User talk:Leifern/Jan 2006 - Apr 2006

Bible verses and chapters on Wikipedia

Hi Leifern: Shavua Tov ! It is important that you see the following proposed Wikipedia policy pages and their discussion pages at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of 1 Kings 4 and 5 AND Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text. Thanks for giving this matter your serious attention before discussion is closed and the "policy" is set. (P.S. I think it is time for you to archive this page. In case you aren't sure, here is how it's done, add this "link" User talk:Leifern/archive 1 to the top of this page and just copy and paste all the old/er discussions here into it. If you want to file more than the 30k's worth then your next archive page would be User talk:Leifern/archive 2 and so on...) Be well, IZAK 09:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting the archives - I followed a slightly different convention, though. --Leifern 12:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Renaming districts

It's entirely possible that I haven't paid attention, but can you point me to the discussion about using the indefinite form for such places as Gudbrandsdalen? --Leifern 22:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm guilty of "going off half-cocked". Added a section titled Gudbrandsdal or Gudbrandsdalen to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway. In summary, I suggest we simply use the form on the Districts of Norway page to document our consensus usage. But, as always, I'm willing to be convinced if there is a better solution. Williamborg 02:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Maplewood

Shavua Tov. In your last edit of Maplewood you wrote: "With the exception of a small pond in Memorial Park and the Raritan River, all of the area is land.". Now, while I grew up there, I haven't lived there in 25+ years, but isn't the water that cuts through the Mplwd country club, and Memorial park, a branch of the Rahway River? Sholom 05:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Shavua tov to you - you're absolutely right, my bad. It has now been fixed. --Leifern 14:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Palestine

Please don't refer to other editors' changes as vandalism when they are clearly nothing of the sort. The material I commented out cited no sources and anyone who has any familiarity with Palestinian history would recognise it as quite at odds with the record. Since it's obvious that no reputable sources can be found for it, there is no point just putting in a (citation required) template. So I commented it out in the hopes that someone would be able to rework it into, or replace it with, sourced and accurate material. Incidentally, similar material added by the same anon who inserted this passage was reverted out of the Palestinian territories article immediately with the following edit summary: "revert original research: includes personal interpretations, statements devoid of reality, unsourced material, and is inappropriate to that section anyway" (which of course equally applies to this, apart from the last bit) and no-one there objected. Palmiro | Talk 16:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleting entire sections when you object to only parts of them are vandalism. --Leifern 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There was basically nothing factually accurate that could be salvaged from either paragraph. To be blunt, if you don't know enough about the topic to be able to tell that, you probably shouldn't be editing that article. Palmiro | Talk 16:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I could say the same to you with a great deal more basis in fact. I'm sorry that the facts don't fit your opinion, but that's the way it is. --Leifern 16:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You could, could you? What are those facts? Palmiro | Talk 16:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

redesigned template.

Please review Template talk:Jewish language#redesign. Thanks for your time. Tomer^talk 17:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming Norwegian traditional Districts, Lakes, Rivers & . . .

Added a Proposal: Naming Norwegian traditional Districts, Lakes, Rivers & . . . to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway . Would appreciate your comments. Williamborg 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ballot for monarchy in Norway 1905.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ballot for monarchy in Norway 1905.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. -- Longhair 09:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the appropriate PD tag - I'll leave it to you to delete the warning tag, ok? --Leifern 11:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian dialects

Hi Leifern! I was doing some major edits on Norwegian dialects at the same time as you editet it, and might have unintentionally undone your edit. Sorry! --Njård 02:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thimerosal Page

I noticed you were involved in editing this page [[1]] but that you do not have a particular interest in this area.

Do these links raise any concern:

1. [[2]]
2. [[3]]

The Invisible Anon 00:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

nothing at all deleted

as is made clear in teh trail, so wind your neck back in, assume good faith, and stop making threats. The two articles involved are distinctly inmproved by my edit - which I wonder if you have actually looked at? Midgley 01:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

why would you think that? Stop digging. Put it back, it is actually a distinct improvement.Midgley 01:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I see above that an anonymous user with a ratehr ...limited....range of interests in his contribution trail set you off. You might consider looking up Eric Berne, a social psychologist who defiende in a book of this name "Games People Play". THe game he played (and you fell for) is called "Lets You and Him Fight". (This further example of many examples of false allegations and uncivil behaviour was posted unsigned by Midgley 02:02, 3 February 2006)

Not correct. See my support for deletion here [[4]]. In fact the overall issues are much broader, as can be seen. The Invisible Anon 10:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You are too busy talking to listen.

"To reiterate: you have been reported for vandalism. Your "anti-vaccinationist" (invented word) article has been nominated for deletion, and you still haven't answered whether you are a sockpuppet for Geni. --Leifern 03:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)"

I'm not a sockpuppet, as I previously answered.

