User talk:Sticky Parkin/Archive 1

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.

Welcome!

Hello, Sticky Parkin/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Yours, Smeelgova 04:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC).

Citations needed

Very succinctly put edits so far on Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous. However, I have found that no matter what the factual correctness may be behind your edits, they may not stand the test of time without utilizing citations in proper format. This involves using the typical Manual of Style type citation format, and bracketing it as a footnote around the citation which will appear at the bottom, utilizing this technique Yours, Smeelgova 05:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC).

How to create a User Page

You may wish to create a User Page. You can just click on the red "user page" tab uptop, or invariably also click here to edit. There is some interesting information on User Pages at Wikipedia:User page. Here is the list of Userboxes, and this is some Wikipedia information about Userboxes. Yours, Smeelgova 19:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC).

FYI

You may wish to take note and/or comment:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous Yours, Smeelgova 07:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

If you wish to comment on the proposed deletion you must click on the link above, not comment on the article's talk page. Yours, Smeelgova 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

I found it in the end:) Thanks. They are so derangedly obsessed with stopping this article and film being online every which way. Not acting like they are in a controlling cult at all, lol:) Thanks again and I like all this that you are doingMerkinsmum 18:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- No prob. Yours, Smeelgova 19:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

don't go:)

I understand your feeling that we cannot beat the trolls because they exhaust our capacity to care:) So it's up to you if you can be bothered with it anymore:) But I hope you will stay and do more/different wikipedia stuff, or if not that I will see you on a prominent 'anti-cult' forum:) or elsewhere online. Because I have enjoyed working with you on these issues.Merkinsmum 03:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As stated before, with an organization like we are dealing with, that has sued everything in its path with a pulse and a pen over the last 35 years, it's not worth it anymore. Between the administrator who is cooperating with the 10 or so Landmark obsessed individuals, and the individual who issued a blatant legal threat against me, it's just not worth it anymore. We'll see what will be done by others in the future. There is a chance I'll be around, there is a chance I'll come back, but probably in a much more subdued, lighter format, or on other topics as you say. Good Luck to you, and you can email me if you need other help. Yours, Smeelgova 03:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book)

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book). Yours, Smeelgova 03:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

we won

Oh I am so pleased aren't you, about the 'Gurous' article.:) I had given up and lost the will to live. I honestly expected its demise. Then on another site I heard it had been keptMerkinsmum 23:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. However, be very very carefull not to gloat too much, lest you be blocked by a random roving trigger-happy Wikipedia Administrator of an opposing POV. Be in touch. Yours, Smeelgova 23:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

Censorship

You might be interested in joining this group, especially in relation to everything that has been going on lately: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. If you do join, let me know, and let me know if you have any trouble adding the userbox to your userpage. Yours, Smeelgova 04:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
On another note, I just found another interesting group of Wikipedians that I had not heard of until now: Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians. Again, if you are interested in this one let me know if you have trouble putting the userbox on your page. Yours, Smeelgova 04:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Hey, I would like to join this group. I'm not very active on Wikipedia, but I am ~~fucking~~ passionately opposed to censorship. XM 15:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Joy of Satan article

Normally I do, but we were talking about (a) a copyright violation/link spam and (b) apparent nonsense. If the apparent nonsense was real, that's a different story. My bad. - Lucky 6.9 02:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Truth is stranger than fiction. I don't remember whether or not I locked down the title, but if I did, I'll unlock it so that you can edit it the way that you did on the article you pointed me toward. It'll be one hell of a hot button issue, no puns intended. :) - Lucky 6.9 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Much as it pains me to say it, go ahead and create it. - Lucky 6.9 21:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. I just logged on and saw the article on the new pages page. Naturally, the Roman Catholic in me is screaming bloody murder.

Lucky 6.9 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!

The Joy of Satan AFD is now enshrined in WP:BJAODN - [1] Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI

On the Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous article, you may have made a mistake, looks like the anonymous user was actually adding info, not blanking it. The only user who appears to be summarily blanking tons of stuff at will is User:Sm1969. Yours, Smeelgova 08:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

Merchants of Deception

Thanks for the link. I have just finished rereading it, and sent it to my friend. You've been a huge help! The suicide forest 01:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there!

