Hi. I readily agree that Peter Fisher (physician) is a very long way from B-class, however I strongly disagree with the wording in the templates you have added.

"This article needs reorganization to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. There is good information here, but it is poorly organized; editors are encouraged to be bold and make changes to the overall structure to improve this article."

"This article needs reorganization" - The article appears to have a quite good structure. What needs reorganising?
"to meet Wikipedia's quality standards" - What standards does it not meet?
"There is good information here" - Interesting way to express it.
"but it is poorly organized" - Disagree.

"This biographical article is written like a resume. Please help improve it by revising it to be neutral and encyclopedic."

"This biographical article is written like a resume." - Really? I presume this is referring to the bullet-point "just the facts" style of presentation? (Yes, a prose style of presentation would be more pleasant.)
"Please help improve it by revising it to be neutral and encyclopedic." - It IS neutral, and although the definition of "encyclopedic" is rather vague, I imagine that the current article could satisfy at least some definitions.
Yes, the article can be improved, but neither neutrality nor "unencyclopedic-ness" (is that a word?) are the issues that need addressing.
Please find more appropriate templates. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Yes, that new template is much more relevant and appropriate. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the Gillman case, sorry, it wasn't you I was directing that comment at. It was the anonymous editor. I'll try and fix the post if it's wrongly formatted.

Despite Douglas Keenan categorically stating that he is not the one vandalising the page, I think it probably is, and that he's behind most or all of the anonymous edits/posts and is FlagrantUserName, irbteam, etc etc. He has some typical preoccupations, one of which is the Gillman case, which he claims to have personally instigated, even though I can't see how. If it is him, he was originally using an ISP close to his home address, but has since arranged to use one in the Netherlands. I was just hinting that this new identity seems to have a significant preoccupation.

I should stress that I don't have any personal involvement in any of this - don't know Keenan or Wang or anyone in the case and am not a scientist or academic. I'm a software developer in Melbourne Australia. I was annoyed at the way the Wang case was plastered all over the denialist blogosphere, and just happened to search on Wang's name here out of curiosity. I saw something that looked like obvious abuse, and tried to fix it.

Thanks for your support. I don't know if mediation is going to help. You can't mediate with anonymous users and trolls, and I doubt that anyone else will sign in on the mediation page. I only asked for it because stronger remedies seemed to indicate that you needed to take that course first. Unfortunately, I'm a very inexperienced Wikipedia editor.Ezzthetic (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism but I must admit I did find it quite funny-- the fact they were *all* Heart Attack made it. (To be clear, it was not my vandalism, but I enjoyed looking at the diff.) SimonTrew (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi F&W,

As I have noted on the talk page for [World Association of Ugly People], I have restored the Notable Members section. Unfortunately, this page gets a lot of vandalism, not just the notable members section. Like other articles that can be targets on Wikipedia, this page is regularly monitored and cleaned up when needed. Clerks. (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I replied to you on my talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. The list is now in my user space, per a request here. See User:Ferrylodge/List of diseases that may cause miscarriage.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure if I asked this before,, but do you have a specific interest in dermatology? kilbad (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... that a certain editor of the liberal persuasion has now been sandbagged by a "damned socialist". E tu Brute? I simply can't use a computer well enough to track down that many sources that quickly. On a slightly more serious note the best way of handling both the O'Reilly and Olbermann articles, in my view, would be to leave out the respective labels of "conservative" and "liberal" in the lead paragraphs of each article but to mention that they are "seen" that way in the body of each. Regards Badmintonhist (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assure you that my reference to your "betrayal" of someone was jocular. You were doing the job that you had assigned yourself. In the case of the editor Blaxthos I suspect that he adores Olbermann so much, and respects Olbermann's choice not to explicitly call himself a liberal so much, that he simply refuses to recognize the fact that Olbermann is widely viewed (with reason) as a liberal. Once a label such as liberal or conservative (or socialist or capitalist) is applied to an individual it tends to diminish that person's image, however subtly, as a font of objective truth and wisdom. On the other hand Blaxthos certainly dislikes O'Reilly and O'Reilly's ideology (he is heavily involved in editing the multiple articles on each), so labeling BillO as a conservative, at least indirectly, is fine.

