User talk:Gary123

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave me a message here! Note that if you leave a comment here, I will reply to it here, so if you want to keep track of my replies to you, you should place this page on your watchlist. Thank you! —Gary123 Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Continental Op Detective Agency!
VICTOR HUGO THE GREAT
VICTOR HUGO THE GREAT

The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 4, Issue 23 — 2008-06-02

Archives·Newsroom·Tip line·Single-page·Subscribe

Contents

[edit] Article Creation

I noticed that you created a lot of entries about poems by the poet Victor Hugo. I was wondering if you could add more than one sentence on each. If you leave them as they are, they're likely to be deleted... Alexforcefive 15:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvios

Please do not copy and paste copyrighted writing from other websites, or your articles will be deleted. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 23:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please note that the article you wrote on Paladin Press, American Dragon: Jake Long (Animated Series), and Isometric Exercises was copied from http://www.paladin-press.com/history.aspx, http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/ShowMainServlet/showid-26513, and http://www.clearleadinc.com/site/exer_isometrics.html respectively. Appropriate action has been taken for this article; However, to prevent this mistake from happening in the future, I would advise you to read Wikipedia:Copyrights. As a general rule of thumb, you should never copy and paste information from other websites. Most are protected by some kind of copyright or license. If the page explicitly says that its contents are released into the GNU Free Documentation License, then you may use it here.

If you have explicit permission from the copyright owner of the aforementioned page, then please contact me, and I will be able to revert the article back.

Your contributions are greatly appreciated at wikipedia, but please make sure that you are not violating copyright laws, as this can create problems for wikipedia. You are free to use external websites as references and to link to them, but please only use links, and never copy chunks of text. You should also put references and external links under the appropriate headers: respectively. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrights

While the paladin press page might have been copyrighted I just want to say that the articles on American Dragon and Isometric exercises were not found at the sites you specified. And I think that to an extent the widespread use of those articles across the internet is proof that there is no copyright. If you run a search of the text I posted you eill find it on multiple sites. And finally while I apoligize if I violated any copyrights my only intention was to get the articles started so others could edit them.--Gary123 23:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) --Gary123 23:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but it looks to me like they were. Everything in the first paragraph of the american dragon article is copied from this site, and the isomorphic exercises article was copied word for word from the first section of this site. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have no doubts that the articles would be helpful to wikipedia, but we can't have copyright violations here, no matter what. If you want to write a short bit about them, feel free to edit these links, which will be placed into the old copyvio article in about 2-3 weeks. Paladin Press, American Dragon: Jake Long, Isometric Exercises. Have fun! -Frazzydee|✍ 23:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When I said that I didn's copy them from the sites you specified what I meant was that they were taken from sites other than the ones you mentioned. Which means that these passages are pretty widespread across the internet especial the isometric exercise article which is word for world in a huge amount of websites.--Gary123 00:05, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia isn't like other websites. We don't just steal text from others. There is still a copyright on the texts in question, the websites that have the same text just stole it form each other. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 17:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Welcome!

Hello, Gary123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Shanel 02:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


I was simply removing material I had posted by mistake.--Gary123 02:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-automated template substitution

[edit] The Anatomy of Revolution

I finished the book last week and seem to remember that the phases go from Old regime to moderate to radical and then back to moderate in the Thermidorian reaction. I edited accordingly. KevinPuj 21:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jag

Thank you for experimenting with the page JAG on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Nfitz 01:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted the JaG disambig page I was merely restoring it. --Gary123 18:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Smith

I saw your post on Miborovsky's page. Was John Smith the author of the section "Millitary Spending" in the article People's Liberation Army#Miscellaneous?--Hillgentleman 03:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry dont know anything about it. --Gary123 03:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Since all but the opening sentence in that paragraph Millitary Spending is about the USA rather than about the liberation army, I intend to remove it.--Hillgentleman 04:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hogan

