User talk:WLU

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10...9...8...7... Why am I counting down? The only way to find out is to click on this link!
10...9...8...7... Why am I counting down? The only way to find out is to click on this link!
Archive
Archives
  1. Start to October, 2007
  2. November, 2007 to February, 2008
  3. February, 2008 to present
  4. empty
  5. empty
  6. empty

arbitration

/RFC



Contents

[edit] Biceps brachii muscle

While I do understand some of your removal and editing, overall the edit seems too agressive. You even removed one of the few scientific citations from the page concerning rehabilitation of the muscle in paralysis victims.

I have been collecting quite a lot of information to expand the article properly this summer. Would you be able and willing to collaborate when that happens? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, bad me. I had thought that the something as obscure sounding as "Tohoku J Exp Med." would be a non-pubmed-indexed pet article pushing spam. Much to my chagrin... PMID = 7817390
Reviewing the abstract though, I don't know if I would put it in biceps brachii, I'd be more inclined to try to integrate it into quadriplegia or FES (more likely the latter). What could you say about the BB based on this article? It's a single person case-study and I doubt it's results are restricted to, or unduly important in, the BB article.
However, since it does have a pubmed number, I've on real reason to object to its replacement. I wouldn't put it in supination though, I'd say its own section, particularly if you can dig up more articles on the subject. I don't think I could help much with an expansion beyond proofreading, but I'm more than pleased to do that. Though I'll be really curious to know what you're going to add since it is a relatively minor muscle. I am intrigued : ) WLU (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There is definitely a lot of work to be done on the article. As I say, I've been accumulating articles and sources, and should have time to work on this article later this month. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't think I can help, but if you need/want help with wikification, proofreading or outside eyes, I'd be happy to do so. Also, I don't really like looking for sources, but don't mind summarizing, so if you have a lot to try to integrate, feel free to drop a couple on my talk page and I'll see what I can do. If you want to let me know when you start, I'll monitor a bit more and see if there's anything I can do. WLU (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Source

If you read the The God Delusion carefully you would have recognized the source on page 20, which I cited. Those words are Dawkins' words not mine. Dawkins is above honest criticism because he is a living person? Since when? What is this true love? Kazuba (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brainiac

Forget it. Obiviously Dawkins' The God Delusion (If you have read the book. Odd you don't remember things he writes) is too confusing for you and over your head. Read something easier next time. You haven't got a clue. Go catch a meme, put it in a jar and show it on CNN.Kazuba (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I understood the book just fine, but you deciding that he is being dishonest or whatever is original research and should not go on the page. And judging by the reverts, others agree with me. Thanks, WLU (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on Kazuba's talk page

Hi WLU what's up! :) I can't help but notice your formatting makes it look like your recent comment on Kazuba's talkpage was directed at me...(it weren't me what added crap to the article, I swear! :P ;) ) Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it too much, most contributors will recognize the broken style of discussion as a back-and-forth between that editor and me. If you're really concerned, feel free to put in a section heading and adjust the threading. Were I in the same situation I wouldn't worry about it, but I'll revisit his/her page and see about a new heading. WLU (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Socks ahoy

I have filed a report here that you might like to view. If you know any other socks of this user could you add it thanks. BigDuncTalk 08:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate sock postings, I find them confusing. The only thing I can think to add is that I believe User:DeadlySniper, UDACommander and User:WLU-is-gay are the same person. Should I add that to the page? WLU (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah if you dont mind UDAcommander is the only one I had dealings with and he is mentioned in the report. BigDuncTalk 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
D'oh! see you did already BigDuncTalk 13:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Master of Orion

OK. I must admit I was surprised about how things were going down the drain, especially after a look at your Talk page showed that you're pretty reasonable. There's one thing that you will have to accept, namely that there will be times when I'll just say "It has to be like this" because I've already thought through how to summarise something and probably re-drafted it a few times because earlier drafts set off my alarms (yes, they treat my text the same as any one else's - and I try to re-visit articles I've edited about 2 weeks later, to see them with fresh eyes but before I forget too much of the background info). I would ask that you put drafts of changes on Talk:Master of Orion first, as Randomran and I have both done quite often at Talk:4X. This avoids the problem that one change often leads to another, which can cause trouble if there is not complete agreement about the first.