The rfd is idiotic - there is a sizeable topic there with a crowd of anti-vaccinationists (it is composite, not made up, and perfectly sensible in English) actually joining in on a topic of some interest to us doctors, or vacciantionists even, and contributuing material. Your threat and comments are on teh admins notice board and I've passed a note on to Geni, who you also seem to be traducing.

I do not see how you can assert that you are reaching a NPOV on that page, given your behaviour of course, but also your avowed personal interest. Midgley 03:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My avowed interest, as you put it, is to give the public the right to make an informed choice about the medical treatment you make. I am surprised a self-proclaimed physician should have a problem with that. There is no such thing as a "anti-vaccinationist." This is a term you have invented full cloth to describe a wide range of opinions. --Leifern 03:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In full support. "This is a term ..... to describe a wide range of opinions." Midgley is giving this term a meaning it cannot sustain in order to marginalise and compartmentalise into one page factual information over a very wide range of subjects and which is uncomfortable for his medical profession. The Invisible Anon 10:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"anti-vaccinationist" (invented word) ... invented full cloth - - Nope. It crops up in the intro to H. Rider Haggard's 1898 polemical novel Dr. Therne ("Some months since the leaders of the Government dismayed their supporters and astonished the world by a sudden surrender to the clamour of the anti-vaccinationists"). Also check out Google Books: 103 references, including other contemporary ones such as George Bernard Shaw's 1906 The Doctor's Dilemma and a 1908 Parliamentary Debate reporting a question on "handcuffing of a convicted anti-vaccinationist". Plenty more references in the The Times. Earliest I can find is Saturday, Aug 25, 1883; pg. 12, Charge Against A Medical Officer: "He further asserted that he was not an anti-vaccinationist". Tearlach 04:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila

I'm still waiting for an answer from you to the question I asked 5 days ago at Talk:Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre#Casualties_in_reoccupation_of_West_Beirut, I figured I'd ping you here. - Jmabel | Talk 07:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Gudbrandsdal and Sinclair

Noted the deletion of Captain Sinclair in various articles. Sinclair is well recognized in older history texts. I've reverted, but respect you as one of the superior Norwegian contributors, so must ask, has there been a recent discovery that would revise history? Thanks - Williamborg 02:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how recent it is, but there seems to be a lot of agreement about this. I think most of the sources related to the Scottish forces are in the United Kingdom. In this case, the online sources agree as does Aschehougs Norgeshistorie. Sinclair is famous for being the first casualty and the most senior officer who died. --Leifern 03:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I tend to discount web sources - not peer reviewed and all that. But Aschehougs Norgeshistorie would be a credible source. Unfortunately I don't own a copy. Could you advise who they credit with being the senior officer (or if it's not too long, just quote their discussion here)? Williamborg 20:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

They credit Alexander Ramsay, and I can find the exact citation with page number later today. Web sources aren't all bad - I tend to consider who is the author, what the purpose is of the content, whether it's controversial, etc. I can think of no reason why anyone would want to discredit poor old George Sinclair (whom every agreed died in the ambush) in favor of Alexander Ramsay. --Leifern 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The exact reference is Aschehougs Norgeshistorie, volume 5, page 150: "De var også vervet for Sverige og ble ledet av oberst Alexander Ramsay." --Leifern 11:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Never did thank you for this. Found several other references after you posted this & intended to get back. Facts are facts—appreciate your putting this right. Williamborg 03:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-vaccinationists

It was totally inappropriate for you to re-open the AfD after I closed it. I explained my reason for closing it, and cited the specific bit of official policy under which I acted. If you feel my actions were incorrect, you should take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you edit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-vaccinationists again, you will end up getting blocked. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody summed up the consensus, there was no reason to close it prematurely; it was entirely based on your judgment. A speedy closing was discussed, and there was agreement to let it run its course. No, you are the one who abused it. --Leifern 15:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, my decision to close the AfD early was entirely based on my judgement, and I judged that a clear consensus to keep had been reached. That's my job, to make those judgement calls. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No more than mine to dispute it. And I am disputing it. In any event, I put the question to the Deletion review page, which, as you'll see, is all based on overturning previous consensus decisions. I don't see any other entries about an early closing. Blocking me under these circumstances would have been abusive. --Leifern 15:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that you "can see where it's going", what's the point of disputing the early close (which just recognized a consensus that was clear to everyone—including you) and requesting a review of a clear and heavily discussed consensus? Wouldn't it be more productive to discuss how the article should be modified to properly represent a NPOV? The article is here to stay; please consider participating in its evolution, rather than engaging in procedural timewasting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing was being done on the article without interruption, but there continued to be valuable discussion on the scope of the article during the 5-day period. And there is a reason why there is a time limit on the discussion. As was pointed out on the page, even when there is virtual unanimity on a speedy conclusion, closing it early is often controversial. Heck, I nominated one of my one articles for speedy deletion some time ago, nobody opposed the idea and many agreed, but I was told to give it time. And if RoySmith is willing to make such a judgment on such shaky premises for this article, he's likely to do the same with others. You'll note that I entered two articles where someone attempted to arrive at "no consensus" when there was a clear consensus to delete in the same review. I guess you're entitled to your opinion as to how I spend my time, but I think it's important to let things run their course. --Leifern 16:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I just think it would be more useful–with respect to improving the article–to engage in debate about the article's scope on the article's talk page rather than in a deletion discussion that's going to be closed, archived, and forgotten in the very near future. Your call, of course. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, it's not as if I'd been recruiting votes to have it deleted, and I think the discussion led to a better sense for everyone involved what this article should or shouldn't be. But I continue to think that we should try to stick to process. --Leifern 17:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

