User talk:Joema

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] User talk page

[edit] Thanks

Nice work on the missiles and ABM systems. Best regards, Tom Harrison Talk 18:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. Joema 18:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Work

Hi, I'm new and I'm looking to improve space articles. I saw a couple of your edits, and checked out your user page. I thought you might be a good person to get in contact with. I'm still new to Wikipedia, so I'm learning about the the proper form of artciles. If you could check out my edits on the spacecraft page and give me some feedback, I'd appreciate it. Professionially, I have operated SOHO, NEAR, Terra, AQUA, supported AURA pre-launch, and I presently work on Swift.

Would you have any advice on using internal documentation? I have copies of the SOHO User Guide and NEAR Spacecraft Users Manual, but I don't think references to them would pass the verification statndard here.

Rob 01:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Rob, thanks for your knowledgeable contributions. They are greatly appreciated. Your spacecraft edits look fine.
Don't worry too much about form. The key is getting quality content. Don't take it personally if people edit your stuff; that happens. Discuss and collaborate on the article talk page. Wikipedia encourages us to Be bold, so don't hesitate to make changes, especially since you're very knowledgable about aerospace. If you make big changes, use the talk page to describe why.
Re internal spacecraft documentation, if it's a web source you can always link to it, either in a "References" section, or using an in-line reference. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. You can also use footnotes: Wikipedia:Footnotes. If it's copywrited material you can extract sections into the article under Fair use.
Your time and contributions are valuable, so decide how best to contribute. Super-detail in one or two articles is nice but possibly of less benefit than shallower enhancement of many articles. As you noted on Spacecraft, many aerospace articles are in bad need of improvement. My suggestion is scan articles you have knowledge about and fix the most egregious problems first. But if you want to add tons of detail to a specific article, that's OK too.
You can also enable Wikipedia email which facilitates communication. Your email address remains private. Click your "my preferences" link.
Some useful links:
Joema 15:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flashlights?

I have some knowledge about aviation, space, science, cars, motorcycles, home theater, relational databases and flashlights.Joema 04:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you're joking, but what knowledge of flashlights do you have? Is there another setting besides On/Off/Flash? Rob 16:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's actually serious, believe it or not. As with most items (knives, cars, watches, food, drink, clothing), there are more basic consumer versions and higher end versions, some of which are fairly exotic. In each area some aficionados study the items and form communities of interest. Some info on flashlights:

[edit] Streamlight

It was deleted per our proposed deletion process. I'll restore it and run it through our more rigorous articles for deletion process which promotes more discussion of the issue. Let me know if you have any questions about this procedure. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arc Flashlights

If you want the deleted version I can userfy it for you, if that would help you create a better one. Just zis Guy you know? 12:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but not necessary. Joema 15:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Article now re-written as Arc Flashlight. Joema 14:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goddard Space Flight Center

Hi Joe - Based on your recommendation, I added some content to the Goddard Space Flight Center article. The content is good, but I'm not sure the sytle is correct. I left some notes on the GSFC talk page. Rob 01:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Rob, thanks a lot. That looks very good. I made a minor change to the 2nd paragraph. My only other recommendation is somehow compare the differences between JPL and Goddard. IOW, who does what, and why. Obviously in a diplomatic way. Joema 02:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Safeguard (nuke)

It has been suggested that Safeguard (nuke) be moved, actually it was improperly moved to Safeguard (weapon). If you have a chance, maybe you could add your opinion to its talk page as to what the proper name should be or if it should be moved. --Dual Freq 15:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Srbthrust.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Srbthrust.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Hunter 17:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's OK to delete. It was an early version which I didn't put a copywright tag on. Joema 21:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Biological psychiatry