In reality, Olbermann is probably more of a down-the-line American liberal than O'Reilly is a down-the-line American conservative. I can't think of a single issue about which Olbermann doesn't hold the current strong-liberal position. On the other hand O'Reilly varies from the current strong-conservative position on several issues including the death penalty, gun control, abortion (somewhat), and the rather murky idea of "corporate responsibility". Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fences and windows, I am sick of this. Why do you revert my edits by removing the redlinks on the name-dropping page? --58.178.139.137 (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will reply here as well as on your talk page, as you're using a dynamic IP address.

You have been adding these irrelevant names to the Name-dropping article since December 2007. You have edit-warred repeatedly, and have been the cause of 10 semi-protections of the page since then (see [1]), a clear sign that admins have repeatedly seen your contributions as vandalism. Your protestations of innocence and insistence that others don't revert is simply trolling. This is not your only target of vandalism, e.g. see [2].

If you genuinely want to contribute to the page on Name-dropping, follow the guidelines at WP:BRD. Your addition of the names in December 2007 was bold, it was reverted, and then you should discuss it on the talk page. You have never done this, preferring instead to edit war over a period of 28 months. I don't know who you think you're fooling. Fences and windows (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. A newspaper editorial is not a reliable source. I checked Google News, and none of the three hits for Sharpton and "so-called pirates" come from reliable sources. Until a news article in a reliable source picks up the story, I don't think we can include it in the biography of a living person. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a recording of it on YouTube, so we know it was said. But fair enough. Fences and windows (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I finally found a news source that discussed the pirate remarks, so I put it back in the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a ((Sockpuppet category)) template. I've added the template.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wot prob gets most hitz is mom blog(-s/-ger/-ging) but I bleev per wp:NEO#Articles wrongly titled as neologisms we'd more prop choose a more inclusive protologism? ↜Just me, here, now … 21:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ps Does a site have to say, "This is a political blog" for us to know it is a political blog? That's the prob with OR pedants, the "the sun isn't in the sky today unless the local newsreporter has said it is" people.

Inanycase the reason I branched off from merely "parenting" is cos these blogs, although usually by a parent, often comment on stuff of a much wider focus than just kidz (life, women's issues, relationships). Btw one blog I saw is Mom's Cancer, a guy's blog about his mom who has cancer. No parenting there but yes family. ↜Just me, here, now … 21:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haven't read all your comment on my pg yet but as a preliminary: I haven't read the def of protologism yet (either!) but I bet it covers this issue you mention with the adolescent blog not being home and family. And that is that home and family actually is an idiom. (And per idiom: in a thread on another page somebody pointed out that pith expressions like "lesbian vampire slayer" could mean lesbians who slay vampires, something that slays lesbian vampires, or lesbian vampires that slay something. But its through a phrases actual usage that such potential ambiguities get worked out.

- - -

Example of what I'm saying above.

An article is named Internet friendship. I imagine this got its title because "relationships" has the usage of sex. But alas not all friendships involve sex (with a few of the not-uncommon cyberslang/journalese terms that could be googled for this would being "cyberlove", "e- ---"/"web-whatever," etc.); butbethatasitmay the less common term is in reality more inclusive and therefore precise.

"But what about the unintended meaning of 'someone being a friend WITH the internet?'(!) (Yo! Duz "cyberlove" mean, like, having sex with a computer -- say by virtual reality etc.?)" Somebody asks.

