Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:26, 22 May 2009

Please add notes to the end of this page. I'll probably reply here unless you suggest another page for a reply. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk)

I have recently removed several hundred pages from my watchlist, including more than 100 user talk pages. If I haven't responded to a discussion or a question you left for me on another page, please leave me a note.

Archives

/Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3

Autoconfirmed User

Hi WhatamIdoing, I have a question, when I gonna be an autoconfrimed user?

I read wikipedia but I don't find anything.

Help Me! --Xopauxo wiki (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Usually after four days and ten edits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Special education

Why did you revert the intro for special education? It is a perfectly good introduction. --Academiic (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your changes because they introduce outright errors into the article, remove information that is sourced and accurate, and are based on wildly incorrect information such as "Special education doesn’t really help them achieve independence" and "People suffering from profound mental retardation do not attend school at all as they are incapable of learning". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The current introduction doesn't have any references either. So what makes you think that's right too? Mine makes sense. There are two types of students in special education: One who is truly disabled and one who is at risk. People who are at-risk don't show any deformity. The disability is invisible. Special needs children were abused in the past that's why they have special education to protect them. The goal is to make sure their childhood is safe. --Academiic (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Because your information is wrong. For example, people with profound mental retardation do attend school. They are capable of learning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

People with profound mental retardation are burdens of society. They require nursing care their whole life. How can they attend school if they can't even take care of themselves? They stay in an institution, not a school. --Academiic (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I flatly disagree with your highly offensive premise, but the fact is that every single child in America, regardless of the severity of disability, is legally required to attend school, even if there is no possibility of the child learning anything. For example, there is a "student" in my area that cannot hold a baby bottle, focus her eyes, babble, or even move deliberately, and yet she lives with her family and attends the local public school during the day.

Contrary to your uninformed assertion, being placed in a residential special schools is still "attending" school. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well in that case, that means that they attend "school" for their whole life. --Academiic (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

HIV TEST

I'm surprised you haven't been awarded this before!?

		The Barnstar of Persistence (in flogging that dead horse...)
		For your repeated and curt persistence in flogging that dead horse. Stop, desist, it's finished, and had been for quite some time. You've made your point, whether correct or not. The other party has taken your point and either chosen to ignore it, or use your advice. For future reference, don't be so obtuse. Happy editing.

Oh lord that's not me, it looks like they copy-pasted from the barnstar I gave you in a section above, but forgot to take the rest of my signature off. My, that's sufficiently uncivil that were I an admin, I'd block the editor in question. AIDS denialist perhaps? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't you an admin? You should give RfA a shot - it's a cross between spinning a roulette wheel and being investigated as part of a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. :) MastCell  16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WLU, I'm not sure that AIDS denialist is the right category, but I suppose it's a possibility. It's also possible that he just doesn't know how to differentiate between a speculative case report and an actual test failure. False positives in low-risk populations are pretty common with the oral HIV tests. I need to figure out how to contextualize and display this sarcastic "award". I'm really quite pleased with it.

MastCell, my previous excuse was that I haven't managed to empty Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles yet. Since that excuse is pretty much "used up", my new excuse is that User:MZMcBride gave me a new toy to play with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

One time someone gave me an asterisk (*) as an award. I took it. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Aaahh crap. Sorry to USER:WLU, didn't know what that stuff was at the bottom, and didn't think it was a user. BIG apologies for that. MrAnderson7 (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WAID, I was going to suggest that you relax a little. A lot of my responses to your requests has been due to you being on the front foot all the time. It's just plain arrogant. How about giving people room to admit they stuffed up, and apologise without losing face. Unfortunately you don't provide that at the moment. I'm steadily loosing faith in wikipedia and perhaps the only page i'll edit is : http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_criticism. All edits I attempt are in good faith. I'm relatively new to this, so just learning the ropes. Perhaps if you throw me a little, I might actually make better contributions? MrAnderson7 (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi MrAnderson7, I understand that this conversation has been unpleasant for you. Copyright violations are a really, really, REALLY big deal on Misplaced Pages, and we have to be very firm about rejecting them, even if they're accidental (which is very common). Doubtless the website that you saw the list on didn't choose to tell their readers that they'd copied it from Virusmyth or that it was copyrighted by someone else, so it would have looked perfectly fine to you. If you'd said a month ago what you've said today -- that you simply didn't realize that the list was copyrighted -- then everyone would have been understanding. We've all made mistakes on Misplaced Pages, so we know how easy it is.

