User talk:Mdwyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Email Marketing Page

Minor edit made was citing source of information which is a direct quotation from a website.

Email_marketing Erick880 22:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A steel toes source

http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/EHSRM/EHS/PPE/footwear.html

This has some good info (although might need to dig deeper to find their sources,) about steel toes and legal jargon with respect to steel-toe requirements by employers.

[edit] A little help on the "steel toe boots" article

In my experience as a wearer of military boots, the portuguese air force issued steel toe jump boots to paratroopers. There were serious problems with those boots (that are similar to the US WWII jump boots) such as ropes that got entangled in the hooks and cuts in the feet caused by the steel toes. Later, they were replaced by boots with leather-reinforced toe boots with thicker soles and better stitching then the bates enforcer paratrooper boots series 11. As far as i know, the infantry boots are still steel-toed. If you'd like, i can send you some pictures of my portuguese jump boots (they're a little worn). Any questions to: (address removed)

WP:BOLD! Feel free to add that yourself, if you'd like. However, for it to last, we'd need to be able to find some source somewhere to cite. Is there a news release somewhere that would have this information? Do you have the manufacturer? --Mdwyer 20:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] surgeryimages spam

See User_talk:Mdwyer/surgeryimages

[edit] LCLabs Linkspam

See User_talk:Mdwyer/LCLabs_linkspam

[edit] Slurpees

Strawberrwii banana - Yeah - first time I saw that I though it was incorrect but see [1] --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 03:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wendy's

Also posted this on my Talk page:

Those tags may have been a bit excessive, sorry. However, at this rate, we'll have a list of menu changes that keeps growing and growing. I figure it's either cite each of the changes, or just remove that stuff from the list. Otherwise the article becomes more of a news blog about the menu than an encyclopedic entry.

You're right, that URL probably won't stay put for long. Plus, it's a primary source, which is less preferable than a news article. I just don't think the menu changes are notable enough to be included in the article. -- Kesh 02:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Blocking User_talk:Doctorlove08

Thank you for your quick work with this block. I enjoy fighting vandalism around wikipedia, and yet this is the first time I'd used a request for adminship to block an account. I was a little stunned at how quick and decisive it was. I was a little suprised you used an indefinate block instead of a 24h block. It is true that the account has so far only been used for vandalism, and I'm pretty sure it would never be used for anything good, but I'm trying to assume eventual good faith.

Anyway, I wanted to check with you to make sure I did the right thing. Did I misrepresent the user's edits, or is it common to block them after only four edits? --Mdwyer 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It depends upon circumstances - taking a look at the edits, you can see that they are not accidental vandalisms, so the probability increases that it is a vandal-only account. Indefinite means that the block can be repealed upon a successful review, if the editor decides to appeal. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess I have hopes that, with sufficient drugs and electro convulsive therapy, any vandal can become a good user... but maybe I'm being stupidly optimistic. :) In any case, thank you again! --Mdwyer 01:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Your edit to Talk:Slurpee

Sorry, I thought User:67.175.138.202 started the discussion (I failed the see the rest of it as I was using WP Pop-Ups). I believe WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, WP:NOT#FORUM. The whole conversation is not really questioning the article, or providing any critical commentary, so it should likely be removed ;)⋅ --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  20:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the original request was pretty snarky anyway. "I'm waiting..." As stupid as it is, the information gleaned from this conversations could be put into the Culteral references section of the article. Still, I wouldn't shed any tears if it went away.
What is the thinking on cleaning up talk pages? I'd love to wipe out some silly things on other pages, but I'm under the impressing that removing content from talk pages is frowned upon, especially if they are recurring themes. --Mdwyer 21:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Has no-one awarded you a barnstar yet?

The Editor's Barnstar
Mdwyer, for defending articles from vandals/spammers. Axl 21:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baking Soda Cure All Nonsense

No problem. I couldn't pass it up! :-D --BillyTFried 17:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Links

Not a problem. Some of those links were spam, so it was done with good intentions. --D-Day 00:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link deletion - Article: Composting 04:22, 21 January 2007