re: Conflicting application of consensus

I apologize if I misspoke earlier. We are definitely supposed to apply a higher standard for early closure of a discussion. To close an AFD discussion early in either direction (keep or delete) requires near unanimity. Less than that generally gets challenged (as this one did) and is usually overturned on procedural grounds. That's why so few debates are closed early on average. (Note, however, that the decision to overturn does not happen swiftly.)

The standard for early closure is really independent of the standard for regular deletion. Regular deletion requires a "rough consensus" to delete. This does create an inherent bias toward keeping articles on the margin. It is a lower standard than would be necessary to early-close as delete.

I'm not sure I see what data you're looking at to identify a "movement" one way or the other. Maybe I'm reading too much into your comments but you seem to be extrapolating from two specific decisions. You will get a better perspective of our real standards from the Deletion Review discussion as many more admins weigh in with their arguments and (usually) well-reasoned opinions.

I would recommend letting the process work. Watch what really happens and wait for the outcome before criticising the process. Like good sausage-making, it's messy and sometimes disturbing to watch but it produces the right result in an extraordinarily high proportion of cases.

Hmmm... That last paragraph sounds really patronizing but I'm not sure how to fix it. I don't mean it to come across that way. It's making me worry that I've missed the point of your question. Rossami (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, what you'll notice is that it went exactly the other way. There was quite a bit more than a rough consensus to delete the two articles, but the admins in question refused to accept this; and there was quite a bit less than a rough consensus to end the discussion, but the admins chose to allow it to end. And nobody seems the least bit concerned by this, meaning that reasonable admins like you will always be trumped by admins who think their judgment is better than any guidelines. --Leifern 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding image

Please note that I attached a copyright tag on Image:Ballot for monarchy in Norway 1905.jpg some time ago, but Orphanbot a) kept the warning and b) removed it from the article where it was included. --Leifern 13:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot considers a "no license" or "no source" tag to be more authoritative than any copyright tag, since it is very common for new users to put incorrect copyright tags on images, and it is very common for people re-tagging such images not to remove the old tag. --Carnildo 08:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Abramoff's Religion

I appreciate your thoughts on the topic, on the Abramoff Talk page. I'm of split mind regarding mentioning his religion, and I just wanted to share with you my thoughts over here. Normally, I would say that it's irrelevant, but he was a major figure around here in the DC Jewish community. Yes, most of us know that he founded the Eshkol academy, and apparently used it, in part, as a money laundering place. But he _also_ founded it because of the problems he perceived at the Yeshiva of Greater Washington. And he should know: he also founded YGW (little known fact) and was its president for a long while. His children went there. When he founded Eshkol, it prompted some soul searching at YGW, and made _that_ school a better one. (Personal note: my oldest attends YGW). He also did major fundraising for the Torah School of Greater Washington when his kids and mind went there. (He was also well known around here for opening a kosher restaurant, Stacks -- the only one in DC proper outside of the DCJCC).

So, in fact, I don't think he was a phony. I think, rather, he was a "compartmentalizer" of sorts. I suspect he viewed his Judaism and his other activities as just two different worlds, and his fatal mistake was that he didn't connect them.

And so, I lean towards those who do see his religion as somewhat relevant to an accurate description of who he was. Is it red meat for anti-Semites? Yes, it is. But what can we do? Abramoff is a major chillul HaShem.