I'll make a list right now at Talk:Master of Orion of places where I think the article as it currently stands needs to change. Some of them will be sketchy. Question them if you want, but watch out - some of the answers might be rather detailed.

Some day if we both have time it might be fun to make a sub-page to debate the verifiability / truth issue. IMO that's probably the cause of a lot of instances where Wikipedians can't see the wood for the trees. Philcha (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Carry on editing - I've just been told dinner's ready. I'm currently working on planet types (about 25% done) - the notes may satify your hunger for details. Philcha (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving Talk page

Hmm, I wonder why it suddenly needs archiving? More seriously, can you please tell me how to? Philcha (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Get Firefox - no risks of malware installed by Active X or HTAs, can import IE bookmarks and cookies, very stable in my experience. Then consider getting Thunderbird email - Outlook uses IE under the covers to display HTML emails (the ones that look like Web pages, have images, etc.), so your'e still at risk from malicious HTML emails containing Active X or HTAs; T-bird uses the Firefox HTML engine so is inherently more secure. Best check first if your anti-virus and other anti-malware programs support T-bird - give me a call if you're not sure. Last time I looked the 1 downside of switching to Thunderbird is it's hard to migrate back to Outlook - because Outlook does not understand the standard for mailbox files. I've been using T-bird for over 3 years and am happy with it.
Help w Miszabot would be much appreciated - Wikipedia is lousy at documenting tools. Philcha (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Just don't pad out my Talk page so it reaches 250K before yours Philcha (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well-deserved! Philcha (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] question & SRA again

I am having trouble with a guy that has removed a tag without good reason in psychohistory. I've never requested help for a third opinion in the WP official page. Is that the procedure you recommend me? Please keep in mind that I was the editor who inserted a whole section critical of psychohistory. But this guy is messing up the page and I don't want to edit war by placing the tag again. Which step would you recommend me for requesting formally a 3rd opinion? —Cesar Tort 04:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes: It's good to see that you have become quite a scholar in SRA, and that other rational editors have joined up in our efforts to edit the article. Please continue with it! (I on the other hand have unwatched some of my favorite articles because I'm fedup with endless discussions.) —Cesar Tort 05:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't seek a 3O for a couple reasons. First, the page is kinda a mess - what would your question be? If the page needs a POV tag? You can't even tell because the references are a mess, there's unattributed criticisms, dubious summaries and possibly unreliable sources. Delete unreliable sources, summarize the rest accurately (both positives and negatives) and attribute clearly without adjectives, and what you've got left is a verified summary of numerous people's criticisms and the rebuttals. Also, since I've put up an opinion and edited already, technically I'm a third involved party and you'd probably have to go to a request for comment.
Someone needs to re-read WP:V! It's not about rational or not, it's about verified or not! So long as a source is reliable it can be used. So long as it is accurately summarized, it is a benefit to the page. I may be skeptical of SRA, I may think it's total bunk, I may think other editors are POV-pushing nutjobs, but as long as they attribute and accurately source their nutjob (but reliable) sources, all my problems go away. I'm sure I'd have shouting matches were I to meet User talk:Jack-A-Roe in person and otherwise violently disagree, but despite having a very strong POV and editing towards that end, he's excellent at sourcing and summarizing, to the point that I don't bother reviewing his contributions.
Anyway, my recommendation would be to comb through the criticisms section, make sure the chunks that are together are all talking about the same thing (i.e. don't mix criticisms with deMause with criticisms of psychohistory, don't mix criticisms of deMausian psychohistory with Freudian psychohistory), get rid of the remaining quotes and include any counter-arguments. deMause is notable, so his count (even if I'm reluctant to use the JPh as a source, it's 100% legit for use in defending 'deMausian Ph'). Criticisms sections are legitemate but it's better if they can be mixed into other sections. My thought would also be that the page should be split between deMausian and 'regular' Ph - they're linked, but obviously deMause took it in a different direction and there's significant differences between his version and previous or other versions. Though I think I'm going back on an earlier opinion of splitting the page. WLU (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your intervention. I have added a dispute tag since the section misleads the reader. Sometimes I see you as a kind of one of the best lawyers in Wikiland. Conversely, I am so lazy to read the policies... Cesar Tort 15:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...better than re-adding the tag would be re-working the section so the tag isn't needed. Find reliable sources, summarize accurately, add and cite. Anyone with a long-term interest in the subject, you will have to work with. So long as you both operate on a common set of principles (more accurately the policies and guidelines), you shouldn't have problems. WLU (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Tags are more handy than doing heavy edits, and I no longer have a long-term interest in the PH (psychohistory) subject, at least not in the wiki. Before the Freud criticism was added the critical section was ok. I didn't mess up the section. On the contrary: I managed to "write for the enemy", since I added User:Slrubenstein's very critical sources. Only a truly devoted wikipedian could spend hours upon hours negotiating the smallest phrase. That's why I admire your Socratic performance in the SRA article. My liver would have exploded long ago! What an heroic job it's to "prove someone in internet wrong" as the cartoon linked in your user page states... Cesar Tort 16:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I hold grudges, what can I say. Adding content is difficult, time consuming and often takes you out of your area of expertise, but it's the reason why we're here. Lately I feel I've spent too much time on talk pages, so I try to work on the occassional content area as pennance and practice. WLU (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

