User talk:Leuko/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

World Health Medical School

I am on the faculty of World Health Medical School. There are no proprietors. World Health Medical School is a free service to society and has no commercial motives whatsoever. I have spent my life as a physician studying the root causes of social dysfunction. I've traced them to inefficient education. We spend trillions of dollars every year worldwide on a system that remains dysfunctional and unless we look to new methods, there is no solution in sight. When I was a medical student, I made flashcards. A flashcard has a question on one side and an answer on the other. The beauty of flashcards is that you can eliminate information that you already know. Electronic flashcards can track every fact that every student knows or does not know. A medical student must learn on the order of a half a million fact units before he or she graduates.

Our present system of medical education requires that students sit in lecture halls eight hours a day taking notes and then sit up half the night trying to decipher them. This is extraordinarily expensive and inefficient. If we don't find a better way then we are destined to live in a world of disease and suffering. This is a very personal issue for me and it should be for you also. If you look at the history of society, new ideas have always been looked upon skeptically. And yet innovation is the only way we can get ourselves out of our current predicament. I understand the difference between an encyclopedic article and an essay. There is a gray area between the two. It's often a matter of judgment. The point I would like to make is that this issue is of such enormous magnitude and has such powerful implications with regard to the solution of social problems that that be factored in to the decision. I would implore that you take the moral high ground because in reality millions of lives are at stake. The suffering of humanity is hanging in the balance. And that is no overstatement. People like Bill Gates have given billions to help people in Africa through vaccinations. And yet countless billions poured into our present in efficient system is like a drop in the bucket.

When I was in Africa, I was impressed by the neediness of the populace. And yet I realized that if I passed out bucketful's of money, it would not solve the problem. I compared all social problems to a tree with leaves, branches and roots. If we just treat the leaves, and the roots remain diseased, then we are fighting a never ending battle. We must identify and address the root causes of social dysfunction. Cfsdoc 09:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

While it is an interesting proposal, that's all it is. And the encyclopedia article was written as an essay in support of this proposal. Can you provide reliable sources that World Health Medical School is verifiable and notable? If so, then the school is entitled to a neutral article in WP. However, Google does not find any mentions other than the school's website and the former WP article. So this was another reason that the entry was deleted, other than it being blatant advertising for the school. Leuko 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

But the peafowl thing is breaking news

See the talk page Talk: Green Peafowl. It's the source for more than one species. Frankyboy5 23:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything other than a MSN group reporting this? Because that is not a reliable source. If it gets reported in main stream media or peer-reviewed scientific journals it can be added, otherwise it's WP:OR. Leuko 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that some people do believe there is more than one species of Green Peafowl. Did you see the golden colored one??? That's very strange indeed. And the reason why this site is so interesting is that it has some photographic proof. The most unfortunate thing is that many photos don't appear. They say it's website designed for individuals truly interested in the Natural History of members of the monophyletic phylum Pavoninidae. Peafowl, African Peafowl, Green Peafowl, Dragonbirds, Crested Argus, Great Argus. They also might not want to make theit findings so public and it's a private site. Frankyboy5 00:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see reply on the article's talk page. Leuko 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Another site is much more authorative, but isn't that close to these claims. This is the WPA's german site translation. Under the imperator page, it shows that they are really a group of subspecies, including P. m. annamensis, P. m. imperator, and P. m. yunnanensis. All of these sound like the names on MSN group, although they are subspecies, not distinct species. But still, they also named the one of the subspecies annamensis, and another yunnanensis, which sounds a lot like the thing on the site. I don't think that the yunnanensis is the same as the one on article, now renamed by the gallery the Deqen Dragonbird, P. antiqus. The most strangest thing is that annamensis has geographical variations (but the names were italicized, as if they were subspecies inside the subspecies) similar to the ones described by the gallery, including ones from Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam (annamensis does not live in Vietnam, as far as I know). There were no real good pictures of this, however and the other WPA sites don't even state this. Frankyboy5 09:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. I read the "About Us" page on the WPA site (in the original German), and they seem to be pretty strong minded about conservation. To me, there doesn't seem to be much of a scientific backing of their claims (or at least they don't cite it). So, I don't think this site is really all that much more authoratative. Ideally, I would like to see a reference from a reputable, peer-reviewed journal before including this claim in WP. Leuko 22:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any other site has anything new info about this claim, but I'm guessing in the next year or two we might see a development! Maybe a site in some other language might have it. They are very strong minded about conservation, and there are different specialist groups (english site). These people reintroduced the Green Peafowl back into Malaysia, which was extinct, as the guys are the MSN group said. However, the english site doesn't know anything about the species, and might think the Peafowl (is plural Peafowl or Peafowls?) of Java are identical to the ones in Malaysia (Pahang species), which are said to be different by the MSN group. If I were older, I would want to make this discovery myself as I am confident that there is six species of Green Peafowl and two subspecies of Indian Peafowl! Frankyboy5 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The WPA site mentions about peafowl from the Isthmus of Kra, the MSN and the gallery mention about birds from Kra too. The WPA site says it's very similar to the birds of Java, but doesn't necessarily say they are the same. The MSN group says that the there are two subspecies of the Malay Pahang, the nominate muticus, Pahang Major or Great Pahang and malacense or malacensi, the Respledent Kra, or Lesser Pahang. My user page has more info regarding this, although I have to admit, it's original research.