My two shekels... Sholom 21:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you translate chillul HaShem into English for the rest of us? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry -- I forgot how public this was. chillul HaShem means, more or less, a public disgrace to his religion, and, by implication, to G-d. -- Sholom 21:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, shalom, chaverim ("hello, friends")! Chilul Hashem literally means "desecrating the Name;" one could also say he's a shande, a shameful spectacle. In any event, if Abramoff did do a lot of good within his community, then it would be accurate to describe him as a person of contradictions. I'll think of a way to edit it that way. What I don't accept is anything approaching the implication that his conduct is compatible with being frum (piously observant). --Leifern 00:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice compromise on the Abramoff. Trust me, I would be just as brutual with any other religion if it played somekind of role.--M4bwav 02:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, but, as noted, there is no evidence it played a role. As an example I gave in an earlier exchange somewhere: it may be akin to the guy who gets involved in the Mafia, but continues to tithe to the church. -- Sholom 13:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If a member of the mafia funded a catholic school, got involved with an ancient version of catholism, or paid money into a vatican defense fund, I think it's safe to say that his religious views would be mentioned. Another example, is the fact that non-catholics have joined the Italian-American mafia before, this is usually noted in a bio about them because they cannot become made-men.--M4bwav 13:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There is this joke about some of the members of Murder, Inc. that "they couldn't be all that bad, they loved their mothers." The false piety so often portrayed in mafia movies has, as far as I know, no corresponding phenomenon in Judaism. People like Bugsy Siegel, Meyer Lansky, etc., were not religious to any meaningful extent. Dutch Shultz cynically converted to Catholicism. Abramoff may have been a man of contradictions, but we would be hard pressed to claim that he found any basis for his illegal acts in Judaism or in the Jewish community. As is evident even here, Sholom and I think his behavior borders on blasphemy. --Leifern 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Fun with user groups

An interesting idea, establishing a user group to develop a disciplined approach to making sure articles about medicine, alternative medicine, medical issues and controversies, etc., are balanced and accurate. That problem you have addressed seems to be escalating, as more representatives of the medical establishment continue to integrate themselves into the less structured, relatively egalitarian culture of the Wiki. Perhaps this is because there is a great disparity between the Wiki's culture and the trickle down approach to dissemination of knowledge intrinsic to medical orthodoxy, which often strains the bounds of the Wiki's assume good faith paradigm. Certainly, the Wiki needs to safeguard its nascent 'anyone can edit' edict from the encroachment of authoritarian medical establisment disciplinarians. Moderation is necessary with all good things, including with regard to adoption of the sort of discipline hampering the medical community. For example, pediatricians in the UK are terrified by the possibility of backlash, such as the character assassination that Andrew Wakefield has weathered, causing them to routinely reject requests from parents seeking treatment for children with autistic enterocolitis. On the upside, if history is any guide, cultures tend to cope by assimilating certain tactics and strategies of immigrant populations, yielding superior hybrid results, such as the Chatelperronian toolkit. Interestingly, the new article on Louis Marshall describes a mediator capable of straddling the reform and orthodox elements among members his faith. Ombudsman 10:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV in medical articles

I noticed your discussion with Ombudsman. I'm fully aware of his views vis à vis medical articles, but when I asked you in the past I found your reactions somewhat confusing. In what sense are medical articles not NPOV?

I am asking this question because contrary to Ombudsman's characterisation, I am fully committed to NPOV. There is nothing authoritarian about the way medical articles are streamlined, other than the fact that whenever users come to represent alternative views, they often insist that the whole basic premise of the article is reexamined (see, for example, Talk:Carcinogenesis and the bizarre exchange over there).

Let me give you an example. Asthma and multiple sclerosis, both featured articles, carefully detail which alternative explanations exist and which medications are popular for these condition, including sources for attempts to scientifically confirm or disprove these approaches. I call that NPOV, although you may disagree with that.

Please be reassured that I am not attacking you in any form. In fact, your mediation between the "medical cabal" on WP:CLINMED and the "Ombudsman group" (the loose association between Ombudsman, Whaleto, 86.10.231.219) would be highly appreciated. In the end, we are all here to write an encyclopedia. JFW | T@lk 12:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there are several good medical articles in Wikipedia, and though I haven't studied all of them, I have seen several that are very neutrally presented. I think you are right that there is a tension here that is not always creative, between on the one hand people who are defiantly in opposition to conventional medicine, and on the other those who think that anything alternative is bogus. It's something physicians are reluctant to admit in front of patients but the state of medical science is mostly in a state of mystification - as recently as last week, a pulmonologist I know personally was saying "we know so little, hardly anything of what we do is evidence-based, all we can do is our best." I think the vast majority of doctors are heroes who may or may not be compensated financially for what they do but are certainly underappreciated for their dedication to improving people's health. But I think it is important that this encyclopedia truly informs people not just about knowledge, but also controversies and where there are gaping holes in knowledge. If I were going to speculate, I'd say that in 100 years, a good percentage of "alternative" medicine practices will be adopted into standard care in one way or another. It'd be great if the versions of articles we wrote now don't make us look like fools. --Leifern 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So effectively we are saying the same things, namely that alternative treatments should get a fair and balanced treatment. But no user with experience in this field has yet been making useful additions. Instead it's open warfare all the time. It started with John Gohde, who - instead of sharing his experience concerning treatments focussed on annoying the mainstream editorship - and continues with our present crowd. Meanwhile, the WikiProject Alternative Medicine lies fallow.