But now Ishmaelblues has removed my tag. Please take notice that the previous tag was a NPOV tag, added by Arthur Rubin (the tag I added today on the other hand was a DISPUTE tag). What can be done with this sort of behavior, I mean: removing a tag without proper discussion in talk page? I can't re-add my tag (not Rubin's) because that would be edit war. Are you sure I shouldn't ask for help in a WP page for conflict resolution processes? I only wish the tag remains until Freud criticism be attributed to Freud's ideas; not to deMause. I am not asking much actually... Cesar Tort 17:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And now this guy, when removing my tag, is saying in edit summary that you removed it ("nnaccurate tag which WLO removed and we talked about"). Again, what can be done with this bahavior? —Cesar Tort 18:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Were I you, I'd swallow the urge to go tit for tat - the page is now identical to your last edit - I'd guess that an error was made. I'm not sure what happened since the same ES was used and he essentially reversed himself. It's where you want it to be, so there's no real need to do anything else. If conflict continues, talk politely on the talk page, cite policies that back your position and listen (always the hardest part). With less than 1000 edits, the other guy isn't going to understand policies and guidelines very well or necessarily be a good editor - you'll probably save yourself a lot of grief if you cut him some slack. I know it's not easy (check my apology form a couple days ago on User talk:Philcha and WP:WQA) but the long term is better with compromise and a forgiving approach. Even if you're absolutely, completely right. But the best bet is really just edit the article until the tag is unneeded. Helps wikipedia, helps you, helps the page. Just really, really time consuming... WLU (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops! I hadn't noticed the self-revert with identical edit summary. Thanks for the advices. I'll try to follow them. —Cesar Tort 19:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Good luck, easier to give advice than take it :) WLU (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, not so good. Ishmaelblues has, again, reinserted the tag that he himself self-reverted. He stated in edit summary: "removed tag as discusses between cesar tort WLO and me" as if consensus was reached in talk page: a talk page where he, once more, misrepresents your posts. —Cesar Tort 20:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I've commented and left IB a message on his talk page. I recommend you take the initiative start a discussion with him/her and cite (civilly and calmly) what you think is problematic, possibly suggest some suggestions. S/he's new so there's a whole lot of wiki to take in all at once; use the kid gloves. WLU (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If you get a moment