Great job fixing up the biological psychiatry article! The only minor issue is incorrectly used citations - a "reference name" has to be defined for each one that you plan to use more than once. I'll do some fixing up in that department, but otherwise, excellent work. Fuzzform 18:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've begun work on the references. Several pieces of information are stated without clearly showing which citation they were drawn from. There are also a few grammatical and syntatical errors here and there, but that's to be expected when writing such a long article. Overall, it's in pretty good shape. By the way, thanks for taking the initiative to fix up the article; it was in a pretty sorry state prior to your rewrite. (P.S. references are much easier to read/edit if you decline the fields in a sort of list form.)Fuzzform 18:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, and the help. I thought I used a reference name for each multiple citation. That's why they're displayed in multiple reference format in the footnotes section. Maybe I missed one or two?
Re putting the reference fields in list form, yes I learned about that after being mostly done, so I just didn't go back and change them. Joema 21:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joema. Thanks for the invite to Biopsych. The article is better than i expected (i was braced for the worst after finding Anti-psychiatry in a real mess a month or so back), it appears like you have been involved in a significant rewrite - good work there. I completely agree with your sentiments on the talk page and will be happy to stick around and offer support. Cesar is actually a good guy and a very useful source of information on all things anti-psychiatric, but like many people with strong views against the mainstream, i think he finds if difficult to adopt NPOV sometimes (then again, i guess that is something we are all guilty of at somepoint). I'll make my suggested changes over the next few days and, since your arguments are backed in policy, i don't think there will be too much problem putting the finishing touches to make a nice little article. Rockpocket 07:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Hello Joema. You posted a message on my talk page so here I am! I also put a brief response to your clarifications on the BioPsych talk page. I hope you didn't take my comments as an assault on your understanding of biochemistry. It's been a while since my last courses on neurotransmitters and pharmacology but I still like the stuff. I think it's great that you are putting so much effort into this article, particularly with your background. I find the earlier versions of the article baffling in their purpose and premises. Anyhow, I ended up on the BioPsych page during a routine RecentChanges patrol. When I saw the chat about POV problems and rather wacko claims of pseudoscience I hoped that the POV battle was being fought on the talk pages rather than on the main article page. Of course, as I read the article I was immediately struck by the argumentative POVs that came straight out of the gate. (By the way, I think your comments above about POV issues are pretty much on point.)
Still, what caused me to make such strong comments on the talk page was the absurdity of the arguments made by Cesar Tort. I have found that logic and rationality are not very effective tools in countering the type of mindset that embraces pseudoscience. They get stuck in the ruts of their own preconceptions and will stay there unless you can boot them to higher ground. When you try to counter their arguments on their own terms, or attempt too much of a concilliation that is not warranted by the facts, the loser is the truth, and you, too. If you wanted me to address anything more specific, let me know. Ande B 14:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate the feedback and article changes. Anything you can do to maintain the proper encyclopedic nature of the article would be appreciated. 15:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Joema
Hey, it's Ande again. I've made a number of suggestions on the BioPsych talk page and would appreciate it if you would take a look at them and let me know if you're up to the task of some reorganization. I just want to get the article into better shape so that, perhaps someday, we can legitimately remove the disputed template. Ande B 16:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with all of your suggestions; your overall assessment is right on target. I'll start working on it, hopefully later today. Joema 18:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Joema, thanks for being so diligent about this. If we now have a handfull of reasonable people working together, this article should come into a shape we can all be proud of. If you would like me to take on a particular part of our reorganization efforts, I'd appreciate you letting me know where you think my efforts might be best applied. And I'll try to avoid making any major moves without alerting people before I do. I don't want us working at cross purposes. Ande B 18:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but I think your time is best spent proofreading and suggesting/making further corrections as we go. Let me do the bulk of the work. Joema 20:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Joema, your current edit is nicely tight and focused, yet flexible enough to easily accomodate expansion. I would not have been able to edit the material so quickly without loss of accuracy. You have a future in writing review articles! You might want to talk to your academic advisors about student contributions to campus science publications. Sometimes working on such publications, even if its just cite checking, can get you into contact with professionals who can really help you later in your career. Ande B 02:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your nice comments and advice. However I've been out of college for 25 years. I formerly did technical writing for a computer company. Joema 08:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, and sorry. I don't know why I thought you were a current biochem student. I must be staying up too late at night working on WP. No wonder you could edit yourself so quickly! (I once did technical editing for a big computer company in Silicon Valley, too!) The NPOV tag was removed by an editor, then replaced by Ombudsman then remaved once more by me. I hope this doesn't put us up against the 3 revert rule. Ande B 21:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Fuzzform is the biochem student. He also did a lot of recent work on the article. Joema 21:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank heaven's there's some explanation for my misunderstanding. Ande B 22:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Joema. I just wanted to add my comments - you have done a spectacular job on the biopsych page so far - well done. I've refrained from editing myself as a similar struggle on anti-psychiatry took way too much out of me to get too involved in something i know little about again so soon. However, i have been following the progress and i'm impressed...

