagle 101's talkpage, with a deconstruction of your reasoning for why there should be an article on Hardware Direct MIDI Routing (several of your facts were blatantly wrong). tgies 04:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Daniel Santos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

[edit] DID

Hi DS,

Regards this edit, do you have access to the original study? By my reading of the abstract, the changes in blood flow were not dramatic or particularly noteworthy, otherwise the abstract would have highligthed them more. The article itself is pretty old compared to modern imaging techniques. Given the small number of subjects, the article might be better served by simply removing it, unless a full version can be accessed. As is the abstract is quite equivocal - no differences except this one difference. The representation of studies on a page like this can be very tricky, and if there's three references to one sentence, they should all support what is said in the sentence. I've adjusted the referencing in a way which I think better supports the references, have a look. I did miss the hyperperfusion of the temporal lobe in the West study, so it's possible that I'm mis-reading this set as well. WLU 19:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have access to the older study, just the abstract on the web. But I agree with you, this can get very tricky. It was quite hard to tell from the abstract what they were getting at. Anyway, I like what you have done, thanks. Daniel Santos (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say good luck with dreamguy and the DID article, I had the same problems a few months ago. The article focuses far too much on if it is or is not real. There should be maybe one sentence in the intro to this point, and maybe a subsection lower. Good luck! Mwv2 (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The more relevant point to all of this is the verifiable discussion in the most reliable of sources (peer-reviewed scientific journals are the essence of RSes) in a page that falls under the mandate of the WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. The page should basically be razed, and rebuilt using only the pubmed journals. Once it's established as such a page, it can then be expanded with other less-reliable sources to document the controversey. As a medical article, there's no excuse, NONE, for the core of the page to rely on anything but reliable sources. Abstracts are accessible and templates are easy to generate. I may look at it again if I feel up to feuding. I may even draft a version on a sub-page. Blarg, what a mess. WLU (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MOS:CAPS

Please review MOS#CAPS. Section titles have only the first letter of the first word capitalized unless suceeding words are proper nouns. It's a sure sign of a noob editing a page :P, and easily corrected, though overcapitalization does attract the attention of more experienced editors who then fix the page, all the while grumbling about how wikipedia is gonig to hell in a handbasket. WLU (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, I'll never turn them down! And I may, indeed, still be quite a n00b. :) Daniel Santos (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] using diffs

Backing things up with diffs means presenting diffs for every aspect of what you describe. To give you an example: I could just assert that you posted at WP:EA requesting assistance with this and appeared to have some long-running issue with the other editor. I wouldn't necessarily include a diff for a simple and straightforward assertion like that one. For any stronger assertions (e.g. saying that you were uncivil at one point or unconciliatory throughout the whole situation etcpp.) I should preferebly not just assert this and assume that others will believe me and see my point, but instead I'd include the relevant diff to make a much stronger point. If more than one diff is relevant for one point, it can e.g. be included much like references after the respective sentence.[1], [2], [3] I've included only one and the same diff here, as this is just meant to illustrate the use of diffs. Including diffs can also serve as a good opportunity for a reality check. Personally, before klicking save page, I make sure to look at each diff and evaluate whether they actually back up what I'm trying to say. If that isn't the case, chances are that I have to amend my point to one degree or the other (since diffs are the most basic chunk of "wikireality"), or that I have to find more suitable diffs. I dorftrottel I talk I 01:34, December 8, 2007

Ahh, hah! When you said "backing things up" I thought you meant "making a back-up". I didn't know of any such mechanism (i.e., to download page history in a .zip or .tgz) and I thought that history was almost always permanent! :) OK, we're on the same page here. I even used a diff on on the assistance request page to illustrate the copyrighted material. Anyway, thanks! Daniel Santos 01:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Making a back-up? No, "backing up" (as in "present supporting evidence") is what I meant. But I see that you're right. You did include a diff here. :) I dorftrottel I talk I 02:12, December 8, 2007

[edit] Unrequested advice

Hi,

You many want to shorten your posts and avoid soapboxing - a neutral edit to a talk page doesn't need to be long. Also, putting your comments in ref tags and adding a reflist to talk pages is pretty unnecessary in my mind. Put in a direct link, it's much more convenient. We use ref tags on mainspace because it's neater and more standard, but on talk pages, it's inconvenient and unnecessary. I don't see why you're doing it, and you've done it on two pages already, Talk:Dissociative identity disorder and Talk:Satanic ritual abuse. WLU (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DID

Regards this edit, I've a concern that the statement perhaps due to inconsistent levels of acceptance of DID as a valid condition may be speculation on your part; unless the reference immediately following that statement (the one associated with India) backs up the point, it looks like original research and should be removed. Anything that speculates on the causes of something really looks like OR to experienced contributors, even if it's common sense, or an 'everybody knows that...' bit of background knowledge. Also, regards newer figures, we're at the limits of the literature; if no-one has published new surveys, we don't have a reason or means to update. We can only work with the information we can source. WLU (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Daniel Santos (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately had to save, I think I wiped out your change and I have to run; could you see if it still needs fixing? Sory! WLU (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Tim Stried

Although admitingly the article is not important, and it may have funny references, but Tim is a good guy that is moving up in this field and people are always asking about his background so i posted it somewhat with jokes but also with information, please do not delete it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.126.190 (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond funny!

WP:MEDS - that is. Thanks for the belly laugh. Egfrank (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not cool

[4] Dude. Not cool. Not cool at all. In an argument on wikipedia, you can be cool or you can respond in kind. It's comments like this that prevent reasonable editors from getting involved because the page gets more and more acrimonious. Ratcheting up the tension will just result in more page protection and blocks. It's not fair or easy, but over the long term civility usually equals your edits staying on the page.

And that's my little lecture for the day. It's easy to be cool when you're not involved and I personally have never actually backed down when someone's pointed out I should. I did get blocked though. I'm always telling people to do as I say, not as I do. WLU (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As always, I appreciate your feedback. I would like to step back from it for a bit, but so much happens in a small amount of time that it makes a lot to catch up with (on talk pages mostly). Back to WP:MEDS, LOL!! Daniel Santos (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, one thing I found helpful (aside from just leaving the page alone) is to remember that the long-term is more important than the short. Sometimes it's easier to wait for the mess to settle down, then go back with templates, citations, wording edits and other minor things before addressing the controversial stuff. Part of the problem that I can see is the editors on the page have started editing and reverting rather than discussing. This is a feed-forward approach - everyone starts editing faster rather than slower with the attendant increase in acrimony that prevents consensus. Been there, done that, wearing the t-shirt and have the arbitration hearing to prove it. I don't envy Arthur Rubin - Biothanoi and Abuse truth were actually pretty reasonable when I worked with them. Apparently that's gone down the shitter. WLU (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Satanic ritual abuse.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 02:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.


[edit] Happy New Year

I just felt like wishing you a happy new year - despite any "(insert word here)" wars you might get associated with by people (of whom I am sceptic) in the future. --Gwyndon (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You were right

Your friend Serio is back, please see the Talk:Serio page for details. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)