Could you help here [1] I think I figured out how to but I am not sure so it would also be helpful to me to learn too. She/he is a pretty new user and found this article to learn things here. I am not helpful too much. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, will have a look. WLU (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, she is aware of the problems in the article that is what caught her attentions to help her learn. She accidently found the article free of editors for awhile and thought that she could edit in an area of interest and see if she can make the article Wiki acceptable. I think this is a really good idea for learning too. The Crohn's article was dormant when I first got to it but I wasn't bold enough, as you are aware, to actually jump in and make the changes necessary. She is bold enough though to make an attempt to make the article better and learn in the process. That's why I asked you to help because you are excellent in explaining things, esp. to me and that is an achievement all on its own! :) Thanks my friend for helping out, now I'll go see what you did so I know how to do it too! ;) Have a wonderful day. I get to mop floors for fun, see why I am in no hurry to leave my computer!! :) --CrohnieGalTalk 13:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem, and if you are talking to her, feel free to refer her to me if she's questions that you can't answer. I'll do my best (and avalanch her in acronyms and shortcuts; I found out today that WT: takes you to the talk page in question - WT:MEDMOS, WT:V, sweet!).
The basic problem was that there was nothing above the highest heading (basically the first section should have been the lead, but leads don't need section headings). Did you know there's a preferences click box that lets you edit the lead without having to edit the whole page? I found that out in May. It's awesome. WLU (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I already have! :) Bold of me isn't it, but I knew you wouldn't mind. We have been talking mostly about Crohn's and meds that she wants to understand better and I want people to understand what CD is like to live with and the meds necessary to try to have a normal life, if that is even possible these days, at least for me.
I don't understand what you mean by the WT section above. Is this too in my preferences? I did find the lead info in the preferences and activated it. I have to be honest with you though, most of the things in the preferences I don't understand what they will do and I guess the verbal beatings my husband tells me over and over that I do not install or use something I don't know about sunk in! :) I tend to get in trouble with trying to use programs and such with my computer and he has to spend hours if not days fixing my mistakes which of course brings the reminder to not do if you do not understand.
I saw how you removed the title and damn, again I should have been bold and given it a go. Keep after me about this lack of courage I have. I should have made the change and given it a go but of course I chickened out, yet again. Oh well, I'll try to be bolder again but I have to admit I am disappointed with myself that I wasn't. Sorry for the book (ish) response. Again, thanks for the help and the info. I find it amazing that you too are still finding things to help with editing after being an editor for so long. It makes me wonder what else I am missing that would help me a lot with my editing here. I just found out a few days ago about the new tabs at the end of the tool bar titled <ref/ref> and CITE (took out the curly brackets that says it's a template). Boy are they real helpful for putting in sitations the right way. By the way, what is the difference between the two tabs? I have used the ref one once for an external link, is the other for wiki-links? Thanks again, sorry about more questions and how long this is. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
WT isn't a preferences thing, WP: takes you to 'wikipedia' pages, pages that are official policies, guidelines and sometimes essays. Each of these has a talk page, and WT: takes you to the talk page. WP:MEDMOS is the manual of style for medical articles page. WT:MEDMOS is the talk page for the manual of style for medical articles page. Click both, see the diff?
From what I know, changing your wikipedia preferences doesn't install or change anything on your computer (it's like changing your hotmail or gmail preferences - since it's on a server, it shouldn't be able to mess with your home system). That being said, internet explorer has been crashing a lot lately whenever popups engages, so I could be wrong.
Wanna see something neat? {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}. Check out the edit pane to see how I did each one. And click on the 'no W' button while doing so.
If you know about diberri, pubmed, citation templates and how to footnote, you've got most of what you need for medical aritcles. The rest is just details.
I'm not sure what you mean by tabs. My preferences or web browser might give a different display, I don't see tabs but I do see buttons. WLU (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok I understand the WT: now, thanks. I don't understand though what you are saying about {{cite book}} and so on and the use of 'no W'. I will be back probably tomorrow to find out, so if you would put it on my talk so I don't forget to look. Hubby is getting PO'd with my being on the computer so long. Talk to you later,--CrohnieGalTalk 16:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(bing!) I was entranced the first time I saw the {{tl| wikitext, it fills the cockles of my heart with joy and is much more fun to use than the no wiki tags (which are accessed via a button on the tool bar - the W with the red circle and like through it next to the sig button). WLU (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I get it now, I never noticed the W button. By the way I meant buttons above when I said tabs. I have never used the no wiki tags so that was probably why I didn't have a clue to what you were talking about. Thanks again for so much detail and the new buttons ;) you have shared with me. The two last buttons I talk about above when I used the wrong term 'tabs' that are ref and cite, what is the difference between the two?
Also, I want to thank you for the lovely comments you made about me at Cyn's talk page "here". Your comments are very much appreciated and it's nice to hear (read) that kind of thing about my editing behaviors and all. (Sorry having a bad day, not a lot sleep last night because of it, so my apologies if there are errors.) Thanks again, have a wonderful weekend,--CrohnieGalTalk 15:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The cite button will help you build a citation {{cite journal}}; the ref button will put the citation (or any other highlighted text) between <ref></ref> tags, which will in turn insert a footnote and move the actual citation to wherever there is a {{reflist}} template. All the buttons essentially allow you to apply common wiki formatting to any highlighted text - highlight horse and click the blue Ab and it throws it into [[ ]]. The buttons are just quick ways of adding commonly used text - the globe does external links, the big A does section headings, and I'm guessing the #R is for redirects -#REDIRECT [[And I'm right]].
I've no problem praising you Crohnie, you are excellent at civil discussions even if you don't use the edit pane enough (HINT!!). Most important of all, you're approach and intentions have always come across as civil and good in all my encounters with you - that's a lot more important than as important as good spelling, grammar and referencing. I tried to say more important, but I just couldn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first! WLU (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks yet again for everything you say above. Keep up with those HINT to me! :) I didn't catch it until I was told but User:CynRN is on vacation so like you did for me, I put the wikibreak template up for her. Thanks, seriously, for all the nice things you have said and done for me. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't put up the wikibreak template - it's more for users who are regulars and would be missed. I think s/he's too new for people to miss her, though I would suggest leaving her a note about the wikibreak template and what it's for. WLU (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abduction phenomenon