The guys on the MSN Group probably made up the name "Dragonbird", but another connection they might have is to a company called Resolve Sustainable Solutions, a company that makes food for livestock, including peafowl. The MSN group sometimes tells of new released products from them. RSS calls one of its food Dragoncake, which sounds a whole lot like Dragonbird. And that's for peafowl. Even the gallery has RSS as one album. The MSN group has a guy named ThoroughResolve, too.

If only somebody can e mail (I don't even have one) a renowned ornithologist about this!!!!!!!!! Frankyboy5 23:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait! The Red Data Book mentions on the very bottom that [1]:

"The form in Yunnan is not separated taxonomically but it apparently differs in a few aspects from other forms, particularly in its forest-dwelling habits, an "odd, monal-like bill", a curiously long hind toe and longer, more slender wings (K. B. Woods in litt. 2000). Its taxonomic placement should perhaps be investigated further. " Frankyboy5 07:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, a forum made by "two" members (really only one, Kermit Blackwood, the same guy who posted pics in the gallery) states that the Peafowl and their allies are unrelated to pheasants, with similar notions about the six species [2]. I don't think this is a reliable source though. It even says that birds already existed 105 million years ago, well before the great extinction of the dinosaurs. Frankyboy5 22:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

New site [3] tells that Malay and Javanese are identical.

Wolfgang Mennig, a foremost Green Peafowl breeder said in a PDF [4](somebody who can read german help me!) stuff about imperator being 4 or 5 subspecies. Rough translation:

"The subspecies of the Pavo muticus imperator is divided even into 4, and if one that westChinese "Yunnanensis" to it-counts became, even into 5 different Subspecies. These are in the Nominatform, to the Pavo muticus imperator in Range from central Thailand to Ostburma, the "Annamensis", or "Vietnamensis" within the vietnamesischen coastal range from north to south, that "Angkorensis" from Kambodscha and the "Laotius" out central Laos."

It also says someone believe the peafowl to be 10 subspecies. Rough translation:

"This rough organization into 3 subspecies is after today's conditions of the specialists no longer applicable and sufficiently.

One recognized today that it at least 10 different subspecies of Pavo muticus gives, and/or gave to be supposed to have become extinct, there some already."

