User talk:Wikidudeman/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wikidudeman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey, Wikidudeman! Thanks for the Barnstar! Was there a specific thing I did that made you confer it upon me, or did you just happen to see my contributions or something? Either way, thanks!! =] bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 00:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for the barnstar! Now I am actually going to have to figure out CSS to affix it to my user page. :-) Thanks again, Leuko 02:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I just woke up to a grey, wet and dreary english summer (LOL) sunday morning and suddenly the world seemed a brighter place when I found the RickK on my talk page. THANK YOU for getting my day off to a such a great start. • nancy • 07:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just to correct what you said about my userboxes, I absolutely do not randomly pick userboxes to stack them up, each 1 I add is carefully chosen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schumi555 (talk • contribs) 08:41:54, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for awarding me with the RickK Anti-Vandilism Barnstar! Stavlor^{Talk Contribs} 14:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to say thank you for the barnstar - it's very much appreciated. AndrewJDTALK -- 20:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) May I ask what in particular you gave it for? :) -WarthogDemon 02:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed my proposal now. What do you think? A.Z. 05:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your description made me laugh. I like the helmet on the barnstar, the better to deflect brickbats. Very best regards, JNW 14:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the anti-vandalism star. I shall now adorn my somewhat empty userpage with it. Thanks! Panoptical 14:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it! Like so many others, may I ask what made you consider me for it? — Super-Magician ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcoming new users. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Wikidudeman,

I am writing an article about James Michalopoulos, who is a somewhat famous and notable artist. I was surprised that someone had not already created an article about him. I wanted to add a photograph that I took of a painting that I own, but was concerned about the copy rights. I have not applied for copy rights for my photograph, and find the issue somewhat confusing.

Can you help me sort this out or help me get adopted by someone who can mentor me through the process? I use the Wiki all the time and would like to be a contributor.

JeffreynmemphisJeffreynMemphis 15:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeffreynMemphis (talk • contribs) 15:25, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

...when reverting. Regards, PeaceNT 15:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Very belated thanks for the barnstar, dude. I am embarrassed that I have neglected to respond for so long. The recognition is much appreciated. Keep up your excellent work. Regards, Ground Zero | t 01:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are working alone on that article, can you let me know how you are doing? ℒibrarian2 16:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar. BTW, I Like your name. So much in one name. Oda Mari 16:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm grateful, really I am. Especially as it comes from someone who has made such an enormous contribution to Wikipedia himself. Philip Trueman 16:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What Philip said - thanks; and keep up the good work yourself! --RobertG ♬ talk 16:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your award. It is very much appreciated. The sunder king 17:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

SORRY, JAMIE IS USING MY PROFILE. VERY VERY SORRY. I WILL STOP HIM IN THE PAST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.4.166 (talk) 17:47, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! Jauerback 18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

1 September is 3, not 5, days from now. Reinis^talk 19:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Your version looks so much better than all the previous ones! It tells a lot more about homeopathy and keeps quite good the neutral point of view. I wrote the article about homeopathy on PL-Wikipedia except for the last section. I separated completely the knowledge of homeopathy from the critical remarks. Maybe it is something for you to take into consideration??? I would like to thank you for the nice pictures in category homeopathy you have made. I used some of them to illustrate the article. Greetings. --LidiaFourdraine 11:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, any relevant criticisms must desirably be integrated into the general body of text, not isolated to specific sections. You've probably done a poor job at keeping it neutral. Reinis^talk 12:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Taking that line of reasoning a bit further, you might perhaps say that making POV forks is desirable because it helps against edit warring, and if any problems arise there, you can always add a "Praises" section to balance it out. The end result, in my opinion, is that you get articles or sections that look like they advocate a non-neutral POV, and can be ignored by the "true believers". Reinis^talk 13:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You might be right that keeping the criticisms to a separate section is the most pragmatic way to go, but your examples, like the one with "however", would have been against WP:WTA, and to me, if done neutrally and without weasel words, would seem better.

I translated the lead of the Polish article, and it seemed neutral, like in your draft.