You should include some of his Hogan's contributions ("建樹", I would say.) For example, what did he achieve in gang busting? (quote:"His early career was mostly concerned with gang busting") --Hillgentleman 04:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Just in case anyone had any doubts John Smith's had to proove to us where he stands.Dont let his hyperbole fool you look at the subject matter of his previous edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=John+Smith%27s --Gary123 04:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. in addition to being compltely unrelated to NYC many of his recent edits happedn to be "related" to articles I had contributed to. This all started because I argued with him on the Unknown Mao page!--Gary123 04:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Gary123, I do not care about John Smith, but I do wish to know more about Frank Hogan. I want to know what his achievements are.--Hillgentleman 04:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry i misunderstood. still somebody should look into what Johnsmith has been doing its criminal! Punishing me for having ana argument with him! --Gary123 04:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Smith's's vindictive campaign against me

When I discovered how far Mao the unknown story had influenced wikipedia I was disturbed and its influence on the Red Star Over China article was the last straw so I complained on the Mao the UK story page. John Smith's has responded with a vendetta against all articles I have edited. I didnt want to belive it at first but the facts speak for themselves.

PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING PAGES FOR DETAILS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#Unknown_History_VIRUS_INFECTING__wikipedia_one_article_at_a_time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Red_Star_Over_China#Unknown_VIRUS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Volunteer_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank_Hogan

John Smith's has bravely taken it upon himself to hide all evidence out of his dispute kindly removing his responces as well out of "good will", not one to dispute his altruism you can see the history pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Star_Over_China&oldid=81886006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Volunteer_Army&oldid=90390582 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mao:_The_Unknown_Story/Archive_1#Unknown_History_VIRUS_INFECTING__wikipedia_one_article_at_a_time http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Hogan&oldid=81822987

The facts have completelty vindicated my side of the story!

[edit] DOCUMENTATION OF John Smith's Activities

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=John+Smith%27s

17:30, 10 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story (→Unknown History VIRUS INFECTING wikipedia one article at a time)

Me and John Smith's have a dispute over the validity of including MAo the uk story as a source in so many articles. 17:37, 10 October 2006 (hist) (diff) People's Liberation Army (rv; don't need forums - professional websites are better)

John Smith's removes a link i put up

  1. 17:45, 10 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Red Star Over China (→Unknown VIRUS)

Posts a nasty comment on the talk page of ana article where I complained about the unknown story orignally.

17:52, 10 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Frank Hogan (google search does not indicate this was an important person)

suggests speedy deletion of an article in a category he knows nothing about despie other users with any knowledge of NYC knowing Hogan's great importance.

19:18, 11 October 2006 (hist) (diff) People's Volunteer Army (→Links)

Removes links in an article I created.

19:19, 11 October 2006 (hist) (diff) m Korean War (→External links)

Removes links in an article I created.

  1. 18:41, 13 October 2006 (hist) (diff) People's Volunteer Army (→Links)

Fights revert war ignoring my talk page comments. Refuses to post on talk page!

18:41, 13 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Korean War (→External links)


Fights revert war ignoring my talk page comments.


09:35, 14 October 2006 (hist) (diff) People's Volunteer Army (→Links)

Fights revert war ignoring my talk page comments. Refuses to post on talk page!

23:06, 14 October 2006 (hist) (diff) People's Volunteer Army (→Links) Fights revert war ignoring my talk page comments. Refuses to post on talk page!

10:42, 15 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:People's Volunteer Army Fights revert war ignoring my talk page comments. Refuses to post on talk page!

This is a clear pattern and clear retaliation for our dispute on the unkown story!

--Gary123 23:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Gary, about this John Smith's thing, please do us all a favor and read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Then go read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes if you still feel like you have a legit gripe. crazyeddie 06:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I never disrupted any wikipedia articles, I only posted my complaint on relevant talk pages. In no way did I disrupt wikipedia and in fact I think that they were legitimate points on the discussion page. Its not like I eidite a single main article page. If I did get close to the edge of breaking any rules, it was only because I was outraged at Johnsmith's sneaky methods of retalitaion after we had a legit debate about a particukar source.