Unfortunately, I still can't find a peer-reviewed journal or anything like that. They didn't cite the claims. Wolfgang Mennig is from the WPA. He thinks that hybridisation with the Indian Peafowl is "damned"! Here is his site [5] Frankyboy5 21:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of research. Thanks for the information, I'll be looking through it shortly. Leuko 18:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I (as Mario) talked in a forum to Kermit Blackwood, who has posted many comments on the Gallery, and he said that there is no evidence the Pahang and Javanese are identical and that the tissue samples were mixed up. He also says that Green Peafowl is linked to the Lophura pheasants [6]. Frankyboy5 23:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he is more authorative than you think. The guy named "K. B. Woods" in the Red Data Book site is him. He doesn't really have a true name because he was adopted. He does have lots of pictures of poultry on many sites [7]. Frankyboy5 02:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A guy named "K" (Kermit) said that he would be writing a book on this subject soon [8]. Frankyboy5 18:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

St. Matthew's University School of Medicine lisiting is partially incorrect.

Leuko,

I was reading the St. Matthew's University School of Medicine listing in Wikipedia. The sub-listing for Texas is partially incorrect. You need to add the fact that Texas has placed SMU on their list due to California's disapproval of the school and the school itself is not fradulent. You need to also add that students from SMU are able to obtain residencies (graduate medical education) and medical licenses in the remainder states.

Thank you,

Jitendra Singh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.235.180.65 (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Since the comments made on Texas' website seem to indicate that their disapproval was mostly due to CA's disapproval, I've added that fact. As far was the word fraudulent, please see above. This is the word that the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board uses- it is a direct quote from the list which SMU is found on, so please ask them to remove your school from the list. I obviously can not. Leuko 20:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

The information that you keep changing on St. Matthew's University page is INCORRECT. I have made corrections two times now but you keep reverting it.

This is related to Texas's disapproval of St. Matthew's.

The page does not say that St. Matthew’s is a "fraudulent school." it simply states that because of California's disapproval, Texas will not license graduates. Either this needs to be corrected to reflect the correct information or the REASON why Texas has placed St. Matthew’s on that list MUST be added. I will be forwarding this information to other students as well and I am sure you will receive other confirmations in this regard. This information is incorrect and highly inflammatory.


Thank you

Actually, SMU is on a list entitled "Fraudulent or Substandard Institutions with No Known Texas Connection." This is exactly what is quoted in Wikipedia. I am sorry if you feel that it is inflammatory, but it is correct, as it is a direct quote takes from a reliable source. It is not my wording, rather it is the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Boards', so if you do not agree with it, please contact them and not me. Leuko 20:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cannibal Ferox edit

I feel that my 'No pun intended' comment was not an act of vandalism and should remain on the page. The comment is noting the silly confusing of the description of the death of a pig during the movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.93.148.162 (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

A) It's not funny. B) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: Thanks for your contribution, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do a bit seriously here. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started. I hope you can help us out! Leuko 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Retention factor

I am an Organic Chemist. This calculation is referred to in most lab maunuals as the "Retardation Factor." It is common language in the laboratory. Do not jump to conclusions until you have adequate information about a topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.17.169.103 (talk • contribs).

Well, the title of the article is "Retention factor," so the terminology in the article should be consistent, and your edit looked to be a poor pun. As a scientist, I am sure you would see the value of providing a reference from a reliable source that your term is preferred over the other before making any changes to the title of the article. Also, feel free to create a redirect page if you like. Leuko 03:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Handango

Hi Leuko,

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding - I am new to wiki.

But, then I did follow your instructions and posted the article link on the "Discussion" (Talk) page instead of the main page as you requested, so why did you remove it and say "This is your last warning"?

The link is NOT an ad or a promo - it's an article about how Handango mistreaded one of it's long-term partners and I feel visitors should know about this.

If it will help with your decision to keep the link on the page, this is a list of all the other websites talking about this real problem that Handango did: http://www.omnisoft.com/articles/handango/list.asp

Would this BELOW link be more acceptable since its an article from a more reputable source:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/31/handango_kicks_omnisoft/

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.122.103.45 (talk • contribs).

Sorry about the confusion, I used one of Wikipedia's standard templates instead of typing out a more robust explanation. The link you added seems to violate many Wikipedia policies:
  1. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox: Use of WP to malign a company to fulfill a personal vendetta is not acceptable.
  2. Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of unverifiable research." The original site you linked was published by the company. Self-published sources are not acceptable for WP under WP:RS and WP:V.
  3. WP:COI: It seems likely that you are associated with Omnisoft, therefore the addition of the link is against the Conflict of Interest guidelines.