The Original Barnstar
As such, i hope you'll accept this barnstar i hereby award you, for hard work, graduating college 25 years ago ;), and remaining focused while editing biological psychiatry. Rockpocket 06:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks, and I appreciate all your help with the situation. Joema 14:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bio Psy arbitration request

Hi Joema, I got your message. I answered on my own talk page but just for the record I'm repeating my consent and support for your request for arbitration here.

How unfortunate that we must resort to this. But I see no alternative to the constant tagging of the article. I will give what support I can. Ande B 20:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Ande B. My only concern, if you can call it that, is that Cesar (as a relatively new editor) doesn't quite understand the implication of your requests for mediation/arbitration and thus that is why he hasn't responded. However, that he has chose to ignore your multiple requests while maintaining opposition leaves little alternative. I have no experience in arbitration but support the position you, and others, have taken and will make that clear if the case is accepted. Rockpocket 20:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was concerned about that, but that's why I was so forceful and repetitive in my entreaties to cease and desist -- begging him over and over. Ombudman seems more experienced and he also didn't respond. Also it's not like arbitration is a sledge hammer to get exactly what we want. While it's extremely unlikely that Cesar and Ombudsman will get what they want, it may be resolved in a way not entirely to our liking as well. Such is the nature of the situation they have forced. We can't go on with them POV-tagging the article every day. Joema 20:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree there, its not ideal - but our hand has been forced. However, I'm also pretty confident that a reasonable observer (if you can call ArbCom members that ;)) will endorse our position, as it is one based on policy. Rockpocket 21:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


I'm not fussed about any of the edits I made - I was accepting what was there and tackling the grammar and sense, not trying to write an article. The one that is there is good. Don't confuse decisiveness with unreasonableness - things that get to arbcom I gather get solved. I still suspect that part of the trouble is that the topic is actually Psychiatry and the biological qualifier means different things to different people - on the one hand a small piece of precision, and on the other a sort of shorthand for several volumes, all slightly foxed. Midgley 21:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Joema, I read the arbitration notice that you posted on the BioPsy talk page. You seem to have presented a straightforward and easy to follow summary of the problem. Is there anything that I need to do in support of the arbitration request? I don't want to just repeat what you have said but if the arbitrators want to see a "show of hands" as it were, I'd be happy to do so. Thanks. Ande B
Ande, I don't know. Thanks for asking. Will contact you if necessary. BTW actual arbitration request page is here: WP:RFAR Joema 01:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Despite a few technical hitches (see below), i decided to add a few words in support (and also in defence of Cesar who i think is well meaning if uninformed on the technicalities of this particular issue). I think you cover the bases nicely, Joema, but i guess it never hurts to have a concurring voice. Rockpocket 07:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration templates

Please do not edit the arbitration templates directly. See my note on Rockpocket (talk · contribs)'s talk page regarding where to comment. If you need help, let me know. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 06:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: I also reverted your edits to the Evidence template. It is a good idea to collect evidence and put it together though, so you can use a userspace page for that until the case is accepted (for example, you could make a page at User:Joema/Arbitration/Biological psychiatry/Evidence and put notes/links/diffs there). Evidence is only necessary if your arbitration case is accepted, but like I said, it's a good idea to start now if you have reason to believe it'll be accepted. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 06:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry about the gaffe. Joema 13:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedic focus

I find myself rather agreeing by your very relevant comments on your userpage[1]. It basically sums up various content disputes I've participated in for the last few months, such as Simon Wessely and Gold salts. Indeed, POV pushing is one of the most insidious problems on Wikipedia, probably because we're too anti-elitist to recognise what is "mainstream" and what isn't. Only consensus will save us.