If you have some time in the next few weeks, could you help me out with this article? I don't even know where to begin fixing the silliness below (it might be a case of no one bothering to refute it/no sources to balance this cherrypickage): -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Perception of the abduction phenomenon Others are intrigued by the entire phenomenon, but hesitate in making any definitive conclusions. Emergency room physician Dr. John G. Miller asks, "How can a person have any firmly held belief about this when it's so mysterious? The opinions of the true believers are hard to swallow; and the opinions of the die-hard skeptics are not based on reality either. There is some middle ground ... It's clear that this is some sort of powerful subjective experience. But I do not know what the objective reality is. It's as if the evidence leads us in both directions." (Bryan, 162) Similarly, the late Harvard psychiatrist John Mack concluded, "The furthest you can go at this point is to say there's an authentic mystery here. And that is, I think, as far as anyone ought to go." (emphasis as in original) (Bryan, 269)"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by PetraSchelm (talk • contribs)

I listened a conference of John Mack back in the 1994 CSICOP conference. A good antidote to abductions claims is Phil Klass' UFO Abductions: A Dangerous Game, which I bought and read it. —Cesar Tort 23:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a quote from it that could specifically neutralize quotes from Bryan, like "die hard skeptics are not based in reality either"?! -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I read it quite a few years ago but some of my books are unavaliable for the moment. I am pretty sure that you can find enough info in the site for the Skeptical Inquirer, which has many online articles published by Philip J. Klass and Robert Sheaffer: major skeptical scholars on UFOs. But I guess we have to take this discussion elsewhere so as not to clutter WLU's talk page. —Cesar Tort 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That's right, unless you have New York City travel tips, off my talk page!
Unfortunately I don't have the time to stretch myself to another page, and most of my reading is taken up by SRA stuff right now (sigh). You may be intrigued to know however, that some of the SRA books discuss UFO abduction, so if you remind me later on, I'll try digging through some indexes. My library has a PHENOMENAL renewal policy so I've got the books for like, a year.
You might also try PMID = 10840926 and PMID = 7960296, a search on Amazon focussing on scholarly books, and google scholar. Hypnagogia was also linked to abductions I think. The biggest mistake that I've made on SRA in particular is focussing on the existing literature on the page; a simple lit search on the usual sources ended up being very helpful. Most of the nutter/credulous crowd focusses on the pop stuff, which is very credulous and tends to propagate the panic. Scholarly tends to eviscerate it, and fortunately is also more reliable on wikipedia.
Incidentally, were I editing the article, I'd trim the external links, reorder per WP:MOS/WP:GTL, get rid of much of the further reading section, eliminate everything that's a redlink, per WP:PROVEIT take out anything lacking a reference, Bryan should be heavily footnoted and the book taken out of further reading, and eliminate the quotes (see WP:QUOTE - quotes are usually not necessary, if not outright bad. Death to quotes! And pop culture!
I'd also be curious about the possibility of juxtaposing several quotes in a way that might give the appearance of a coherent position (i.e. a synthesis). WLU (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latissimus Dorsi