PS About the book review I was just using it as a way to show Bevin's POV about the war without bias. --Gary123 07:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Cross-posting the same statement on several article talkpages is, in fact, disruptive. It is also rather headache-making and not likely to make people want to see your side of the story. You'd probably be better off trying to contact John Smith's on his personal talkpage, which would also tend to bring you into contact with other people who might have a gripe with him. If that doesn't work, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes does have some suggestions. Now, is this dispute still a live one? Maybe I can help. crazyeddie 08:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoose disrupting wikipedia to make a point now CRAZY? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frank_Hogan I just found out about this debate today weeks after it occured just shows you how the general wikipedia community feels about your actions! And PS the reason I just found out about this debate is because I have been unable to use wikipedia because of the fear that the two of you would pursue any of my edits with the childish vindictiveness you have shown in the past!--Gary123 20:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's a live dispute any more, though I would appreciate it if Gary would just move on and not spam any more talk pages. I have removed comments from both him and myself as they are irrelevant to any discussions and can be viewed as personal attacks. If you still have a problem with me you can file a complaint somewhere - use the help function. John Smith's 10:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VINDICATION

The results of the Frank Hogan VFD speak for themselves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frank_Hogan and the complete shutout for crazyeddie and johnsmith suggest the degree to which the attempt first at speedy deletion then at vfd were attempts at personal vindictiveness While the dispute between me is no longer "live" in the sense that John Smith's has ceased "going after" unrelated articles I have written he still insists that my attempt to question the way wikipedia has adopted unknown mao as a source in nearly all mao related articles despite its sloppy scholarship, he still calls it SPAM when the only places I posted my complaint was on Red Star Over China which I felt was the most blatant example and at the UK Mao main talk page. As for crazyeddy while his inital invovlement in the affair was certainly respectable I feel his attempt to revie the deletion of Frank Hogan after notable users more knowledgable about NYC was shady at best. Wikipedia is all about challenging edits to a high standard and I have no problem with that I do have a problem with people who pursue disagreents into unrelated areas. Initally I considered crazyeddie just someone trying to help but his disgracegful attempt at deleting Frank Hogan was most upsetting. I've been editing wikipedia for some time now and some of my articles have thanks to the help of many users become fully fleshed out articles. The PVA article where Johnsmith began his vandalism was created almost singlehandedly by me. I've been challenged on wikipedia before and am always willing to discuss but the actions of these two users was more disgusting than discussion. For the record although user Johnsmith says the sipute is no longer on going he has still never given any explaination whatsoever for hi attempts to delete Frank Hogan and PVa which I first accused him of.

John Smith's has bravely taken it upon himself to hide all evidence out of his dispute kindly removing his responces as well out of "good will", not one to dispute his altruism you can see the history pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Star_Over_China&oldid=81886006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Volunteer_Army&oldid=90390582 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mao:_The_Unknown_Story/Archive_1#Unknown_History_VIRUS_INFECTING__wikipedia_one_article_at_a_time http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Hogan&oldid=81822987

The facts have completelty vindicated my side of the story!


Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frank_Hogan and youll see

Look her for the twos conspiring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Smith%27s#Frank_Hogan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crazyeddie#Frank_Hogan

Im glad they got their just desserts

[edit] user:crazyeddie

I take backy what I said about crazy eddie trying to help he started up the Frank Hogan deletion controversy after more knowledgable users had already shut down the idea and he had the audacity to suggest that the PVA didnt exists because of his own ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Smith%27s#Frank_Hogan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crazyeddie#Frank_Hogan

[edit] AMA Case

[edit] Req. for Assistance

Sorry about the late response, but I've things in real life going on that take precedence over Wikipedia. I'm afraid I don't have the time to dedicate to this. Sorry bud. Best of luck. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Gary123

Hello. I am here about the AMA case you put up. I am currently evaluating the case. Can you please give me a summery of the incident in your opinion. That would be very helpful. Thanks. Culverin? Talk 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for Assitance

[edit] A bit of trouble over at Biofilm Sinusitis

I am very new here. I posted a section over under sinusitis, bringing attention to several recent articals which report that biofilms were found on almost all specimans of tissue surgically removed during sinus surgery.