I'm not sure if I agree with your pulmonologist's bleak view. A lot of what we do nowadays is indeed evidence-based, at least in the common and well-studied conditions. Fields like cardiology and oncology work with tightly-designed and highly statistically validated treatments. We've also learnt that a lot of anectodal treatments are rubbish, such as digoxin in heart failure. Therapeutic breakthroughs such as targeted therapy are massively changing the field as we know it. All new drugs, when registered, now require an evidence base (which is better than the old-fashioned drugs; we know now that beta blockers are pretty lousy to treat high blood pressure).

My agenda is trying to recruit users who are willing to contribute alternative viewpoints without being subversive or belligerent. JFW | T@lk 08:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

For purposes of disclosure: I'm not a big alternative medicine fan. I have heard alternative medicine people say things that make me want to laugh out loud, and I think a great deal of skepticism is warranted. On the other hand, there are many examples of folk remedies, alternative treatments, and downright strange things that subsequently are shown to have merit. Having consulted to three different pharmaceutical companies and an HMO on outcomes research programs, I have learned that you can only get convincing evidence on very narrow hypotheses, e.g., "will this preparation reduce cholesterol levels in the course of two weeks among patients with elevated cholesterol levels, defined as ..." And I think there is a lot of substance to the allegation that conventional medicine is a lot better at treating illnesses than curing them (that's not an indictment, the body does a pretty good job of curing itself it gets a break). If I were going to speculate, I'd say that in 100 years, 70% of conventional medicine and 95% of alternative medicine will be cast aside. I have absolutely no idea what 30% and 5% will remain, but neither does anyone else.

In the meantime, the problem is that articles that simply dismiss anything alternative as rubbish are actually counterproductive to their purpose. I can't take anything in quackwatch seriously because it reads like such a polemic. We have to assume that our readers are rational, reasonable people who want facts presented as facts and interpretations as interpretations, with the right attribution. --Leifern 13:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious to me what will remain, most trauma med, and nutritional med eg vitamin C for heart disease [5], drug addiction [6] infections [7], cot-death [8]. All of the pharma med for degenerative disease needs burying. Herbal medicine is as effective as nutritional, eg cayenne pepper will do what vitamin C does for heart disease. Vaccines need burying as well, it is easy to prove smallpox vaccine was 100% useless, and that is the one the rest sit upon. Most of the medical articles here are POV, especially the vaccine and vaccine disease ones. The medical editors here have unlimited power, and they deleted my sensible Vaccine critics page and merged it into the perjorative named Anti-vaccinationists. Which kind of proves my point, quite apart from the attempt to delete by merger about 5 of my pages, eg National Anti-Vaccination League. john 17:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But that is your opinion john, and not established fact. Some degenerative disease is indeed treated adequately with medication, and you'd be doing patients a disservice to bury them. Not everyone will be gorging himself with vitamins in the future.

I think John is speculating about the future, and that's always going to be a matter of opinion and conjecture. But I think the point is worth considering - we have medicine that does a good job of treating various illnesses, but we've had less success by way of healing them. --Leifern 11:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Leifern, do you agree quackwatch is a legitimate source of opinion that has to be taken seriously when trying to make an article NPOV? JFW | T@lk 08:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A source of opinion, yes. And I am perfectly cool with it being a source of sources, i.e., if you want to find references that support one side of the issue. But one can hardly rely on it for objective consideration of facts. What I find annoying about quackwatch is that that it bills itself as "Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions" when it really is "Why you should never second guess anything your medical doctor tells you." --Leifern 11:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Disease table in vaccination schedule

The table over at vaccination schedule looks like a good start, but I've got a few concerns about it. I've gone into a bit of detail at Talk:Vaccination schedule, but thought I should drop you a line since you created the table. Briefly, I'm not sure what the purpose of the table is in the context of that particular article; if we do retain it, it would be worthwhile to address morbidity as well as mortality. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The purpose is to make clear what kinds of illnesses the vaccines are supposed to immunize against, and which population segments are most at risk. I am certainly in favor of a column that discusses morbidity; I was trying to figure out a good way to summarize it. Ideally, I'd also like mortality rates, but they vary depending on the publich health system in general. --Leifern 03:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bergen Norway wikipedia.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bergen Norway wikipedia.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. cohesion★talk 08:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You posted a notice that there was no copyright tag on [[Image:Bergen Norway wikipedia.jpg]], but I believe there is and always has been. Let me know if there is anything further you want me to do - it looks fine now. --Leifern 12:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for fixing that, the creative commons license was actually removed back in September [9] by an anonymous user for some reason. I checked that person's other contribs and that was the only image they seemed to have messed with. Anyway, thanks for fixing it back :D - cohesion★talk 18:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Section

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Sceptre ^(Talk) 17:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert three times. The block is out of order and an abuse of admin privileges. Please reinstate my privileges immediately. --Leifern 19:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC - Anti-vaccinationists

Dear Leifern,

I noted your comment here [[10]] responding to User:Andrew73.