Yo man. I took a shot at editing an article pursuant to Wikipedia's policies and as per our conversation. Please take a look and let me know if I screwed anything up. By the way, I live in Manhattan if you need vacation advice... Hammerfist (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple comments:
  1. When wikilinking, note that while it will turn blue if it's a redirect, a direct link is always preferred. For the link in the section title, that would mean latissiums dorsi muscle rather than latissimus dorsi, and the letters should all be lower case (the software has changed in the past year such that capitals matter less if they're at the start of a word; they're case sensitive for any mid-word letters though, and also can produce a redirect)
  2. Medical, anatomical and general scientific articles require highly reliable sources; medical articles and statements about diagnosis and treatment require even better sourcing than most biological articles The floota link is not a reliable source; it shouldn't be used as a reference. It also shouldn't be used as an external link. Medical articles also have restrictions on linking. I can't see any reason why the floota link should ever be used in an article, the degree of oversight is unclear.
  3. You might want to use citation templates; they are easy to generate with an ISBN or pubmed number, particularly using pubmed/isbn Diberry's template generator
  4. Yup, any advice on NYC would be cool, feel free to add it to the link on my user or talk page.
I would seriously reconsider ever adding the floota link to any pages; even when accompanying a sincere desire to help wikipedia and solid edits like the lat article, it still looks like spamming, and there's simply not much reason to. The standards for articles it could be appended to are quite high, and if it's describing diagnostic tests, where is the information on the test coming from? Assuming it's a reliable source, that is what should be referenced. If it's not a reliable source, then the floota pages should not be used because they are citing an unreliable source. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth; even if the tests work (i.e. is 'true'), until published in a reliable source, it's not verifiable.
Aside from that the edit looks good and I've left it accordingly, keep it up! If you think I'm presenting a biased or unfair view of the floota link, I'd suggest bringing it up at the external links or medical talk pages (the latter will probably get much more attention by informed contributors, who can give you more specific suggestions on good sources for information that is similar to what floota provides). I simply can't think of a reason why floota should be linked, but perhaps other contributors may be convinced or support it. Thanks, WLU (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Rereading the policies, I may be willing to concede that a website should not be FOOTNOTED, however, I think it's a viable candidate for an external link on a few pertient articles for a number of reasons. With respect to verifiability, the site has been conditionally approved by Health on the Net Foundation (http://www.hon.ch/) and will soon receive final approval once some edits are made. Second, the site is anecdotal in nature, and thus it's "verifiability" is a moot point. Third, the site contains numerous disclaimers to this effect. Fourth, with respect to advertising, by web design standards the site is quite "clean" because any ads it may contain are segregated from the rest of the content in the sidebars (pursuant to HonCode standards), and besides, Wikipedia is awash in links to external sites that contain some amount of advertising.
Hey how do I tell if an article is a medical article?
With respect to NY:
1. I don't know if you live in a city right now or not, but most suburbanites are astonished by the amount of walking one does in NY in the average day. Bring comfortable shoes.