All of the references are to articals from accredited Medical Journels about work done on human patients.

A Admin named David Rubin, who is a docter, first tidied my amaturish attempt rather nicely, but now he seems to be tuneing up to have it deleted because I am "advocating a position", and have thus violated policy? And he is talking about experiments on mice not being applicable. I did not mention any research done on mice.

Everything is cited except I restated material from two sections the the effect that there is allergic musin and the goo that bacteria in a bilfilm make, and at present there is no way to tell the difference between the two. Cites to support those statements were given previously. I just did not cite at the end of every sentance. I don't think that advances a position. Just states what is currently a fact.

I have tried to contact this guy, replied to his talk page and e-mailed him but I am new here and don't know all the bells and whistles, routes and protocals or even how to get my name to show up. ```` thanks Truehawk Sunday 2:23 EST USA

Hi, thanks for offering you input here re Sinusitis
Aside from the minor wikistyling & citation mark-up issues (which were easier enough to tweak), the problem with the additional information is not that any of information is untrue (the cited papers are real enough), but rather problems of expanding a limited amount of research into a relatively large section (compared to the rest of discussion on the types of sinusitis) as if absolute scientific medical truth. A few studies on their own do not establish an accepted (real-world) change in medical understanding, investigation & treatment.
  • Hence Truehawks series of additions 19th Dec, and my purly wikistyling/reformating of citations on 19thj Dec
  • Truehawk then did some copyediting and added some additional information upto 22nd Dec]
  • My main adjustment to the wording or phrasing was in a series of edits to history which reworded the latest additions to correct what the cited newspaper had reported upon, and then remove the uncited speculation as how research in biofilms will alter clinical practice (they may of course in due time have this effect, but for now this is speculation and not established majority/accepted opinion). Finally the phrasing around the "medical community" antiquated opinion seemed belittling, and so I rephrased.
Truehawks assessment in their additions is that the biofilms hide the presence of a bacterial infection from conventional microbiological swabs and alter their sensitivities to various antibiotics. Hence Truhawk would maintain that otolaryngologists are being stubborn, cabalistic, closed-shop etc in their failing to acknowledge new evidence to change their previous poor clinical practices. Herein lies the problem with Truehawks subsequent postings and correspondence, namely that wikipedia is not the place to try and carry out an argument (soapbox), but should of course only report on real-world debates.
  • On Talk:Sinusitis on 23rd Dec I raised my problems with the biofilms section (being overlong, having description or information on biofilms perhaps better located at biofilm article and WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position
  • I did though stupidly mix up my notes on this and another topic (teach me to try and do 2 things at once, but PubMed searches and page accessing run slowly on my computer) and added wrong point about cited research being on mice vs. humans. Truhawk pointed this out on 24th Dec and I offered an apology on the talk page the same day, and provided more information of how I thought the cited research was not well supporting the conclusions or overall tone of the sinusitis biofilm section.
  • Truhawk’s POV comes in the current final talkpage postings of 26th Dec (26th Dec on edit history viewing but self-signed as 25th Dec). with phrases such as "It should be possible to divise a EP test to differentate bacterial mucus from the product of human goblet cells. This work just has not been done yet, and needs to be funded. It needs to be done." which is speculation & campaigning.
  • Similarly "It reasons that biofilms in sinus patients would share this property with those recovered from indwelling cathaers from human patients. Are you proposeing that bacteria in biofilms in the sinuses would abstain from the plasmid swapping (bacterial sex) shown to be carried out by the same species in biofilms found elsewhere in the body?" – I don’t argue for or against this, I’m just not arguing at all over this as this seems to fall within WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position
  • Again Truhawk states "as long as the information about biofilms in CS patients remains largely unknown, then the work that would conclusively prove the revelance of biofilms has little chance of recieveing the level of funding that would allow it to proceed rapidly to produce the absolute proof of relevance " – which seems an admission that there currently lacks the degree of studies to either confirm the fact or the notability of this aspect of sinusitis research.
  • Finally their concluding sentence of "Because the corrolation between biofilms and sinusitis is strong in the work done so far, and yet information is so realatively unknown, I believe it would be irresponsible to remove this section, which hopefully will attract additional attention and funding to this area of research." Again reaffirms that the information is at least minority opinion and possible of trivial minority opinion (which under WP:NPOV would not warrant being included at all).
  • In summary therefore, I suspect most otolaryngologists (of which I am not one) and medical editors in general would tend to entirely delete any mention of biofilms from the sinusitis article as being trivial minority research/speculation. However I think biofilms is an interesting topic (I appreciated the references and enjoyed reading the articles), although yet to have much merit (currently) in established medical consensus. I think much of the stated research might be better moved to biofilm article with a rather shorter and less definitely absolutist assessment left in Sinusitis (I would not mind "recent research suggested" and a brief outline, but the current section being as long as Diagnosis and Treatment combined is undue space given to this line of limited research).
As for Truhawk approach, I found their posting to my talk page on 24th Dec of User talk:Davidruben#Biofilm Sinusitis.2C__You might actually read the cites before setting up a straw man. poor AGF and posted after I had already responded on the article’s talk page, apologising for slip of human/mice basis of research. My response on my talk page again set out my thoughts on the editorial problems of tone & length of the section.
I subsequently received an email from Truhawk a few hours later, again complaining that "All the work reported was done on humans. You did not read the cites", which included "You have to decide who's side you are on. You have to decide how long the Otolaryngol community will be allowed to stonewall, and how much morbidity, mortality and human misery will you collaborate in not relieveing. Are you going to ignore the cited works and side with dogma, or just present the evidence and let the chips fall where they may? You have to ask yourself if the CS patient exists to be the ENT's private ATM machine." and concluded by stating "But as long as we give Otolaryngolsts the exclusive right to decide how to treat CS then we must drive them, a very resistant institution to take on board information faster than they would otherwise. It is for a good cause". This really is not wikipedia’s remit to alter current clinical practice.
To bring this all up to date, I email responded thus:

