| Revision as of 11:01, 5 January 2013 editGerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers380,507 edits →Precious: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:35, 5 January 2013 edit undoWLU (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,243 edits →Hebephilia: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
| One of the problems is that we don't have a wide range of sources to choose from as it is not heavily researched, so it can't be resolved by strict interpretations of ] or ] in my view - a strict interpretation of ] using the sources available is needed I feel. Your views are welcome. :)--] | ] 02:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC) | One of the problems is that we don't have a wide range of sources to choose from as it is not heavily researched, so it can't be resolved by strict interpretations of ] or ] in my view - a strict interpretation of ] using the sources available is needed I feel. Your views are welcome. :)--] | ] 02:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :You're the third or more person to change their name in the past couple months that I know of. It's like there's a new fashion and once again I'm missing out. | |||
| :All is not well, H3N2 is kicking my ass despite my vaccination. It's quite the epidemic where I'm at, and I get to be a carrier, horray! | |||
| :Looking over the talk and main pages, you're editing with editors I know and respect greatly. James Cantor, Legitimus, FiachraByrne and FormerIP are all solid, experienced and knowledgeable contributors (though some may not be as familiar with policies as they are with the scientific literature). I'm not particularly interested in the page topic, making it less likely I'll dive in. But I do see some low-hanging fruit, notably the number of sources ''not'' included on the page. There's a list on the talk page, a couple in the EL section, and the page itself isn't over-long. My advice on controversial pages is pretty much always the same - find the best sources and integrate them, and if there are controversies then do your best to explore both "for" and "against" arguments. Skimming the article and history, there don't seem to be a lot of points missing and the controversy seems to be over a relatively small number of statements. I'll give the page a parse and make some minor changes, but I can't promise I'll really sink my teeth into it. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 17:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Precious == | == Precious == | ||
Revision as of 17:35, 5 January 2013
| Please note that I usually don't do e-mail; if it's about wikipedia use my talk page. |
| If I judge it requires discretion, I'll contact you. This is tremendously one-sided. I assure you, I feel terrible about it. Really I do. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Jet lag edits
You reverted my edit of the jet lag page (my user name is: temperzee). My edit refers to a calculator that I created and use clinically to advise patients about how to counter this problem. I'm a physician (sleep medicine specialist) and my scientific references are listed on the calculator itself. Any explanation how to allow this calculator (which many find useful) to remain on the Jet Lag page is appreciated. Temperzee (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I will reply on that talk page. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 19:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Discussion at User talk:Drmies#neutrality
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Drmies#neutrality. Would Breast cancer awareness benefit from the addition of Klawiter 2008? Senra (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48
Disambiguation link notification for January 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gary Burghoff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stamp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
|
Best wishes for the New Year! | |
| Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! |
Hebephilia
Hiya WLU, how are you? I hope all is well. I am Literaturegeek on my new non-geek username, lol. I am contacting you as you have these cool skills of good policy and guideline based editing in controversial articles. I am wondering if you have the time or interest in dropping by the hebephilia article - it is controversial for a number of reasons. At least one psychologist there has admitted to having a COI - which is fine but worth noting. I tried to update the article after I read in a psychology web site that it had failed to make it into the DSM-V and the reasons that it was opposed but these edits keep getting reverted/deleted or opposed on the talk page. I may very well be wrong in my edits - sexology is not something I know a lot about - your opinion would be of value. If you are busy don't worry. Have a Happy New Year!--MrADHD | T@1k? 02:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
One of the problems is that we don't have a wide range of sources to choose from as it is not heavily researched, so it can't be resolved by strict interpretations of WP:MEDRS or WP:RS in my view - a strict interpretation of WP:NPOV using the sources available is needed I feel. Your views are welcome. :)--MrADHD | T@1k? 02:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- You're the third or more person to change their name in the past couple months that I know of. It's like there's a new fashion and once again I'm missing out.
- All is not well, H3N2 is kicking my ass despite my vaccination. It's quite the epidemic where I'm at, and I get to be a carrier, horray!
- Looking over the talk and main pages, you're editing with editors I know and respect greatly. James Cantor, Legitimus, FiachraByrne and FormerIP are all solid, experienced and knowledgeable contributors (though some may not be as familiar with policies as they are with the scientific literature). I'm not particularly interested in the page topic, making it less likely I'll dive in. But I do see some low-hanging fruit, notably the number of sources not included on the page. There's a list on the talk page, a couple in the EL section, and the page itself isn't over-long. My advice on controversial pages is pretty much always the same - find the best sources and integrate them, and if there are controversies then do your best to explore both "for" and "against" arguments. Skimming the article and history, there don't seem to be a lot of points missing and the controversy seems to be over a relatively small number of statements. I'll give the page a parse and make some minor changes, but I can't promise I'll really sink my teeth into it. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 17:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Precious
fringe topics
Thank you for quality contributions to fringe topics, making ritual abuse and "ill-conceived, unsubstantiated pseudoscience" known as such, for improving breast cancer awareness, for dispute resolution, and for the recognition of "contributions of high quality in both prose and sourcing", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!