OK so why not transfer it to the Vermicompost article instead of just deleting the link altogether ? 213.122.8.1 16:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Because I personally didn't think it belonged there, either. I think it doesn't fit the criteria of WP:EL. --Mdwyer 00:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you may well be correct but do you think you might be just a bit more constructive - even helpful. In what way do you personally think that it doesn't fit the criteria of WP:EL ? 81.131.17.57 19:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure! I'm assuming we're talking about the UrbanHarvest.org about Vermicomposting? The nutshell guideline says Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article. I removed the link from Composting because the article was about Vermicomposting, while the article was about Composting. Since Vermicomposting has its own Wikipedia article, the link was not appropriate.
As for the adding the link to Vermicomposting, the rule is to avoid Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. Or in other words, the content on that page was very good, but that content should be contained within Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not intended to be a directory of links. External links are to be used as little as possible. The Right Thing to do is to bring that information into wikipedia. Of course, one cannot simply copy the text over, because that would violate Joyce Brau's copyright on the material.
Finally, although I don't think it applies in this case, I also use the guidelines at WP:SPAM.
Would you consider getting a permanent account with Wikipedia and expanding the existing Vermicomposting article as needed? An account isn't required, of course, but it does provide a fixed identity, which comes in handy at the very least during discussions like these. --Mdwyer 06:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As a casual user of Wikipedia and a very occasional contributor, I am not sure that registering would serve any real purpose in my case but I do accept your point about discussions. To the point in question, I must admit that I was not aware that the Vermicompost article even existed at the time the external link was added but, in my defence (UK user), I did add the wikilink once I realised my mistake. So, I do accept that the placing was inappropriate. I regret I don't really feel qualified to successfully bring the material into the article in the way you suggest so I'll just have to let things stay. I have, however, placed the link in the External Links section of the Vermicompost article but if you still have your reservations then please feel free to delete it again from there.

Many thanks for explaining your position. 81.131.57.169 02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the link will have to do until someone does the work.
I have to apologize, though: I removed another link from Composting, for much the same reason as yours — there's already a link to Humanure and the external link already exists on that page. After I did the edit, though, I checked on who made the edit and it appears it was your edit!
I'm sorry! I assure you I'm not out to get you! I just happen to keep an eye on the Composting page (among others). --Mdwyer 04:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] biff

I know, I checked what it was before removing it. Do you suppose we add all email programs to the e-mail article? A link to Microsoft Outlook, Eudora, pine (I think). I don't think so. Yonatanh 01:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Removing stale warnings

Hi Mdwyer, it's usually a good idea to leave at least one or two months worth of warnings instead of removing all of them as you did here, so as to justify to new editors why their shared IP has been blocked in the first place. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The WP:UW stuff says that the warnings should be removed in favor of only the block message. Did I understand that correctly? --Mdwyer 05:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Messages should be removed without archival after three months or less, depending on the number of warnings. In the case of registered vandals, archiving is up to them so long as recent warnings aren't removed." --  Netsnipe  ►  05:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Talk pages of indefinitely blocked users should be cleared of all content except the block notice. This block notice should explain the block reason, or link to the block log which does so." --Mdwyer 05:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
That said, it doesn't seem like the Right Thing to do... I'll mention it on the UW discussion... --Mdwyer 05:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Indefinite blocks should not be used on IPs". schoolblocks are usually set to 6 months, not indefinite. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunlight001 Dispute

Moved to /Sunlight001

[edit] Vandalism at cartoons

Thanks for removing the vandalism from cartoons Bingoplayer

My pleasure! --Mdwyer 04:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parkinson's disease

I've noticed you've been watching recent edits made to the Parkinson's disease article. In that case, you should be aware of the banned user General Tojo. I've just reverted edits made by his latest sockpuppet Agfa4000 (talk • contribs). Note the use of a URL shortening service to circumvent the blacklisting of viartis.net. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Food Photos

Hi! I was just wondering what I should put if I have a photo of food that I want to upload that isn't my work. Since, most pictures of food on Wikipedia were created by the uploader I don't know what to put. I do have permission to use the image.--Sportman2 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the copyright rules aren't very forgiving. The reason most photo uploads are the work of the uploader is because they are usually the only person who can fully release the rights to the photo. Putting a photo up on Wikipedia requires VERY liberal licensing. You say that you do have permission to use the photo. Unfortunatly, Wikipedia demands a bit more than that. The creator has to release the image under a Creative Commons or other open license. I'm, personally, not too familiar with it. You might Start Here or ask around at Wikipedia Help Desk. Sorry! --Mdwyer 04:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My warning

I just wanted to let you know that I acknowledge my warning--I just wanted to point out to that guy the blatant stupidity of leaving out essential information from an article and merely putting on the "talk" page in answer to soemone's question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 07:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

I support your decision.(Myscrnnm (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Edits to Talk:Diabetes mellitus