Sorry indeed stupid blunder re mice research comment here (vs the other article I was editing).

The other points I raise are not really about whether biofilms are a better way of understanding and managing CS, or not. Your assessment of ENT/otolaryngologists may or may not be correct.

The issue, for wikipedia, is not about the "truth" as given by emerging research - i.e. the scientific point of view (SPOV). As an encyclopaedia, the SPOV is specifically not policy (see WP:SPOV), and I agree this galls for anyone trying to follow the latest research. The point being that an encyclopaedia spreads and reflects current understanding (even if wrong) rather than trying to change or create new knowledge. Hence it is not wikipedia's place to engage in arguing out changes, but it may of course report on a real-world debate.

The information/position you seek to advance, whilst possibly indeed correct, can only be included if there are reliable sources to cite to verify a position (individual research studies do not in themselves supoort an overal approach to a field - a further citation is needed to verify the jump from specific studies to an overall approach).

So if you feel the current otolaryngology consensus is wrong, adding in emerging biofilm details as if established fact is POV (albeit possible the "correct scientifc" POV), instead a rewording seems called for along lines of:

"Some researchers have started to disagree with the convential understanding of the cause and management of chronic sinusitis, as evidence has accumulated for the role of biofilms.(1) (2) Biofilms have been identified on surgical biopsy samples.(3) The biofilm cooperation between bacteria is claimed to make conventional tests for the presence of bacteria unreliable,(4) and also explain why the chronic sinusitis response poorly to the standard antiobtics used.(5) Instead it has been suggested that X or Y is used to treat this condition.(6)"

Note () for where refs are required and the minimum number that lends weight to making the assertions. Note also that this is not the place to describe what biofilms are in detail (that is achieved by wikilinking "biofilm")

I suggest the above outline (the English prose could be improved) as a succint paragraph indicating that there is a divergence of view, that the view is not of wikipedia but of someone we can attribute to, that a change in approach suggested (but there is not yet widespread studies to confirm that this does work).