Regarding the Register article, it seems to use the OmniSoft article as its source, so by extension it is not a reliable source. It looks like this was already covered in a number of blogs, and thats where this should stay. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, not a platform to advance personal issues. Leuko 04:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Backronym Revision

What I added to the Backronym page was neither nonsense nor vandalism. while i accidentally put it in the wrong section (placed in the "Offensive" category instead of the "Replacement" category) by the time i realized this you had already removed it completely. It is perfectly acceptable in the "Offensive" section where I meant to put it unless other similar additions to the page made by other users are also considered vandalism, in which i'd i apptreciate these elements be removed as well. unless all of these are removed as well I'd appreciate it if you reverse you're revision and request you do me the favor of putting it in the category I meant to put it in, though it was removed from the page all together before I was able to correct my minor mistake. thank you very much and I'd appreciate it if you contact me in a similar matter to the way you originally notified me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.38.5.6 (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Please note the text that said: "PLEASE: Do not add new backronyms without citations and significance." You did not provide a citation, so it and the other uncited examples were deleted. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Leuko 04:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Beat union

Umm...... i didn't create beat union so why did you message me???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chriscool334 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

That was an automated message from VandalProof. Sorry about that, I guess the program got confused. Did you edit the article? Because I am not sure if it automatically leaves a message on all editor's talk pages. I'll have to look in to that. Leuko 21:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Beat Union

why should this article??? be deleted there is nothing wrong with it... what ever you want me to add so i could keep this page i'll do it...... just tell me what i must do!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.koolman7 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

In order for your band to have an article in Wikipedia, it must meet one of the criteria in WP:MUSIC, and this must be verifiable from a reliable source. Leuko 23:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

there is no way i want the Beat union page to be deleted..... i did add the hangon tag and i'm not happy for what you're doing to this article...... you mustn't understand the importance of this article. its not to advertise it claerly states the facts on them. tell me why does it have to be deleted????

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not an advertising service for your band. For bands to have entries in Wikipedia, they must meet the Notability criteria in WP:BAND. Otherwise, the entries are deleted as non-notable. And if "there is no way I want the page to be deleted," maybe there is a WP:COI problem? Leuko 23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

tell me why it should be deleted????? thers nothing wrong with it.. no advertising, no nothing. so don't send me a link saying "look at the terms in the wikipedia thingy"Mr.koolman7 23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)mr.koolman7

Wow you responded so fast, I am going to guess that you didn't read WP:BAND. Please do so, so that you will understand why your article will be deleted again. Leuko 23:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

ohh...........—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chriscool334 (talk • contribs).

So you are the same person as Mr.koolman7? Leuko 00:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

USS Charrette (DD-581)

If deleted the external links for service in Hellenic Navy that part of the history of ship remain without citation. The deleted links are not spam links (two of them are pages of created from Hellenic Navy) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmoshs (talk • contribs) 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, the p-base link is dubious, and links to sites in other languages is discouraged under WP:EL, since they are only accessible to the small numbers of readers on the English Wikipedia that speak Greek. But I see your point about using them as citations, so I guess we should leave them until appropriate English substitutes can be found. Leuko 03:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Hellenic Navy page is in english and is a citation for the greek history of ship (brief history) and the modifuications in armament during her greek career. The Official Museum page contains the full history of ship but is only in greek, if created an english version I will change the link. The p-base link is a photo gallery from the Park of Maritime Tradition and I think that is a citation for the fate of ship (help reader to understand what is this "park" refered in text) but you can remone the link if you think that unnecessary.Pmoshs (talk • contribs)

Beat Union

oh so its because they wern't popular enough to be on it???

well can i do a page on 5 cent deposit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.koolman7 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm not the same as Mr.koolman7

I have no clue what you're talking about. I know no Mr.koolman7.

But the peafowl thing is breaking news

I have a page on this.