Apropos of taking it further, it was meant as proof by contradiction, not something you actually thought. Reinis^talk 18:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Reinis! I must tell you that a lot of homeopathy critics and sceptics from PL-Wikipedia were very carefully and constantly watching me rewriting this article and we were discussing it quite deeply. The result is NPOV and accepted by the opponents. The leading paragraph is not my work 100%. It was mostly like this and I accepted it and only put some more about homeopathy into it. The sections about sources of homeopathic remedies, the production, homeopathic research and interview are neutral and informative. Thanks for your interest. Greetings. --LidiaFourdraine 08:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, I've tried it out and I love it. Easy to customise, too. Thanks again Waggers 14:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't design the code for them, It's a design from a design from a design or something like that, which comes from "Flexitags". Though I did add the most relevant custom tags to my js file. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow,Wikidudeman,

I totally did not expect the barnstar. Just doing my part to make wikipedia a better place;).

Thanks,

Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 16:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

let me make fun of my friend on the astronomy page. when I am done I'll erease it.n —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.217.105 (talk) 18:03, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

The 'Hey' in the subject line is self-explanatory.

The 'Argh' requires further explanation. Apparently, my IP address, 91.104.246.62 (which after clicking Preview I now realise is not the same as the one below), changed something in Chewing Gum.

Never have I changed any page on Wikipedia, let alone the annoying one that sticks to the bottom of my shoe. I don't really know what the point of this is, but basically there's probably someone using my internet connection without me knowing -- scary.

So please don't go to sleep thinking "That jackass 91.104.246.62. How dare he add something stupid to "Chewing Gum"?", because it wasn't me; it was my wireless router! Blame her!

I will look into the apparent intrusion of my network. If you can, please tell me what the edits were that this ... person, did. Using my worthless trivia on Sherlock Holmes, my sixth, seventh and/or eighth sense, and my pretty worrying knowledge of my neighbours' houses' floor-plans, I'm sure I'll track this chewing gum fanatic and punnish him (or her) with my own brand of hideously monstrous torture: poking them with a large wooden spoon, on their ribs.

Okay, now to sign this... erm... I don't have an account so ... do I put my name before or after the four squiggly lines? Wish me luck, and don't forget to tell me the edits!

Thanks in advance,

Danny Silva (@hotmail.co.uk)

91.104.240.10 16:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The exclamation mark in the subject line, too, is self-explanatory.

Hi WDM, I want to thank you for chiming in on the current debate surrounding MoritzB's additions to these articles. However, the kind of reasoned approach that worked so well at Parapsychology will, I fear, not be successful on this issue. A reasoned approach requires users with at least a semblance of a reasonable attitude which is willing to enact a neutral compromise. While normally it would seem okay to just let Moritz place his desired content with a balancing section, this user has had a bloody history of POV-pushing all across the wiki. He does not wish to simply place the up-front, cited perspective of one side of an issue balanced by equal weight on the other. He wants to use his interpretation of a few studies as the inalienable truth equating homosexuality and pedophilia. This will not stand, and I while I am unable to connect over the weekend I hope that, even if you disagree with my assessment of MoritzB's motives, you can help prevent a premature introduction of what is clearly hotly contested content. On a side note: I know I haven't been active over at the draft of Homeopathy. For this, after I accepted your flattering invite, I apologize. I have been distracted. Thanks again, and happy editing! VanTucky ^(talk) 04:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks wikidudeman for the barnstars; very kind of you; it was worth it in the end...the article looks great. Well done! cheers Peter morrell 15:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		you deserve this for your patient, diligent and diplomatic work on the Homeopathy article. Thanks and well done! Peter morrell 15:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue VI - May 6th, 2007

Apologies to everyone for this notification being sent out so late, events in real life prevented me from distributing it at the time, and the Wine Project's had a bit of a lull during the Northern Hemsiphere summer. But as the nights draw in, activity should pick up again, and hopefully the next Newsletter will arrive a little more quickly....

Tthe next few weeks are the perfect time to take photos of grapes in the Northern Hemisphere - get your cameras out! FlagSteward 15:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Done, except for the two column ref list. That template seems to be broken and doesn't work anywhere on Wikipedia. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much. -- Fyslee/talk 17:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you as well. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 16:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Smalljim 17:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Appreciated here also. Acroterion _(talk) 02:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikidudeman,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

WjBscribe 03:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Boy, you were quick... I opened article, wanted to paste the text, but the article has gone in second.... --Plantago 12:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. This is my first attempt at editing. I'll avoid putting links in stubs in future.Al kirtley 12:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Now back to work, sigh... Stephenb (Talk) 19:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That wasnt vandalism, you watch Sky Sports anytime and you will see how much he name drops, and adores Frank Lampard.