I've just sent you an e-mail... TharkunColl 09:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

McKeith

You're welcome and thank you. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Publicity photos before you get all delete photo happy. Thanks ••Briantist•• talk 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above, but responding to your note on my talk page on this topic. Basically, thanks for the info, I'm actually a follower of "scient-ism" myself :), so naturally I find this woman a bit crazy to say the least, but the article is extremely negative even for a skeptic like me! --Merzul 03:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I laughed a lot about the blood pressure; but you know, my wikipedia addiction isn't very good for my blood-pressure either... I really need to go to sleep now! :) --Merzul 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 19:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A manual message from MerzulBot in geek mode...

Your edit had a small mistake, but the wicked MediaWiki software gets very confused and hides everything until the next closed ref-tag, so when adding named references, one has to be extremely careful in closing the tag, thus <ref name=Gibson /> and not <ref name=Gibson>. Oh, and this is a mistake I have made many times, so don't worry about it. :) --Merzul 03:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Orlando (The Marmalade Cat)

Sorry I did not get back to you sooner, but usually book covers are only fair use in an article about that book in particular, or perhaps, as used only directly referring to the book itself. I think. Good luck! Yours, Smee 12:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Sweat therapy

You're welcome. Gotta love those ip's copying text from websites all the time. Or registered users for that matter. :) Garion96 (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Eliot Tokar mess

You don't seriously think that "stig" and "Desidoc" are different than "Bklynbrn," do you? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 18:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right about the general notability. IMAO it's almost certainly a vanity page by the author, intended as free advertising. The fact that all of the editors involved (including the ludicrously faux-English "stig") have never edited any pages before this one make that seem even more likely. I was willing to leave the page in a drastically abbreviated form (such as the one you put together, or the edit of that that Desidoc did) just out of a general disdain for administrative process, but if the sockpuppets are going to insist upon a huge vanity page, I will take it to AFD. Anyway, just bitching and moaning. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm certain he's a sock puppet, and I don't really have much interest in proving it. In this way, I am much like most pseudoscientists. The fact that every single one of his entries includes several non-sequiturs intended to point out Englishness remains innately hilarious. "Taking the lift down to the loo, guv'nor." Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 01:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am almost too annoyed by the festival of new editors to WP:AGF. Despite what "Desi" said, I would have been okay with leaving the page up if we'd been able to properly fact-check it and so on; although Tokar is probably a fairly minor figure, we would have at least had a nicely formatted, properly footnoted, wikified and spamless page. But this latest round of thrashing about makes me think that I should have just taken the entire thing to AFD from the beginning. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 00:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a whole cast of characters now: clowns, scientists, quick response teams, friendly strangers. It would make a terrific film if they didn't all speak with the same voice. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 03:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The plot thickens; there are two new ones there. Funny how none of these people have edited Wikipedia except for the Tokar article. Whoever this guy is, he's nuts. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 19:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I, humble, poor, and lowly born

The meanest in the port division

The butt of epauletted scorn

The mark of quarter-deck derision

Have dared to raise my wormy eyes

Above the dust to which you'd mould me

In manhood's glorious pride to rise

I am an Englishman, behold me!

He is an Englishman!

For he himself has said it,

And it's greatly to his credit,

That he is an Englishman!

For he might have been a Roosian,

A French, or Turk, or Proosian,

Or perhaps Itali-an!

But in spite of all temptations

To belong to other nations,

He remains an Englishman!

Cherio! Stig --65.188.192.230 22:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

But of course Mum! That's why I cherish the times when I get to go home. Can't get a decent spot of Darjeeling or Earl Grey this side of the pond. And even if it looks promising, the blasted cup always tastes from coffee. - Stig--65.188.192.230 03:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for participating

I really appreciate you taking the time to give your input on the RfC re:Justanother. Thanks again :) Anynobody 02:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Awards

It is best when giving awards to post them as a new subsection heading on the user's talk page, then the user can copy that and add it to their own User page as they see fit. I usually put a note stating this below the award itself. Sometimes, depending on the user but usually, it is considering bad etiquette to edit that User's page directly... Smee 04:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Yay!

Thanks for the awards! TharkunColl 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You RAOK!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your civil demeanor on Wikipedia, and your kind devotion to spreading the Wikilove. Thank you. Yours, Smee 18:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to post to your user page, and/or leave here on the talk page as you see fit (not including this message itself). Yours, Smee 18:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Aspartame edit conflit

I think the only conflict was the PMIDs I had cleaned up; no big deal, easy to re-do, don't worry about all my edits. I'll do another as a sample. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't :-) I'm leaving tomorrow for two weeks; I just wanted to leave some samples done. It's more important to clean up the text first; refs can be fixed last. Once the text is cleaned up, it's really easy to use the converter on my userpage; just click on the drop-down menu for PubMed, plug in the PMID number (already in most of the refs), it gives you everything you need, already formatted, stick that between the ref tags. Have fun, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Demonology merge

Hello. Your merge isn't as bad as you make it sound :) I'll take a more detailed look when I get the chance but the only obvious thing that jumps out is you haven't mentioned the word "demonolatry" prominently in the merged-in section. ◄Zahakiel ► 23:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Voting

Hi! I saw the question you posted about voting.