I think the [citation needed] tag should remain until Kermit actually publishes something. Be patient. He is also studying Green Peafowl behaviour and that it mimics vipers found in the area, as well as Great (Pythonmoth bird as he does not think it's a pheasant) and Crested(Serpentmothbird) Arguses mimicing more cryptic marked vipers and pythons. He also thinks Green Peafowl an ecological connection with cerain Lophura pheasants, and thinks that the Kalij Pheasant is a complex of several species. He also split the Bornean subspecies of Great Argus from the Nominate. But the most shocking behaviour he is studying is that Green Peafowl, as well as the Arguses, are monogamous in the wild (he says "female harems" with a male are really the males own juvenile offspring, quoted on Birdlife Red Data Book). I am still researching this topic, but I have done lots for only a few months. Frankyboy5 03:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the research on this, keep it up! I have an exam coming up in a week, but I will take a look at it soon. Leuko 03:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I once took a photo of a Green Peafowl looking at the Taipei Zoo (not the one in the gallery), and it kinda looked like a viper's face. Frankyboy5 14:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

re: Leash Law

Did you bother to follow the links of the band members to see if they were in any notable acts? Didn't think so, please do so next time before putting a new band article up for speedy deletion.--E tac 01:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1) WP:AGF, 2) WP:CIVIL, 3) IMHO, the article should be able to stand on its own merits and notability should be explicitly stated and properly cited from a reliable source. Leuko 03:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't assume bad faith, it is an obvious fact that you either didn't look into it (which I assumed) or that you did and just didn't care about the members notability (which would be worse and apparently appears to be the case}. I also was never uncivil towards you in any way. I was just telling you that you should look into something that is only a click away before you go ahead and tag a band for deletion. Perhaps you should read WP:BAND since you are bringing up policies that I didn't even break, here is one that you completely ignored as a band having even just one member in a different notable band automatically asserts it's notability. --E tac 03:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Relate

I think you left the spam warining on Relate. I didn't make the article but it is the sort of organisation that should be represented on wikipedia. It is a well respected organisation that does a lot of good as it were. I have put a hang on note on it. SuzanneKn 22:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, someone changed the external link so that it was spam. Good catch, it's been fixed now. Leuko 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism Message

Leuko,

You left a message indicating that I had vandalized "The Lockhorns". Upon receiving this message I also saw I apparently had done the same to a variety of pages, or at least someone with this IP address had. I made none of these changes. I realize that by registering I could avoid this problem, but wouldn't my registered name still be tainted by this IP address which is shared by several people?

No, once you sign up for an account, your IP address is no longer publicly visible, so those vandalism edits would not be associated with your account. I encourage you to sign up for an account and become a productive WP editor. Welcome! Leuko 20:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Shaped Postcards

The link is just supposed to show some examples of shaped postcards. If you have something better, go for it. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The link is to a shopping cart. This is obviously not allowed under WP:EL and WP:SPAM. I am sure there is something more appropriate on the web. Leuko 21:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

I apologize for removing the AfD discussions from Tragic Villain and The Magic Camp. I understood both deletion issues had been resolved. Thank you for all of your messages, you've been very helpful. ZimmerBarnes 07:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not appropriate for the creator of the article to decide whether any issues related to the nomination for the deletion have been decided due to obvious conflict of interest issues. After 5 days from the initial nomination for deletion, an independent administrator will come along and will follow the community's consensus on what is to be done with the article based on the discussion at the AfD page. If you haven't already, check out WP:DP for a more detailed explanation of the process. Leuko 14:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ancient mysteries

Please read the intro and look at the article's history. The intro matches the Quest piece and the article cites from day one that Quest is the source. Also, you are not supposed to remove the copyvio until the matter is decided by an administrator. --The Argonaut 16:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, usually copyvios are blantant cut and paste of an entire page. This is a little less obvious as only a few paragraphs are copied. I've replaced the copyvio notice. My apologies. Leuko 16:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussing SLCs is NOT an opinionated thing