For myself, I'm willing to consider this particular issue completely and permanently resolved, and to offer a helping hand if you run into any future questions or problems. Misplaced Pages is a highly (perhaps overly) complicated place, and I'd be happy to help you figure out the parts that I've figured out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken about the copyright issues, and I agree it's an issue that requires upholding. I endorse your efforts on this matter. I therefore apologise for inadvertently copying said copyrighted material, and will try and do better in the future to source information with greater thought as to where it came from etc., before putting my foot in it.

Thanks for the offer of help, I am grateful for your understanding. MrAnderson7 (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why don't you just leave me alone? Seriously, I haven't vandalized anything. I am just an inexperienced user that can improve. Give me a chance. Why? --Academiic (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not an inexperienced editor: you're an experienced editor that is evading a long-standing permanent ban for abuse of multiple socks (33 socks as of this moment).

On the plus side, I do agree that you're not a vandal (and I sincerely appreciate this fact). I add that you try to be nice to other editors, which is also a worthy quality.

I believe in redemption, but your assertion that you can improve is unfortunately not demonstrated by your behavior over the last four years. That is, your technical skills have improved, but your content is just as bad as it has always been, especially in education-related articles. If you've made the same mistakes on Misplaced Pages for four straight years, why should I think that you'll ever figure out that information needs to come from named, published, independent, high-quality reliable sources instead of from your highly limited, very skewed personal experience? Why should I expect that in your fifth year, you'll finally understand the difference between formal, dispassionate, encyclopedic writing and tabloid journalism? I am skeptical of success.

However, f you want to edit on Misplaced Pages, then please quit creating new accounts and pretending that you're not evading the ban. Instead, send e-mail to someone at ArbCom and ask to appeal the ban. You will need to demonstrate that you have figured out why Misplaced Pages cares about verifiability and sourcing. You will probably also need to get a dedicated mentor (ideally one that knows something about education and/or celebrities, since you like to edit in those areas) that is willing to check every single edit you make for, say, the next year to prove that you have, indeed, figured out how to contribute usefully to Misplaced Pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes in their edits. The majority of my edits have been fine. I provided references. --Academiic (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are your last ten edits to articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Not one of them introduces a reliable source, and many of them introduce information that requires a source. Please: if you're going to tell lies about your editing, could you at least make them lies that are not trivially exposed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The previous revision did not have references. I will provide references when I can find it. Just give me time. --Academiic (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:PROVEIT, WAID is totally within her rights, and the excuse "just give me the time" is, bluntly, dumb. Spend your time finding sources first, then add them to the page. It's a common excuse used by sockpuppets, bored teenagers and other undesireables. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the references by the way. I'm not one of those people who say things but don't do it. --Academiic (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been blocked as a checkuser-confirmed sock. I hope that she'll take my advice to appeal the ban, with a mentor to supervise her edits during a lengthy probation, rather than trying to evade it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

ADHD and Scuro

Wondering if you have any comments? Thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban_of_user:Scuro_from_Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing/Header frequency

2,000 pages sampled. 1,547 had hits. It's essentially the "raw" data. I didn't do any analysis on it, though I probably could if you'd like. Sorry for the delay in getting the results—I've been moving / unpacking / everything else. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:LAYOUT