I know it is confusing, I'm deeply sorry about that... there are about a half dozen people trying to make it easier, but there is more work than can be done in short time. Next time around it will hopefully be a lot better.

In any case, you can vote by going to Special:Boardvote. If that doesn't work for you, I'd really like to know about it, since you might have discovered a new and interesting way that things are broken.

Thanks for your patience. --Gmaxwell 11:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks. Voted.Merkinsmum 12:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re : Help learning about deletion

Hi, got your message so here's some advice. :) On notability guidelines, you're right that they vary pretty widely, and not only that they are not fixed yardsticks. They're more of less formed by precedence and rough consensus, so you'll understand them more of through experience.

However, there are actually some criteria that are fixed to help you. The most common reason (and much stronger argument) used alongside with notability for deletion is verifiability. It helps to do some bit of homework, such as Googling the subject, before concluding that the subject cannot be attributed properly to any reliable sources. Also check if the page violates what Wikipedia is not.

If you haven't done so, consider using proposed deletion, it saves times and cases where it is probably uncontroversial (but don't go too happy with it either). Let me know if you have any questions in future, I'll be more than happy to answer them for you. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Doreen Virtue

The gist of it was that there are not enough non-trivial secondary sources. Verifiability is even more important than notability, and usually is used to assess notability. There just wasn't enough sources that met WP:ATT to make an article. Maybe when a few more come around she can be put up again, hence why I stored it. Tmtoulouse 23:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

11:11 (numerology)

can you help at the article 11:11 (numerology) again. someone keeps deleting the references and info to ensure the article gets deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re : A speedy deletion question

Ah, this one doesn't cross the borderline, so it's best left at prod. It doesn't have keywords that make it sound like an ad, so we can't use G11. Neither it's a biography or group, so we can't use A7 either. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons edit

Merkinsmum

Your edits are not NPOV or accurate. Please stop immediatelyWard20 03:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

A few answers to your questions on my talk page, and a few questions for you.

The Mayo Clinic material carries a lot of weight because it is second sourced material and because of this e-mail about the article, (which I published in Morgellons talk for reference).

Dear Ward:

Thank you for your patience. In general, it is our editorial policy to cite organizations within articles when information is attributable to a specific organization. Non-attributable statements of fact generally have been synthesized from a variety of sources. All statements are reviewed by our experts for medical accuracy. Before producing this health topic, the product development team collected and reacted to ideas over a period of multiple months using a number of sources.

Sincerely, Dana Mayo Clinic Online Services

I believe no one owns any article on WP. I also see how a few editors have taken liberties with this article. I would like this article to accurately state the past and present of this illness. Whatever Morgellons is, will be decided by science not by Wikipedia. But Wikipedia will shape public opinion affecting research and treatment of living people with Morgellons. Wikipedia must be right concerning living persons. This article affects tens of thousands of living persons.

The questions:

1) You wrote, "Most scientists and medical professionals do not see Morgellons as a separate new condition, but a psychiatric one which is usually referred to as Delusions of Parasitosis(DP)." Why did you believe this and do you still have that position?

2) You wrote, "other areas have thoroughly investigated Morgellons and found it to be identical to DP." Same question as above.

3) Why do you write as if you don't like the MRF?

Thanks, Ward20 22:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the honesty. You write quickly and well.

I don't have Morgellons. I have a chronic illness that the CDC and NIH has taken their time to investigate. My mental and physical abilities have declined measurably because of the illness (I have the tests to prove it). My illness went through the same problems with the infectious vs mental controversy Morgellons is going through. It is finally starting to be taken seriously as a viral illness after 20 years even though serious immune system abnormalities could be seen in patients from the start. I did see all types of doctors in the beginning and I would have loved to take a psychotropic drug and get better. I did try them but they didn't work.

I believe there is a problem if the CDC has dragged it's feet if they think Morgellons is delusional. A proper investigation should be conducted to find out one way or another. In the mean time people are suffering needlessly in either case.

Look at the discussion page way before I stated to edit this article if you want to see bullying.Ward20 00:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)