It would be good if the ArbComm case got voted on as soon as possible. Stifle's comments became a springboard for my long history with Ombudsman and this user's tendency to let his agenda prevail over almost every available Wiki policy and guideline. JFW | T@lk 00:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BioPsych

Joema, your page looks like you have a strong interest or background in science-engineering and then perhaps a peripheral interest in medical-biochem-neurology (you could be a rocket fan MD, can't tell). When I look at Ombudman's article and a little of his interests, it seems his position may partly *derive* from Abram Hoffer's work, an orthomed pov. I recognize that Omb seems to have positions outside orthomed. Orthomed is a part where I consider the biopsych article's pov to exclude an unresolved scientific issue. Would it be possible for you to take a gander at Hoffer's "Adventures in Psychiatry" and let me know where *your* points of divergence are? (I am aware of APA's later rupture, let's just say, they did not exactly cover themselves in glory) There are two experimental areas that seem to lay at the heart of orthomed origins that usually are not well addressed in conventional medicine (for one simple, crucial type of experiment, *ever*, always a bad sign in competitive sales science). Don't ask, don't tell? Here lies the abyss, I see their echos in a number of medical disputes. My intercorporate background involves biological-chemical tests & designs where detection & correction of some error & misconduct were involved. I now find myself looking very quizzically (well, actually scandalized) at some important articles the medical journals (not in biopsych). Warning, warning, warning... How about it?--66.58.130.26 00:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at the Hoffer page; make take a day or so. Joema 04:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
OK I read the Hoffer material. Orthomolecular medicine and orthomolecular psychiatry are interesting areas. I agree nutritional factors are important in treating disease. Whether that viewpoint motivates Ombudsman or not, the problem is his conduct not his beliefs. The orthomolecular psychiatry article is just a stub in need of help. Improving that would help Wikipedia. Repeatedly POV-flagging biological psychiatry because of strong personal anti-psychiatry feelings does not help. Another anti-psychiatry editor, Cesar Tort, threatened to have an army of Scientologist friends mass-POV-tag Wikipedia articles: [2]