PamD has a question that I think could use a better answer. Other than that I've made a BRD edit, discussion is underway, read here. It was an old COI that was unresolved, Archive 5, if you want to refresh. Let's get it over with. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've read PamD's note three times now, and I can't make up my mind about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I know the order of the standard appendices is important, but I believe we should stay on task on the verification sections. There are also some procedural issues with the study you've design that would render the results invalid in an active discussion. I'll go over that in my talk. Replied, most of its exposition, skip to the bottom for my questions. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll work with you on User:WhatamIdoing/Header frequency. One question I have in mind is how you're planning on using this. I'm asking for what's on your mind, and what's on the agenda. ChyranandChloe (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be thrilled to have your help. The project really started with WT:LAYOUT#Appendix_order: Like most editors, I tend to edit mostly articles in a couple of areas. I haven't, for example, edited very many articles related to music, or popular culture, or computers, or military (and so forth: it's doubtless a long list). So what if articles in "my" area tend to be materially different from articles in other areas? How would I even know that, say, medicine-related articles were entirely different from, say, television-related articles? I have assumed that they're the same, but what if they aren't?

So I gave MZMcBride a list of what are probably the more common appendix headers (taken from WP:CITE and my memory of previous discussions), and he has very kindly provided the headers from a random sample of 2,000 articles. (I don't know the randomization method and therefore can't vouch for it, but I have no reason to suspect it to be materially biased for this purpose.) I've split up the table into more manageable chunks and figure that if I can do a little bit every day or two, then in a month or so, we might have some useful information.

I consider this a pilot study, meaning that part of what we need to do is to validate the study criteria (=the list of headers I gave to MZMcBride). I'm not too worried about including rare ones, but excluding important ones should trigger a re-run (with a newly selected list of 2,000 articles). Feel free to list "potentially missing" headers at the top (and to simultaneously add them to the table for the relevant article).

At the moment, my goal is to identify the "out of order" articles. Most of the time, this is a trivial exercise, but sometimes it requires looking at the article (thus the "Maybe" category). The "in order" (including "single appendix") articles can be pretty much ignored (except for determining that how frequent they are). After we have identified the "non-compliant" articles, we will want to figure out whether there's a pattern with the non-compliance (for example, whether ==See also== frequently ends up at the end, like Lima says s/he encounters fairly often).

I'm open to suggestions for improvement or further questions to consider with this dataset, or to let you develop and answer your own questions in parallel.

As for the agenda: At bottom, my real agenda is to satisfy my own curiosity about the order; I like knowing whether my assumptions are correct. If it turns out that we have a substantial disagreement with the order of appendices, then we should probably propose changes to the relevant guidelines. If we don't, then we might be able to use it (or a report based on it) to support the WP:PEREN item (because perhaps "my" articles are the normal ones, and "Lima's" articles are the strange ones, and if so, then perhaps people like Lima would like to see how they compare instead of just being told that "we said so").

In terms of section headings, I think that it would be stupid to reject rare headers simply because they're uncommon. I think it is sensible for pages like WP:LAYOUT and WP:CITE to use the most common headers in the examples (assuming the given header is appropriate to the issue being illustrated). It might even be helpful to identify the most common choices as being the most common (some people want the articles they write to look as "normal" as possible). However, I believe that good editorial judgment in the specific article, and the principle of conservancy and avoiding pointless edit wars, is far more important than imposing a "One True™ Answer" for how you label the section that contains the list of works cited.

Oh, and just in case anyone else wants to join in: YES, you're welcome to help out. Feel free to add columns to address new questions, to check articles to make sure that all appendices are included, to add any missing headers, and so forth. My only important request is that you (please!) don't "update" the table to reflect the "new" order if an article has been edited since this list was generated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Compiled 245 entries from Break 0, 14, and 15. I believe the results are enough to establish and end to the pilot study from which we should begin planning for the full fledged one. Here are the results, assumptions are satisfied to run these inferences reliably:

• † Sample size too small to run inference reliably
• ‡ Error bounds are constructed with 95% confidence

Understanding the question, we're interested whether: "yes" the articles follow guideline or "no" they do not. This data is blocked so to articles with sections. We can therefore establish with certainty that the proportion of articles with sections that follow guideline is 23.674% (±7.492% error) greater than those that do not.