Seriously watch Sky Sports

And when did i abuse u? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.23.187 (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for the barnstar. I certainly try to help when I can, and since I've had some spare time recently.... SaveThePoint 19:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I thought I noticed you noticing. Thanks for the Barnstar--my first one, ever! Anyway, I'm going back to the work, but it's great to be appreciated. Denna Haldane 19:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the award! Its nice to know that people notice other peoples actions! :) ✬Dillard421✬ ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, wikidudeman! Sorry I couldn't reply earlier! My teacher would have eaten me if she saw me at a talk page. :) Thanks so much for the barnstar! You're doing a great job as well. You edit conflicted me many times. Again, thanks! *Cremepuff222* 00:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

what magical combination of OS and browser are you using that means WP:TW still works for you? — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 00:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have Windows XP and the latest version of firefox. I also use a lot of customized scripts, some of which I adopted from Twinkle which might be the thing. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

ah, I had a look at your monobook.js and then the page it imports. You're not importing TWINKLE directly, but bits of it. It just seems you're not importing any broken bits. You might want to make that clear on the talk page so that other people don't wonder what magic you're performing! Thanks — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 01:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't working for me now for some reason. I must have lost my mojo... Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said on the twinkle page, my best guess is that you had the old code cached in your browser, which has now refreshed to the new, broken, code. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 01:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Is amazing. Granted, Twinkle is still on the fritz, but this is a pretty cool set of tools you put together. (I'm kind of suprised that everything seems to work well over on Camino as well.) --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a few downsides to it though. If a code breaks that it imports then it won't work. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. (I had them commented out before, so if that was the issue or not. My knowledge of .js could fit in a teaspoon). --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 05:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For the barnstar. -- No Guru 22:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to test, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I just tried to add text and a link from the BBC website referring to a Lancet report (2005) about homeopathy. It seems to be important. Here it is: "However, the Lancet also reports that a draft report on homoeopathy by the World Health Organization says the majority of peer-reviewed scientific papers published over the past 40 years have demonstrated that homeopathy is superior to placebo in placebo-controlled trials. Furthermore, it says that homoeopathy is equivalent to conventional medicines in the treatment of illnesses, both in humans and animals." Don’t you agree? Also I tried to add a external link for Vithoulkas since I could not add an internal one. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm --Sm565 18:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Here's how the Lancet actually reports it:

A WHO group that caused controversy with a 2003 report on acupuncture has now turned its attention to homoeopathy. But if the allegations of bias levelled at a draft version of the report are anything to go by, the group has once again put itself in the firing line. Michael McCarthy reports.

Sceptics of alternative medicine are calling for WHO to extensively revise a draft report on homoeopathy that they claim is little more than pro-homoeopathy propaganda.

The report, says Cees Renckens, a gynaecologist and chairman of the Dutch Union Against Quackery, plays up research that supports homoeopathy while ignoring studies that cast doubt on its effectiveness. “I think it is pathetic that WHO is publishing this kind of paper”, he told The Lancet. Renckens and others obtained a copy of the confidential draft after it was sent out for comments.

WHO officials call the criticism unfair: “It's preliminary and only a draft”, says Xiaorui Zhang, who is acting team coordinator for traditional medicine with the WHO's Department of Essential Drugs and Medicine Policy, which is preparing the report.

But critics are sceptical. The report's tone and approach are identical to a controversial 2003 report on acupuncture prepared by the same group, says Willem Betz, chair of the department for training in family practice at the University of Brussels and chair of SKEPP (Studie Kring voor Kritische Evaluatie van Pseudowetenschap en het Paranormale, the Study Circle for the Critical Evaluation of Pseudoscience and the Paranormal).

And it gets even more scathing from there on. It's doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67159-0 if you have access to The Lancet. why should we be quoting from a report by the BBC on a report in the Lancet reporting on critics reacting to a draft of a report that has not, as far as I can tell, actually been published yet, and hadn't been through peer-review when it was leaked? That just drips with WP:RS, doesn't it? Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Great work everyone!Our edits ahave sontributed to reachiung a Wikipedi with 2,000,000 articles. It's been a pleasure working with you. A good effort all round, and a Party at my Place! Dfrg.msc 06:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)