I'm not a medical professional nor have any present or past association with any pharmaceutical company. I've seen harm from certain psychiatric practices (biological and otherwise). However I can divorce my feelings about those from what should be a factual encyclopedic article. The main purpose of an encyclopedia is to describe the topic, not critique, analyze, or devote major space to dissenting viewpoints. Examine virtually any article in Britannica, Encarta, etc, about any potentially controversial subject, and that's obvious. E.g, automobiles have killed 20 million people and damaged the environment. Lots of people think mass transit is a better approach. However in the Britannica article on automobiles, you won't find space devoted to those debates. They are valid points but it's not the purpose of an encyclopedia.
Simply describing a topic without presenting dissenting opinion does not equate to a PRO position. The Wikipedia article on Adolph Hitler doesn't have a criticism section, but that doesn't mean it's pro-Hitler. Rather encyclopedias primarily describe the topic according to mainstream thought. There is no lack of venues to debate or present contrary opinion about any strongly-felt topic: Usenet, discussion forums, dedicated web sites, newspaper editorials, class debates, etc. However that's not the role of an encyclopedia.
This doesn't mean that all encyclopedia articles should be devoid of any dissenting viewpoints. The biological psychiatry article has a criticism section, with a link to the much larger anti-psychiatry page. But as can be seen from examining articles in Britannica, Encarta, World Book etc, contrary opinion/criticism (where even present) are very small relative to the article. Why? Because the mission of an encyclopedia is to describe, not debate. Joema 16:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Although Cesar & Omb may have appeared to be struggling for top billing on BioPsych, I think it is more important to not *shut out* certain biological elements by omission. I cannot vouch for knowing what Ombudsman's and Cesar's exact pov is here, but I think an ortho med approach is probably a key to rationalizing their pov in a biological way in the context of this article and answering their underlying concerns. I happen to somewhat agree with a tag because I see the article as incomplete, rather than "Wrong" (certainly even if one disagrees with it, it is being done; ditto ortho med). Perhaps exploring more of the 1950s and 1960s human biochemistry work in psychiatry would help trace the common & parallel roots of orthomed and "pharma meds" which had common opponents in unproven Freudian psychotherapy and dramatic procedures (ECT, insulin, neurosurgery) of that era. Later the "pharma med" crowd realigned with former opponents and knocked Hoffer (orthomed), with his less dramatic, less expensive nutritional biochemical approaches, out of the APA in some manuevers that look less biochemical & scientific, and more political. Hoffer et al claim better long term results by using varied nutritionally individualized biochemical approaches often starting with psychotropic drugs to initially control or stabilize the individual but then try to rapidly wean them off pharma meds before serious side effects occur. Hoffer et al pioneered much in objective measurement methods and biochemical psychiatry.
Looking now at Cesar's big mistatement, I tend to assign this to "brash newbieness" as someone perhaps having witnessed/experienced more partisan environments, where idle/implied "threats" may be a part of the vernacular. Of course that stmt is unacceptable here; just let's be careful about our expectations & methods on the rate and perfection needed to downshift passion into a solid Wiki editing style. I would say he's already been warned, he should have the general picture now and is still adjusting to the Wiki conventional med enviroment as well.--66.58.130.26 08:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Re Ombudsman and Cesar Tort's motivations, I can only accept their words and actions. Cesar says he's an anti-psychiatry activist [3] who collaborates with Scientologists in anti-psychiatry efforts. He's free to do that, but Wikipedia articles should remain neutral and focused on the topic, not on criticism of the topic.
Ombudsman has contributed to Scientology, various anti-psychiatry and anti-vaccinationist articles. Nothing wrong with that. However he's previously been involved in repeated POV-flagging of anti-vaccinationist, so the similar behavior on biological psychiatry is not new.
The first major re-write I did on biological psychiatry included several of your points: more detailed history, more critical tone, etc. Ande B. (a professional writer) thought it was so overly critical he POV-flagged it for that reason (it was too critical). Yet even in that state, Ombudsman considered it a "poster child for extreme ivory tower pov pushing": [4]
Based on Ande B's suggestions, I re-wrote the article to the current form. It lost some detail and history, but it's better overall -- more approachable for a general-purpose reference work.
Let me stress: the purpose of an encyclopedia article is mainly to describe the topic, not devote major space to dissenting opinions. Turn to almost any Britannica article to see that. Those other opinions may be very valid, but they don't belong in a general purpose encyclopedia -- that's why you won't see them in Britannica, Encarta or World Book articles. This applies to most articles. E.g, in the orthomolecular medicine article, there shouldn't be major criticism there. In the anti-psychiatry article there shouldn't be major criticism there. In Trauma model of mental disorders (which Cesar wrote), there shouldn't be major criticism there -- and there's not. Despite not having major criticism sections, those articles should not be repeatedly POV-flagged by people with strong personal feelings, and they have not been. Unfortunately articles that conflict with Ombudsman and Cesar Tort's views have been. Joema 17:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Serotonin syndrome article