Blocking to only articles where the order of layout is relevant (excluding "Single"). The total is reduced to 131. The results are as follows:

• † Sample size too small to run inference reliably
• ‡ Error bounds are constructed with 95% confidence

Of those articles where the order of the standard appendices is applicable. 48.85% (±10.8535 error) more articles follow guideline than those that do not. Maybe is defined as: cannot be established with certainty that it follows guideline or not. I've included as part of the sample size, but come to think of it maybe I should not. The cases are: Olav Duun, Minoru Torihada, and Oregon Files.

I think this is enough; errors follow a power law relationship, that is: to reduce the error bound by half you need to quadruple the sample size, to reduce the error bound by thirds you need to increase the sample size nine times, so on. I can run a hypothesis test if you want to determine how likely when we say "WP:LAYOUT is applied more likely than it's not" with respect to the given sample, but to my understanding more people misinterpret this inference than actually benefiting it.

Since we're working together on this, this is what I want to put on the agenda. We've established with the above certainty the results, you can increase the sample size, but it won't reduce the error bound that much. This is a pilot study, so in my opinion, we should end it here and plan out the real study. I want to stratify the study to article class (FA, stub, so on), in addition to clearly defining our goals, which I believe lack absolute clarity. Hope this isn't too much reading. Other than that, you understand this right? ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom

Hello WhatamIdoing, I have added your username to the linked above ArbCom Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder as you have had experience with dealing with scuro some time ago so your comments I think would be useful to give a historical perspective of the long running nature of this problem. If you would like to submit evidence and make a statement please feel free to do so.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say that Scuro and I hadn't really crossed paths very often, but a quick trip through the list suggests more than I remember. I don't consider myself involved in the current iteration of the dispute. I'll think about posting a view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That is fine WhatamIdoing. It is entirely up to you. Thanks for looking into it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering if you could let me know your decision. Looks like you are not going to be submiting evidence which is fine but just would like to confirm so that I can remove your name from the listing.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had just started writing a short comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so it wasn't exactly short.  ;-)

I don't know how useful it will be, and I'm sure that it re-treads ground already covered by others. But if the effort to type it up and provide a few diffs does any good at all, then I'm satisfied. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Category:Viral skin conditions

As you know, I have been try to populate and refine this category, and in doing so, I have come to feel that a rename is probably warranted. Currently, there are conditions in the category that may affect both the skin and mucous membranes, therefore, I was thinking about renaming it to something like Category:Virus-related cutaneous conditions. What do you think of that name? ---kilbad (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I generally dislike changing cat names except if truly important. I think you should worry more about a teenager, person who reads English as a second language, or very poorly educated person being able to make sense of it instead of being precise in a highly technical sense. Cats are navigation aids for real people, not formal taxonomies for experts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with keeping category names accessible for everyone; however, I don't think something like Category:Virus-related cutaneous conditions (or some variation) is overwhelming for the general reader. Specifically, I think using "virus" instead of "viral" may be clearer to the general reader. ---kilbad (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I like "virus-related" for the same reasons that I dislike "cutaneous". Have you considered having this conversation at WT:DERM? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Very few people respond to me at WT:DERM. I am usually the one responding. I will, though, post it over at WT:MED. Thanks again for your feedback. ---kilbad (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a catch-22 situation: if you don't use the task force's talk page, then people won't read it (because "everything happens at WT:MED anyway"), and then they won't respond. I don't have a good solution for you, other than to try to keep the task force's talk page looking active. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL footnote

I should have noted this in the edit summary, but I changed the footnote you added because, even if a reference is not reliable, WP:EL is not the applicable guideline. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw the change shortly after you made it, and I fully approve of your significant improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Parental Alienation Syndrome PAS webpages editing

Perhaps you could state your qualifications with regards to the changes I made to these webpages. You have reversed some of my editing and I have invited you to put forth your thoughts on the discussion pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaniceMT (talk • contribs) 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't go in for credentialism. Either you've got a good argument based solely on high-quality, independent, published, reliable sources -- or you don't.