I think you may have made a mistake when you removed a users comments in Talk:Diabetes mellitus. While I do not agree with what he has to say, it IS on a talk page, and probably not subject to summary deletion. Also, we do encourage people to sign talk page additions, which is what made me think you may have thought it was in the main article. Anyway, I didn't revert it cause I figured it would look better if you did it yourself. NipokNek 17:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I feel like an idiot. Yes, that was a complete mistake. Thank you very much for catching it. I have attached a little explanation and apology to the original text. --Mdwyer 18:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sheilding

Hi.. its Mr. Anony Mous. i checked out that article and the one on electromagnetic sheilding. both explain how they the cage sheilds from static and radio waves, and it says stuff about the cage holes have to be smaller than the wavelenght being sheilded. obviously a mesh cant sheild from light because light has a very short wavelength. but it still doesnt explain why saltwater (no holes at all. well actually, the distance between the atoms.. but thats way smaller than the wavelenths of light).. so why doesnt sheilding occur? any other ideas..? 209.53.181.69 23:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal

A user with the ip address 67.175.157.96 has committed numerous acts of vandalism. His most recent accussed a prominent historian of plagiarism when there is no evidence of this. You have in the past threatned to block this user (and he or she has been threatned by another). I would suggest that you block this user.

First of all, I'm not an admin. I cannot block users. I can only request that users be blocked (you can, too! WP:AIV). If I made a request today, the admins would reject it -- there's not enough current evidence of vandalism from this IP. Right now, all we can do is document the vandalism; I've attached user warnings to the talk page. If they do one more this month, they'll probably get blocked, but only temporarily. Unfortunatly, someone from that IP address is also providing good edits, too.
In any case, thanks for the heads-up. I'll try to keep an eye on them. --Mdwyer 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link on Medulloblastoma Page

Why did you remove this link from the medulloblastoma page without even bothering to offer an explanation? It does not represent spam by any stretch of the imagination.

That page contains an article written by Dr. Packer of Children's National Medical Center in DC, followed by a list of clinical trials. Dr. Packer is one of the world's foremost experts on medulloblastoma, the standard treatment for medulloblastoma is called the "Packer protocol", see here and PMID 11305414 (reference to Packer Protocol in article on adult medullo).

Webwench 23:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I switched it to a citation. I've been trying to improve that article and sometimes I will place a link as more or less a placeholder until I am able to cite it.

That article is most definitely a work in progress. My son has a variant of medulloblastoma and I've learned much. The previous article was full of uncited factual inaccuracies. I'm working on trying to fix that. Webwench 16:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:UW future?

Hi Mdwyer,

Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace templates. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers Khukri 10:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Amateur radio/N0ZAP

The callsign is ineed a vanity call. I couldn't believe it was available! When first licencsed in 2003-02, I was unhappy with my original callsign, so kilo golf six, pretty darn yucky only lasted a few weeks. ;-) 73 DE K6WEB Peter K. Sheerin, K6WEB 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:CEXPlogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CEXPlogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baked beans

I saw your edit summary and was intrigued. I've blocked the vandal IP for a week for persistent recent vandalism.

Meanwhile, I can see you're a well-established Wikipedian, so I hope you won't be put out by some advice that you may have heard before.

  • Please do leave warning messages on the talk pages of vandals when you revert their efforts. It really helps others when they assess for blocks etc.
  • Your edit summary was useful for me, in that it alerted me to the issue, but some vandals revel in such attention. See WP:TROLL. Oh and WP:BEANS! A cooler, more detached response denies them the fuel for their fire and makes their efforts pointless (that's the theory anyway).

Anyway, thanks for wearing a white hat. Glad you're on our side. --Dweller 20:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mesothelioma Research Foundation of America

I've despammed this article and removed the db-spam tag (the text was also copyright originally). However, your talk page comments gave me some concern. Could you have a look, and if there are concerns with the current text, or the notability of this organisation please let me know, and if necessary I'll delete it. It doesn't seem to have as many Google hits as I would expect, only 2000 odd, but it's not an area where I have any expertise. Thanks, Jimfbleak 12:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about the conflict of interest, it's more of a problem when people are pushing their own organisations. AfD may be worth a try, on the grounds of notability, but, as you point out, the MARF article is now very similar. Can you beef up the MARF article with more independent evidence of notability? That would then help if the other one went to AfD. Jimfbleak 06:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 203.82.48.172

Hi Mdwyer, thanks for reporting this IP to AIV. I know it's frustrating when these dynamic IP's have runs of vandalism and accrue these "final warnings" on the talk page. I'm hopeful that the vandalism has stopped for now, and that a block isn't required, but I'll watch on RC patrol for the next little bit. Thanks again -- Samir 05:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, agree that an abuse report looks entirely appropriate. Thanks for dealing with it -- Samir 06:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.222.212.231 (talk) 11:31, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oobleck