2. Use the bathroom at your hotel and at every restaurant you go to. There are virtually no public bathrooms in NY. Your only access to bathrooms during the day will be limited to those places where you eat or buy something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammerfist (talk • contribs) 12:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you take it up at WP:MEDRS - since the external page gives advice, it should be vetted there I think. Anecdotal evidence isn't really evidence, and is almost certainly not peer reviewed, making it less reliable. Disclaimers that the advice give might not be really good is not the best way to ensure the page is reliable enough for wiki purposes :) My interpretation is quite mainstream I believe, the only way you will find out is if you solicit opinions from people other than me, which I think is a good thing.
If you see other pages with spammy ELs, I urge you to remove them, or pass them along to me and I'll review (and almost certainly remove, death to spam!).
Basically if it talks about medical things, it falls under MEDMOS and MEDRS - if its about a drug, medical procedure, talking about pathology, illness, treatment, anything like that.
I've two suggestions - as above, bring up the link at MEDMOS or MEDRS (either one is a good choice); you could also bring it up at WT:EL but that page isn't so good for opinions as there's not near so much traffic. I could present it there for you if you'd like. I suppose you could put in a request for comment, but usually that's for specific incidents on specific pages. Second, leave floota for a while and edit elsewhere without adding it as a footnote or EL. After a month, say 500 edits or so, revisit and see if you still think it appropriate. Experience goes a long way to offsetting disagreements between newer editors and experienced ones.
I could also suggest some specific admins who could give you an opinion. Admins aren't gods, but they can block and they got to be admins by groking policies. User:Arcadian is one I respect, User:Jfdwolff is good too.
Thanks for the advice! WLU (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Another reason to go to MEDMOS/RS is the expertise there is more than just lil 'ol me. I've never heard of HON, so I'm not inclined to trust it. At MEDMOS they might say "HON? Why didn't you say so! It's an excellent source!" I've no idea. If you do post there, feel free to point the discussion to this section so people can see the context. WLU (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I will take it up with those guys. Also, I know it's a must-see, but I would strongly advise limiting the amount of time you spend in Times Square and in midtown in general. It's kind of a circus and will stress you out. Try just walking around Gramercy or the West Village. Hammerfist (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I very much think you will find their opinions like mine but! if there is a degree of oversight on floota, it may meet the criteria for a reliable source, though I'm skeptical about its use on a medical page. Another suggestion for your edits - when you added it to lat, it was basically as 'here's a sentence that mostly serves to introduce the footnote' (that's how it read to me). Its a bit awkward and artificial. Instead, I would suggest something that introduces the problem the floota page discusses a bit better (x is a problem caused by y; this can be treated by z). For the lat edit, I'd suggest something along the lines of 'tight muscles can be diagnosed by the hands not touching the ground while on the back'. Something that reveals the contents of the source rather than pointing to it. But that assumes the source passes MEDRS, I'd confirm before I'd re-insert.
Two more things - are you related to floota in some way? See our conflict of interest guidelines if so, the links should be added via a third party if this is the case.
Finally, great suggestions! Do you have e-mail enabled? I'd love specifics (what restaurants are good, what stores are worth visiting, best museum) but wikipedia is not a how-to guide and that's kinda stomping all over WP:SPAM :) I got tickets to The Daily Show, sweet! If you feel like adding more places to visit, there's a list, slowly growing, in the link below the picture above. WLU (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)