More importantly, Misplaced Pages doesn't do edit wars either. You've been bold; your changes have been reverted. Now you need to discuss on the talk page. Note that the discussion is not about what's Good, Right, or True™: it's about what can be said about the topic while fully complying with all of Misplaced Pages's content policies and guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean True™. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

DL

Gosh -- right after your friend Dick Lyon posts on the RFAR aganst me with an interesting attitude, I note your post mentioning him in the ADHD case. He calls me "one of the very worst editors" on WP -- but I guess you are on his list too? Collect (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume that I'm very near the top of his list, actually. I hear that he has done some good work in more technical areas, but he doesn't appear (to me) to be able to do so in articles about transsexuality any longer. I won't say that he's incapable of improvement: the most RfC/U about him did convince him to cut down on his profanity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If Dick has decided that Collect is one of the very worst, then perhaps I have now lost that distinction in his book. — James Cantor (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, I'm fully convinced that you are #1 on his list of undesirables. The rest of us truly pale in comparison. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Historically, James takes the prize; well, no, it would probably still be Geoeg, but most evidence of his existence was erased after he was banned for life. But James has stopped editing articles in which is has severe COI, so not such an active problem any more. Dicklyon (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, W, if you're going to say bad things about me, it's conventional to notify me. I of course take issue with what you've said there, and wonder how can you find my recent edits to that article to be anything but unbiased information based on reliable sources. Is there any sense in which Cantor's biased account is better, better sourced, more balanced, or anything? I think not. And I have not received any advice on these edits from Lynn Conway, if that's what you're implying. If anything, it follows more the suggestions that you and H made on the talk page. What are you smoking? Dicklyon (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have smoked nothing of any kind, ever, and would probably stop breathing if I tried.

My reference to you at ArbCom was relevant to why I don't want to be involved in the ADHD case. I think that those two sentences will clearly and succinctly indicate the limitations I'm dealing with. It really does not require any defense by or response from you, as it's focused on how I'm managing my time and energy, and therefore I consider notifying you of my editing priorities to be utterly superfluous. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nixeagle 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments at my arbitration. I know that you do not think hightly of me, so I very much appreciate that you took the time and expressed a sensitive understanding of my situation. I hope I can improve your opinion of me in the future. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Guido

Guido den Broeder‎'s appeal was handled by email.

Although we didn't formally topic ban him from Da Costa's syndrome, we will be reviewing his activity. If he resumes any kind of problematic editing, give us a nudge and we'll either expand his topic ban, or reimpose an indefinite block. I think that Guido understands that we have a low tolerance for disruption. Cool Hand Luke 01:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Some people think that Da Costa's was one of the original (19th century) descriptions of what we now call CFS. This view is generally taken by pro-CFS people (like the editor in question, except that he's a splitter instead of a lumper by preference), and it's impossible to disprove, because DCS was actually several separate syndromes. Some fraction of the 19th century and early 20th century cases very probably were the dominant form of modern CFS (chronic orthostatic hypotension due to autonomic dysfunction). I therefore think it quite reasonable to include it in the general category of CFS-related articles on Misplaced Pages.

Guido has a history with the DCS article, and I am not looking forward to renewing the acquaintance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not made any problematic edits on that article (or anywhere for that matter), and don't intend to start now, thanks. Meanwhile, please do not try to think for me. I am not a 'pro-CFS person' (if something like that has meaning at all), nor do I believe that Da Costa's syndrome is CFS, on the contrary I have argued, based on the available sources, that it is not. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)