Hi, how big a part have you played in the serotonin syndrome serotonin toxicity entry. As a neophyte I cannot see who it is. Anyhow, I thought I could assist with updating it and 'tightening' it up a bitKen Gillman 10:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ken, I added a few items to that article a while back. The History tab usually shows who made each change. In the history list, click the button in front of two different versions, the press the "compare selected version" button. It will show you the exact "diff" between the two versions. At that point the link in your browsers's address bar will point to that diff, which can be saved, posted on a Wikipedia discussion page, or emailed someone else for illustration.
The changes I made were these: [5], [6]. I'm not a medical professional, was just trying to fix some obvious problems.
Feel free to add, edit or change my additions or anybody else's. Input from medical professionals is especially welcome, valued, and needed. Joema 14:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I am really struggling to figure out how this rather complex system works and unfortunately don't really have the time. It this problem is compounded by the fact I am obliged to use speech to text software because of a medical problem that seriously impairs my writing typing capability. I went round in circles for an hour with the history tab but was unable to see who had contributed the original table. Funnily enough it shares some similarities with the problem I saw you debating. Straight to the roots of what is valid science, and valid scientific observatio. The material is full of tertiary sources most of which are are anecdotal case reports. Does Whicker p deer not have rules to prevent this kind of thing? Also when I looked at discussion there seemed to be something that was more like a therapy chat room with personal experiences etc. This is entirely out of place, but I could not see how to contact the editor or someone in authority to suggest that such material be expunged. so I finished up just putting an edit on the actual material, suggesting someone contact me. Ken Gillman 09:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Ken, Wikipedia is essentially a "free for all". Considering there is no one person in authority for content disputes, it's amazing it works this well. The table in the Serotonin syndrome article was contributed by User:Techelf on 22 November, 2005, in this diff: [7].
Wikipedia guidelines suggest we be bold in updating pages. As a medical professional, just go ahead and make whatever changes you see fit. In the edit summary (the little box at the page bottom), give a brief one line summary, and say "See talk page" if you need to elaborate on why the changes were made. But remember there's no hierarchy of authority here -- a teenager can change what you just entered. In a few cases, if you're changing material that was recently added and the history page or discussion page shows recent controversy, you might want to first post on the discussion page what you're considering changing and why. But in most cases it's not necessary to "seek permission" first -- indeed, Wikipedia stress that nobody "owns" any article, nobody is "in charge" of anything.
There are consensus-based procedures to resolve disputes, such as Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Usually these aren't required if you clearly document the reason for your changes.
Thanks again for your valuable contributions. Joema 14:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SDI

I've made some changes to the Strategic Defense Initiative article in the last couple of weeks. Do you have any additional comments to improve the article? I know the projects section is a bit skeletal, but I figured the SDI article shouldn't go into too much detail on each project. --Dual Freq 02:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks very good and greatly improved. Suggest definining in the 1st section the chronological period covered by the article. This will clarify the difference between previous ABM programs such as Safeguard and post-SDI programs such as NMD. Let me read it more closely and comment further later. Joema 03:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good idea. I tried to stick to programs that were actually tested or funded by SDIO from 83-93. I've also added a timeline to the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization and Ballistic Missile Defense Organization pages, kind of bulky for the SDI article though. I suppose an argument could be made for a merge and redirect for the SDIO article into the SDI article. --Dual Freq 11:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bio Psych RfA Question

Joema, I got your email. I've been ill but still want to give support to your RfA. Can you give me some pointers, particularly issues that you think might need to be given priority? I've been out of touch with matters for a while and don't want to jump in at the wrong point and confuse things.

You can always reach me by Wiki email.

Ande B.

fixed typos Ande B 00:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Joema, I added a comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cesar_Tort_and_Ombudsman_vs_others#Involved_parties.
What should I do next?
Ande B 02:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I just added a brief "assertion" on the evidence page. You may want to read it. Ande B 17:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PNAS article re fluoxetine and neurogenesis

Joema,

I thought you might be interested in the recent PNAS article re the effect of fluoxetine on adult hypocampal neurogenesis and its relationship to depression. This is one of the freebie downloads at the PNAS site. (The only kind I can afford anymore!) http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/21/8233

Ande B 04:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm passing along a smile

Ande B. has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Rockpocket "smiled" at me (I needed it!) so I'm passing along a smile of my own. We seem to have been forced into some unpleasant Godwin baiting conversations. These types of things are very dis-spiriting and big time wasters. Let's have a nice week-end anyhow. Ande B. 19:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others

This arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

Delivered for the arbitration committee as a clerk (I don't take part in making these decisions). --Tony Sidaway


[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Saturn V infobox

Template:Saturn V infobox 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. GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail 20:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:StreamlightScorpion.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:StreamlightScorpion.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was there explosion in shutle Columbia?

If anyone asks google - shutle Columbia explosion - he obtains a lot of answers...if compare abstract problem - desintegration of engine could be mechanic but after fire and some fuel explosion all the parts desintegrates and fly in different direction

some photos are the evidence, that there was explosion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ttturbo (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC). Ttturbo 19:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space Shuttle Challenger launch decision

I've created the new article but there is already someone saying that it should be deleted because it's superfluous! Would appreciate your backing over there if you have the time. MLilburne 17:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Arc-ls.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Arc-ls.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 09:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article review notification: Saturn V

Saturn V has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)