I avoided responding to that comment because whilst User:Andrew73 might intend it in all innocence, it had the appearance to me of a comment which could have the effect (perhaps unintended) of baiting those he disagrees with into replying regarding peripheral issues to the RfC. You may want to be on your guard against this as one effect can be to make the RfC unintelligible to any others who might visit the page.

The Invisible Anon 14:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am debating whether I should make a broader initiative on developing guidelines for medical controversies within Wikipedia. I get involved in edit disputes on the Arab-Israeli conflict as well, and they actually are way more productive and constructive than those that I see within medicine. The anti-vaccinationist article will sooner or later go through a serious write, redirect, or even delete as more people discover it. I'd rather make it sooner for everyone's sake. --Leifern 15:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yiddish Wikipedia invitation

please express your vote there about statistics.--71.247.152.36 12:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Midgley

Thanks for your support on the MfD page.

Just to let you know, User:Midgley appears to have registered himself today as User:The Invisible Anon. He is now editing as User:The Invisible Anon and following me around and adding edits as "The Invisible Anon".

Here is his original IP address for the sock puppet he first started editing with on Wikipedia. This has to be him because only he would know where it is. The diffs clearly show him associated with his recently registed user IDs the User:Invisible Anon and User:The Invisible Anon:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=14287194 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=16799973 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=41250577 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=41457405

Here is the link to his history of contributions and if you follow them you will see what he is up to:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=The+Invisible+Anon

Here is some of his mischief on the MfD page:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FUser_talk%3A86.10.231.219&diff=41466436&oldid=41447676

The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 16:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be reported as an incident. In my opinion, Midgley should be blocked for this action. --Leifern 16:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Not gone on AN/I but what do you think of this [[11]]? This chap is familiar with some aspects of this.

The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 16:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I put the question to Midgley, on his talk page; I agree it's probably him, but we should at least see what his response is. Whoever did it, it's pretty serious, a transgression against at least three policies and guidelines: it's Sockpuppetry, it's impersonating another editor, and it's pre-empting an MFD vote. If it was Midgley, it's aggrevated by the fact that he originally made the MFD. --Leifern 16:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

His response is here - he deleted the question and simply thanked me for pointing it out. To me, this sounds like a mea culpa, but I think admins should investigate thoroughly. --Leifern 16:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Leifern

I noticed that. Very typical to delete the embarrassing - that is what he did on his original cockpuppet page.

It is one thing for a new editor to register the name (and User:TenOfAllTrades pointed out it was still available should I decide to register it) but it is another to use it as a sockpuppet deliberately to create confusion. It also causes work and disruption to numerous others. I do not know if the Admin I contacted will do anything about this - because I have not registered I am not sure I am one of the favoured many. I do think it is valid and important you know fully what User:Midgley is prepared to do (pretty much anything). You do realise he is a UK medical doctor responsible for the lives and health of men, women and children in his local community practice and they depend on their doctor for his judgement.

The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 18:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no rule in Wikipedia that says unregistered users are fair game for sockpuppetry, vandalism, or impersonation. In fact it seems that unregistered users have all the same rights as everyone else, though I suspect you have to deal with questions about your decision from time to time. I don't know what kinds of checks and balances Midgley is subject to in his medical practice, or whether his behavior on WP is indicative of his behavior as a physician. I've noticed there is a lot of leeway for bad behavior at Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how to fix that except by assuming that there's an inherent market mechanism that filters bad behavior. The Anti-vaccinationists article, unless it is improved in its tone, quality of writing, and bias, will probably decay on its own and eventually be deleted because it becomes redundant to better articles covering the same topics. As I said, I still don't know what it's supposed to be about and have decided to wait and see what happens. --Leifern 19:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Something is happening [[12]] but on current form I am not sure how it will play out.

I am not User:TenOfAllTrades flavour of the month. Bear in mind that I was blocked by User:Essjay for deleting content that User:Essjay deleted for me - ie. it seems User:Essjay fabricated vandalism to justify his blocking me - see [[13]] where I await his response. I understand he is Chairman of the Mediation Committee.

The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219

Further update - See [[14]] and [[15]] It is appropriate to ensure other eyes see this.

The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 23:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Perpetrator identified as User:Midgley - see [[16]] (this is an historical page - and long so wait for it to load and it will take you to the correct section in the page)

The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 23:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, of all the rotten, low-down... I guess Midgley is really hard up for actual facts and logic to support his position, so he resorts to insults and put-downs on a regular basis, and then when he doesn't get his way, he cheats. On another note, why don't you register? --Leifern 00:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

He lied to get my User page deleted. Its on record. See my talk page for some of the evidence. He has not been blocked though for this latest sockpuppetry - so this is not even a 3RR sanction.