Please do not revert my section on the Shenendehowa wiki page because you personally feel it's opinionated. Every single thing I wrote about SLCs is based off of real fact. Steinize that! 19:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you able to cite a published reliable source? No, didn't think so. Please see WP:V and WP:NOR on why it was removed. Leuko 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You have been warned for violation of the 3RR rule. Your account will be deleted if you continue to violate this rule. Steinize that! 23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, reverting repeated vandalism is not a 3RR violation. 2nd, accounts are not deleted for 3RR violations. Please review WP policy before making such comments. Leuko 23:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey Leuko, that comment was very smart, useful and much appreciated. Thanks, Crum375 15:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the {{nomorelinks}}? It's really a much underutilized template. :-) Leuko 03:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

concerning entry on Physician

Dear Leuko,

I think you tagged the above article as needing references soon after I made my first attempt at editing (any article). Since then, I have added a few web links and also some etymological references, as well as trying to improve clarity. Would I be too bold in removing the 'references needed' tag? From your user page, I gather you are an American medical student; I hope you find the history of the word 'physician' interesting. DavidB 21:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is rather interesting. Thank you for your additions and references, and I've removed the tag but you would have been welcome to do it yourself as well. Leuko 15:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Argentia

Hi Leuko,

I do not understand why you reverted my edit on the USS Noxubee (AOG-56) page. All I did was bypass a double redirect. Any clarification would be much appreciated.

Neelix 19:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just looked at it quickly, and it looked liked a deliberate misspelling. I've reverted back to your version. Thanks for catching my mistake, and once again my apologies. Leuko 19:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

You have marked my page (plashmisturn) for speedy deletion claiming that it is a hoax. I can assure you that it is not. I was wondering why you think that it is a hoax and what I can do to prevent others from thinking the same thing. Arithmia 19:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

By citing reliable sources that 1) it does exist (to meet WP:V), and 2) that it is notable. Leuko 20:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Angel Logan/ USER Name: Angelbells

Hi There, I've been corresponding with Wikipedia User: Natalie Erin several times today. Originally, there was a link posted with the Xlibris Wikipedia page, but it was removed today. I was not advertising for my own services, as I am a published author -- and I am an Xlibris author. Further, as Natalie suggested, my email address has been modified on my web site to demonstrate that I am who I say that I am. I have been trying to post accurate information about Xlibris, through and article I wrote and I own, which is posted on my web site. I am an Xlibris author and I have been for three years. Therefore, I am more than qualified and authorized to share information on the Wikipedia site.

Natalie mentioned that they didn't have proof that I was who I said I was, but if I could generate an email from the email associated with the source of the article, which is posted on my web site, then they would have some type of proof.

You will see on my site that I am an Xlibris author. You will see that on the page of the Xlibris bookstore that reflects me and my book.

This isn't about advertising. I am simply trying to provide accurate information about Xlibris. Who better to do that than an Xlibris Author. The previous poster indicated that they were a vanity publishing company. That is inaccurate. They are not a vanity publishing company and if you visit the Xlibris web site, there is information under their FAQs section that verifies that they are not a vanity publishing company and why. They also specifically indicate what type of company they are, which is a publishing service provider, for self published authors.

Please, I would appreciate it if you would check into this, as you'll see that my information is valid. I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you, Angel

"A Vision Into The Window Of Life, To Help You Find Your Wings To Fly!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angelbells (talk • contribs) 02:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Personally, I do not have an issue with your identity. Really, I could care less. However, the reason I removed the link is that it was 1) link spam (link inserted only to promote a product), and 2) the resulting webpage had so many pop-up advertisements, it nearly crashed my computer. Both are in violation of the External links policy. Second, you may have missed it, but on the article creation screen it says: "Do not write articles about yourself, your company, or your best friend," since there is an inherent conflict of interest. The article reads like advertisement of the company that you are affiliated with. It is not appropriate to use Wikipedia for self-promotion (see: WP:SOAP). Leuko 03:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I can clear a little of this up. This user first posted something that was a copyright violation from a website with an incompatible license. The whole issue of proving identity was only related to the copyright issue. I left a message for this user on her talk page to try to explain the policies behind reliable sources, etc., but I'm not sure if those have been read and understood. Natalie 03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification. Leuko 03:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Leuko, Thank you so much for editing that. I didn't realize until after I posted my message to you, that it was viewable by other members. I attempted to edit out the contact information but you were very expedient, in handling that for me. Thank you!!! Angel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angelbells (talk • contribs) 03:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