How can you consider the thing i wrote about oobleck's smell non-encyclopedic.Skele 16:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"It is adviced not to leave oobleck in room temperature for over three days, because after three days it will create a strong odor similar to crap."[2]
When have you seen the word "crap" in an encyclopedia? --Mdwyer 19:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
When have you last seen the rules of wikipedia?Skele 22:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
All the time. Look for pages that start with WP: Here's one to start you off: WP:PROFANITY --Mdwyer 22:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You should read it too and know what the first three lines mean. And you should check out this page Good Faith. Skele 08:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I've touched up your edit to make it wikified and encyclopedic. --Mdwyer 15:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Umami UofM info

When you say "UofM info" which M do you mean? Please be careful about using abbreviations that are easily misunderstood. MMetro 20:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There are five fingers on the human hand [citation needed]

I love that quote!

But then I have to ask myself: Is that actually correct? Without a cite, I'm left wondering. Lots of people have less than five fingers and it's very rare to have more - so it might be more correct to state that "Five is an above-average number of fingers to have on a human hand."...but that would be OR and cause for a citation needed tag!  :-)

SteveBaker 19:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Dizzyfixer

Hi - I recently put up some really good links to something called the dizzyfix, it had video and a test I took, I thought this was OK to do since we're not supposed to reproduce copyrighted material? You took them down. I later read on the history page that it seems I have not been the first to put this device up. I actually "talked" to the author of the referenced paper to get his/her opinion. He/she suggested I talk to you to sort it out. In reviewing the history/discussion of the subject YOU had suggested that the dizzyfix go in the external links tab so I don't really see why you took that down. I put it a couple of other places too like on the balance problem page and something called the DixHallpike test(how they diagnose bppv), but I found them gone as well. As someone who has struggled with BPPV I was grateful to be in Canada where this thing was first available, it helps a person to do the treatment motions right at home. I thought others would be interested too. If for some reason I can't put up the links to the videos (which are interesting by the way) why don't we do either one of two things. 1) put it in line "home devices like the dizzyfix" with no hyper link or 2) put it in the external links section. I think the job of an encyclopedia should be to help people like me find the medical answers they need. In addition I found at the bottom of the discussion page that the author mabromwich "talked" to cliffc about the links and they seemed to come to some agreement. I am one of those people who would like to see it up. Comments welcome.Mmargerisson 02:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I was hoping for a response from you (Mdwyer). I would like to put it back up in the external links section for others to see and use. There are, I see, good references available for the technique of this kind of home treatment.Mmargerisson (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Your actions appeared to me to be promoting the DizzyFix device and the DizzyFix website, in contravention of WP:SPAM. Putting the link inside the body of the article is in contravention of WP:EL. I actually agree with you that it should be mentioned in some way. I had a very brief but terrifying bout of BPPV, myself, and was very happy to have a Wikipedia page to explain it to me. It does appear that DizzyFix is a legitamate and effective treatment. It probably does have a place in the article.
That said, I'm dedicated to making sure that Wikipedia is not damaged by commercial interests. That doesn't mean that DizzyFix cannot be added -- it just means that it needs to be added in such a way that respects the rules of Wikipedia.
For an example, take a look at how we handled Paul Kraus. It originally started as an external link to Mesothelioma. I still feel to this day that the information exists strictly to sell Paul's books. However, we were able to work around that, and in the process add content to Wikipedia. Adding verified content to Wikipedia is always good. Adding external links is almost always not.
Along those lines, do you own one of the devices? Could you take a picture of one? With freely-licensed pictures and other content, I see the possibility of a being able to create a DizzyFix page within Wikipedia. We'll have to be careful, though: the whimsical name will attract other editors eager to mark it for deletion. Such is the day-to-day fight on Wikipedia... --Mdwyer (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. It seems reasonable to add a link from the BPPV page either directly to the dizzyfix site or to a page within Wikipedia that we make. I, like you, have had some scary times with BPPV so this device was such a relief. I have had a device for about 3 weeks now. I sure can take a picture of it. I might just ask the guy I "talked" to who did some research on it, maybe he has a better photo we can use, I only have an older generation digital camera. I'll ask him and get back to you. How should we start the page? I've not done that before. Do you want me to write something up? Mmargerisson (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
OK so I figured out how to add a page. Look for it in the next couple of days. Your input on how to navigate the rules would be appreciated.Mmargerisson (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)