Thanks for all your help and support over this and the other crud User:Midgley has been involved in. I hope part of this assists you also in your difficult times with him.

I am on record as saying I will consider registering just as soon as the people that run this place start observing their own policies (and that includes ensuring Admins play by the rules). Registration is a diversion. The only reason there was a problem today was because User:Midgley deliberately set out to shadow me and make edits with an identical name. Look at all the other people who change the display of their registered name to a different one. The system is designed to allow for it. Look at John who is registered as whale.to but his display name is John. And JfdWolff who changes his display name to JFW.

As for the folks who run the place, take a look at the links I put in this exchange [[17]] today with User:Pansophia which shows how high up the food chain the failure to observe policies goes. The links are those recording my exchanges with Angela, who is on the Wikimedia Board of Trustees and is a Steward responsible for keeping Admins in check.

I hope this assists you.

The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 00:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

More To This?

I saw your comment here [[18]]. I wonder if there is more to this (quite aside from the deletion of my User page). Consider this (I can flesh this out with Wiki links later if need be - they are elsewhere in other posts of mine today)

• User:Essjay, Chairman of the Mediation Committee, blocks me for comments he deleted from AN/I (and they were my comments too!!!). I deleted nothing.
• User:Essjay is a friend of User:TenOfAllTrades (and there are other associations I do not need to go into here)
• under cover of the block User:Essjay simultaneously and surreptitiously deletes text from my talk page. That text was of an exchange between myself and User:TenOfAllTrades and in which I challenged certain aspects - those remarks remain unanswered
• then within no time at all an anon IP lists my talk page on AfD - the talk page contains the same specific text User:Essjay deleted relating to User:TenOfAllTrades - but fortunately for me a third party editor reverts the AfD
• then User:Midgley comes on the scene and seeks to delete my talk page by AfD and with it, of course, that same text
• then User:Midgley seeks to delete my talk page (containing that same text) by listing for MfD
• then in the middle of the CheckUser investigation to identify the perpetrator of User:Midgley's scheme to be User:The Invisible Anon he posts this [[19]] to User:TenOfAllTrades talk page

Now why would User:Midgley post just the link alone with no other comment to his unsuccessful AfD onto User:TenOfAllTrades talk page at that particular moment? Is it a reminder? If it is, why a reminder? What would User:TenOfAllTrades need reminding about regarding the AfD to delete my talk page (which contains - yep - that text)? How come there is no comment from User:Midgley to explain this reminder? I cannot fathom this. Any ideas? ^Talk - The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 02:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm inclined to take one matter at a time. My guess is that they suspect you of being a sockpuppet for an editor who has previously been banned, though I'm not sure how your refusal to register substantiates such a suspicion. I've noticed that Midgley has a tendency to simply list usernames in various places, and I'm not sure what he's trying to do with this. As for these mysterious deletions, I'm not sure what it's about, but I think you should be pretty explicit with your complaints. I agree with you that too many admins apply a, shall we say, situational approach to their responsibilities; but I honestly don't think refusing to register makes the point particularly well - you're just giving them an excuse to write you off as obstructionist and paranoid. My impression of Wikipedia is that building an unassailable case and being tenacious about it is the key to success. I think the admin problem is very serious that will eventually come to a head, but I think there's going to be some broken eggs - in terms of articles and alienated editors - before that happens. --Leifern 03:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Midgley

Thought you should take a look at this [[20]]. I am bringing the attention of some others to this also in case they agree something should be done. This kind of behaviour should be blocked from Wikipedia. As I am the target (yet again) it is not for me to take this forward.

Note Dr Adrian Midgley's comments at the end 1) uncivil, insulting ("Dick") and picking a fight 2) trying to guess at and then publish other editors' private identities on Wikipedia - clear offences against at least two Wikipedia policies as I have noted in the link above. Poor chap thinks he knows who ^Talk - The Invisible Anon is. Instead of trying to publish a name this time he is trying to publish oblique references to an identity in the hope he can embarrass. As children and their families who use his medical practice depend on his judgment for their health and well-being it is also intriguing that others in the medical lobby on Wikipedia support his actions and protect him. They would help him more if they discouraged this kind of behaviour. It would seem a long block is the only thing that might assist. It is a shame if that should happen but it seems necessary for his own good, poor fellow.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 06:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I hold no light for Midgley. On the other hand, there's very little that can be done about him, and he appears to be impervious to constructive criticism; never mind confrontational accusations. If you want to win edit wars with him, my best suggestion is to keep a cool head, focus on facts, construct watertight logic, and rip apart his contributions for lack of facts, logic, etc. I agree with you - he seems to enjoy some bizarre form of immunity for being a medical doctor - most of us would be kicked off WP for good with his kind of behavior, and I don't think he's been even blocked a single time. --Leifern 14:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