No problem. Yes, everything posted on WP is public. While I removed it from the active page, it is still visible in the article's history [9]. I am not sure if an administrator can delete it more permanently, but if they can, I have no problem with that. Leuko 03:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Leuko, I understand your policies and I will adhere to them. However, I still firmly believe that the part on the Xlibris page that calls them a "vanity publisher" should also be removed. My point is that they are not, they clearly state that they are not and it is bad for those of us who are authors for Xlibris, to be categorized as being affiliated with vanity publishers. Would you at least consider that as something that could be changed? If not, I understand. Thanks again. Angel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angelbells (talk • contribs) 03:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, they are not my policies, they are Wikipedia's. :-) As far as the change, can you cite a reliable source that says the company is not a vanity publisher? A reliable source is something which is independently published, like the NYTimes, WSJ, etc. According to one of the sources provided, a former company officer stated that on average 64% of books printed by this company are bought by their authors. Leuko 03:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Martin Amis

Leuko what is your problem with my addition to the Amis page? He is a fine writer, but has recently begun sounding off about matters Islamic without ever visiting the Muslim world or knowing anything about it. This has been frequently pointed out in the British press over the last few months so it seems quite justifiable to write it. Aziz.

The reason I removed it was that you did not cite a reliable source verifying your addition. Per WP:BLP, all negative statements added to biographies must include a reference otherwise they will be deleted. If you can provide independent confirmation of your additions, you may re-add them. Leuko 15:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple living

Dear Leuko, My apologies for doing wrong with the Simple Living page. Whilst adding my comments regarding the campaign, it was done with positive energy only, certainly no other reason. I do hope you are able to reconsider drawing attention to NDW and I would be delighted to supply you with a quote. It is an incredibly effective, non-profit campaign and has made a great contribution to improving local and global environments. So much so, it was launched in the US last year, due to popular demand. We need all the help we can to get people on the right, green tracek. I look forward to hearing from you if you have a moment. With kind regards Tracey Smith tracey at downshiftingweek dot com

WP:SOAP: Wikipedia is not a soap-box, and it should not be used for advertising, propaganda or "drawing attention" to your favorite cause. As you seem to be associated with the organization/movement in question, it would be a conflict of interest for you to add this material. Leuko 15:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I don't agree that they were inappropriate. I've read all the pages on Wikispam. How is a site that has a directory of physicians irrelevant under physician? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.106.89.67 (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not an advertising service for physicians or anyone else. Leuko 18:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Iberogast

Leuko, could you please let me know how I can change this article?

I know gastroenterologists, pediatricians, family practitioners, and naturopathic doctors that recommend the use of this product. It works for me and I wanted to learn as much as I could about it. I have a BSc from Simon Fraser University in Cell & Molecular Biology (Kinesiology minor) and it seems to have great references; I hope I have cited enough references--correctly. I did get some information from Medical Futures which distributes Iberogast in the US and Canada. I look forward to your response. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhagardt (talk • contribs) 08:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC).Bhagardt 08:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In short, the way to change the article is to make it seem like less of an advertisement, and write it in more of a WP:NPOV way. Yes, there were a lot of references, but most of them were from the journal Phytomedicine (and supplements at that), and after researching it, I can't determine it to be peer-reviewed or a WP:RS. MedlinePlus has no information on this drug. Leuko 19:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve McClaren

My comment on the Steve mclaren page should not have been removed. The nickname 'second choice steve' is in common usage by fans and media alike and it baffles me as to why you keep removing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.194.106.47 (talk • contribs).

Please read the note I left on your talk page. Per WP:BLP, all potentially libelous statements need to be attributed to a reliable source, otherwise they need to be expediently removed. If the term is common, it shouldn't be difficult. Leuko 19:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)