I am not an otolaryngologist, but having seen several contentious medical topics in wikipedia, the lengthy section as it currently stands is likely to be deleted as POV pushing, and it would better therefore to be in the wikipedia text more conservative in claims and the shift needed in specialists' approach, than overly progressive - but that's my twopence of advice :-)

David

And by way of reply received:

Point well taken my freind.

If it becomes a point of contraversy, then I will rewrite it along the lines that you suggest, or you may as you wish.

I am aware of the issue of consensus, however I believe that in order to contribute to consensus that one has a duty of good faith and due diligence.

A medical "opinion" is a story about what the facts mean.

You can't have a valid opinion if you leave out revelant facts.

The debatable point would be if the presence of a biofilm infection in CS patients is an revelant fact or not.

The arguement that I expect is that the biofilm is there as a consequence of allergy, immune difficency, whatever, rather than sufficent in and of itself to cause the observed presistant symptoms. As long as they recognize the existance of the biofilm and realize that the biofilm is itself an infection that will not spontaniously disburse with a "resolution" of the the puttive "underlying conditon", then I am willing to let them save face.

Thanks for your help.

So I think we are currently cooperating well, but I remain uncertain on the balance of the section (hence "expert needed" tag) and I may ask for input from the medical wikiproject of WP:CLINMED. David Ruben Talk 05:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this compromise will be okay with Truehawk. If not the best thing to do is to keep dialogue open and reach consensus. Both sides should remain civil remember your both working for the same goal: to inform others. --Gary123 Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Continental Op Detective Agency! 07:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Got your message

Could you please give my your opinion of what has been posted so far, and tell me if I am indeed violating some rule? Consensus is a tricky criteria, to my way of thinking, it should apply to interpertation of what facts mean, not to the facts themselves. Is a simple restatement of a sentance in colloquial english, rather than Docterise "pushing a point of view"? Also don't people have to become aquainted with the facts in the first place before they can decide their revelance to the subject. And then there are the patients, like this one, [1]

who would be better served if their ENTs were better informed sooner rather than later. Thanks Truehawk 9:20 Tuesday, EST.

What other members are invovled in this dispute? --Gary123 Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Continental Op Detective Agency! 16:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Civil War Template

[edit] Template talk:Chinese Civil War

Template:Warlord era do need a split, and a template specifically for Chinese Civil War may be needed. But creating a redudant template is not a solution. I will redo the template when I have time. Right now it's oversized, false in many sense and redudant.

It would have been better if you discussed this in any of the China-related talk pages before you add this template to articles. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 07:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Chinese Civil War template is by no means redundant. Take a look at it almost all the people and events are only in this template but not in the warlords. Its true very few of the events and characters do overlap but thats simply historical, but take a look at it its almost completely new events and people. Your welcome to make changes. --Gary123 Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Continental Op Detective Agency! 17:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions are answered (check the template talk page). Couple off-topic suggestions:
  • Stop or try not to use level 1 headers so often, it's very distracting and creates problems for browsing.
  • Indent your discussions per WP:TALK. Thanks.
  • When adding templates, try to add it above the interwiki and category links.

AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMA Case

You said that John Smith made you afraid to edit wikipedia. If John Smith was doing this to you why didn't you take it up earlier with fellow wikipedians of administrators if he was being such a problem. Nobody has to be afraid to edit.

I think that in this case everybody in mind has to remain civil and assume good faith here. Your both trying to improve Chinese articles so you both have the same goal.