86.10 doesn't show any signs of wishing to win edit wars - to do that he would have to be actively involved in editing articles, which he is almost completely not. As is usual he misquotes - the reference was to a WP policy, not an insult, but a link to it - WP:DICK. Good Evening to you both. Midgley 00:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to take a look at [[21]] ^Talk - The Invisible Anon 00:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that edit wars can ever be won - they seem to invariably devolve into pissing contests. And while I think that our static IP friend gets a bit shrill in his accusations, you aqre by far the biggest (or rather, the smallest) dick I have come across in WP, Midgley, and in putting it that way I am referring to the policy. I don't particulary believe in the notion of the "allopathic conspiracy" or "medical conspiracy," but I think that articles about medical science have to reflect that the state of the art and science is still very primitive in this field. What is needed is intellectual integrity, and though we all can do better in this regard, some are more humble than others, and some are rather like Uriah Heep. --Leifern 03:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Stortinget

I like what you're doing with the periods of the Norwegian Storting, and I think you should advertise it more widely. How about putting the infobox at the bottom of the Storting article? Eixo 18:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

NJ Collaboration of the Week

Thanks for participating in Wikiproject New Jersey. In an attempt to create articles for some of the non-existing pages related to New Jersey, NJCOTW was recently created to bring members of WP:NJ together to work collaboratively on a certain selected topic, which this week is List of Governors of New Jersey. Please help by nominating/voting/commenting on articles on WP:NJCOTW, or by helping to improve articles in the scope of the topic for the NJCOTW. AndyZ 00:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Country church in Sogn Norway.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Country church in Sogn Norway.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR and good faith

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. I would suggest it is particularly bad form at somebody's talk page.

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Happy editing!, I would suggest this edit isn't in the best spirit of good faith. Steve block talk 22:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You repeatedly added a message to Midgley's talk page. [22], [23], [24], [25], which was the basis for the 3RR warning. However, I should also have admonished Midgley for repeatedly removing the message, for which I apologise. Whilst you may well have cause for grievance against Midgley, your actions, to my eye, seem only to inflame the situation. I would suggest you follow the dispute resolution process and perhaps avoid direct contact with Midgley where possible. As to talk pages, I can confirm that I view "editing" of talk pages to be "edits". I hope that clarifies the situation, but please feel free to contact me again if necessary. Steve block talk 09:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No means no not yes, later, maybe, or "I just have to keep demanding",

Leifern, your conduct is egregious. Your assertions are untrue. Your multiply repeated accusatory edit unwelcome. Stop it. Midgley 01:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have documented every single one of my assertions, so I'm not sure how they can be untrue. I'll just have to take note of the fact that you are running around to admins complaining to me and refuse to give me the opportunity to defend myself. I'm not sure what "multiply repeated accusatory edit unwelcome" actually means, though. --Leifern 01:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Oi! Cool it!

Both you and Midgley need to calm down, take some deep breaths, and perhaps both of you should be very circumspect and restrained in your edits to and discussions around vaccination articles.

I think you're a reasonable person who takes a skeptical view towards some aspects of vaccination. I disagree with much of what you say, but I certainly don't consider you an unreasonable zealot like some other participants in this dispute.

Nevertheless, you shouldn't be making legal threats—tossing about words like 'sue for libel' isn't an acceptable practice no matter what disclaimers you wrap them in.

Midgley, for his part, needs to make more of an effort to distinguish between honest disagreement and zealotry, and I have urged him to be less abrasive in his approach to editors who disagree with him.

I won't hesitate to block one or both of you if you guys can't figure out how to work within the bounds of WP:NLT, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. I don't want to see any pleading on my talk page or any explanations of how the other party is at fault. I just want you two to stop going at each other's throats. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never threatened to sue Midgley for libel, and to accuse me of such is unreasonable and unfair, and I reject it. I think it is entirely appropriate to point out that a personal attack is potentially libelous. I have never initiated any complaints against Midgley through WP channels, though I did express concern that his sockpuppetry, impersonation, etc., was essentially overlooked. And I have refrained from editing any articles on vaccination for several days, precisely for the reasons you've mentioned. --Leifern 03:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

rfc

Hi. I thought you may be interested in this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Siddiqui. Cheers --doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 19:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for having looked at it. I was a bit in a hurry on that day, so my message was maybe a bit short. Regards, doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 09:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Frogn_coa.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Frogn_coa.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 00:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Froland_coa.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Froland_coa.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fusa_coa.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Fusa_coa.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm done on homeopathy, and maybe it would be a good thing now to give this project attention, could do with some other views. Gleng 19:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)