What I want to know is are the edits made by John smith in breach of WP:NPOV? and what does the surrounding wikipedia community think of the book User:John Smith has been using to cite sources that you are against (WP:CITE). Does the Information he put up contain any POV?

In future please don't go spamming talk pages with your opinion (WP:NOT). Try to take it up with the person or group in question. I saw no or very few comments from you on John Smiths talk page. Please try to remain civil and discuss things rather thank throwing insults and spamming in future.

If you have any Comments please discuss on my talk page. Culverin? Talk 02:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the status of this case? Their has been little discussion at all. Cheers. Culverin? Talk 09:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/Sethie

Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/Sethie. I will also advocate, willing to do it with me? Computerjoe's talk 18:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guns and Dope Party article dispute - Request for Assitance

Hi Gary123,

I rewrote the article on the Guns and Dope Party but the original writer keeps reverting back to his original. I think his was biased and unfairly characterized the party. My article contains a lot of actual information about the party, whereas, in my opinion, his article expresses opinion and disdain more than providing info. I don't know how to contact the guy. I've written on the article's discussion page (Talk:Guns_and_Dope_Party), but he does not respond - only reverts. Can you help out? Rasadeva 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy on lead page

Dear Gary, There are inaccurate informations on the lead page of FeTNA which should be corrected.There are unproven allegations that should be removed. I wrote an edit but it has been reverted.I am new ti wiki and I dont know how to proceed. FeTNA is a cultural Tamil organisation in North America.(Federation of Tamil Associations of North America}.This is an umbrella organisation for all the Tamil Organisations in various cities in USA and Canada.Has done a great service in Tamil teaching and keeping the culture alive and active. There are accusations against it by some on their expression of support for the Tamil peoples sufferings in SriLanka.This is high loghted with in accurate informations and unproven allegations in the lead page of FeTNA in wiki. I need your help in continuing the discussion and making it factual. Appreciate very much your help. Thamizhanban. email somailangovan@gmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thamizhanban (talk • contribs) 07:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] How dare you!

You refer to Barry Goldwater, the greatest man this country has ever produced, as a racist? You should be ashamed of yourself! 216.135.28.145 04:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Matl2.jpg

Hello, Gary123. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Matl2.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Gary123. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 21:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swarming (Military)

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Swarming (Military), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Newbyguesses 05:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Psychic seduction

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Psychic seduction, by Joie de Vivre, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Psychic seduction is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Psychic seduction, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Psychic seduction itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 11:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:AMA-listing

Template:AMA-listing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

--Gary123 00:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movie

The movie you asked for at the RD is Outside Providence. Jack Daw 18:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Military Institute

You created an article on a proposed college, Southern Military Institute. The last news about it was over a year ago (they dropped out of trying to purchase a property). It seems increasingly-likely that the institue won't ever open. Consequently, it appears that the would-be organization isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Do you have any current knowledge or opinion about SMI? If not I'll PROD the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poems of Victor Hugo

If you have some time, could you take a look at Poems of Victor Hugo and help us clean it up? Thanks! Kingturtle (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hegel

Was idly browsing the rd/h archives and saw your question. Some choices from one who does not hold the remarkable view that the old Soviet empire was a cultural desert producing but one original thinker might include works of Raya Dunayevskaya, and in particular what she was inspired by, Lenin's notes on Hegel in v 38 of his collected works. A more recent book in this line is Kevin Anderson's , Lenin, Hegel and Western Marxism: A Critical Study, University of Illinois Press: Urbana, 1995. But today, Hegel studies maintains a remarkably grown up attitude - lefties and nonlefties/ righties are able to talk to eachother and notice when each are saying intelligent things. So many good intros would serve. Note the recent three man (one of them a Marxist) translation of the Encyclopedia Logic; as they say, Lenin's notes are one of the few works with the liveliness of Hegel's original, and are respected by many Hegel scholars of all politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.234.15.152 (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)