And the proper reply would be, "Cuz of idiom & common usage." ↜Just me, here, now … 22:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK I've read your comment now. Lot of good stuff there.

btw I'm just being philosophical about the naming stuff above. "Parenting" is OK (those rare blogs by stay at home unmarried and empty nester's and other variations of family could be included as a subcategory to parenting that would involve alternative situations of homemaking or taking care of other family members. ↜Just me, here, now … 22:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not being rhetorical but setting up a sincere question to you, F&W: By the way, in my opinion, "OR" pedant's favorite tack is to delete article rather than go for an innocuous name change. But there's probably their side of the argument that I miss somehow. Perhaps you could explain it to me? OK, for example, the site for pioneer blogger Dooce says she

has written extensively and humorously of her struggle with depression as well as her pregnancy, parenthood, skin cancer and her experiences with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And say there was a source quoted outside of Wikipedia that said precisely that. An "OR" pendant might likely say, "Ah, yes, but while the source sais she wrote about parenting, it doesn't call her blog A Parenting Blog."

So then one simply goes to the ream of coverage given Dooce and come up with a source that calls it a (whatever) blog. Fine. But my question is, What is the "OR" pedant trying to accomplish within the more straining variants of hi/r craft? ↜Just me, here, now … 23:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thx that was a very thoughtful/insightful response (from you on my tkpg) F&W. And thanks for the tip wrt rules vs sources. Wow. Hmm yes.

Ironically, I have little interest in personal bloggers. I don't read any of them (I liked Therber's pieces when I was a kid, which is sort of the rambling type stuff that these bloggers do, except Thurber's were fictionized more.) So this thing of my creating the pg is/was good as more of a learning type experience for me. (Since I have no vested interest or even fan-type fascination with the topic.)

One thing I DO like to do, however, is to take the side of underdogs. And in a way, part-time/full-time homemaker bloggers automatically are a niche that receives less respect than predominantly male genres. And as oddly as that may or may not seem, that's a reason I champion this topic, despite my minimal personal interest in their characteristic topics/style of writing. The other thing is that although I'm politically aligned with -- well, say, Noam Chomsky -- still I have an interest in presenting (and figuring out) traditional mindsets, too. If that makes any sense: hence an agenda or angle I have as well that coverage of the more traditional home-and-family type folks doesn't get short shrift. ↜Just me, here, now … 23:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the tip re project concerning WP systemic bias

What's below may be TLDR. ↜Just me, here, now … 13:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alhtough I forget the project's actual name at the moment. I customized a tag from the project and put it up -- although the context doesn't fit exactly right -- on the (now freshly renamed) "List of parenting bloggers" page.

Here's the rub. WPdians are predominantly men -- and every pornstar in the adult film biz has a WP page: coincidence? I don't mind pop culture stuff that's notable being covered but when WPdians' myopia doesn't even allow em to even see the things that are such a major part of the popular culture around them...well, I just find such lack of observation odd for otherwise quite intellectual folks. A stark analogy: Say somebody's sitting there reading The Economist; wouldn't it be surprising if you were to ask that person, Which magazine is more popular, The Economist or Good Housekeeping? -- and the intellectual person couldn't take a second to ponder and figure the right answer out?

- - -

So let's try statistics to make the case with concern to this notable genre I'm attempting to cover encyclopedically of blogs written from the viewpoint of domesticity. Let's check the Alexa rankings of various blogs (at which, note, the ranking of #1 is at the top!) So I checked Dooce (which I've never checked in my life, but is in my mommy blogger list). It's ranked at # 29,919 of all blogs. Then I checked the ranking for Andrew Sullivan, which I myself check just about every day. It's Ranked much much farther down the popularity list than Dooce at # 5,339,802. Yet, despite his fewer readers, I've got the feeling Wikipedia folks have heard of Sullivan and not Dooce. (Which would also be the case with me, after all.)

What genre is Sullivan. Do you really need to find a source to know his is polical blog? (His site's tagline? "Of no party or clique" And then also this quote from George Orwell, "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."

- - -

Now, what is Dooce's tagline. Let's see: "Talking a lot about poop, boobs, her dog, and her daughter." If somebody should be aware of this tagline and then should observe from his own experience what %age of population are moms -- but then should require a source for the idea that Dooce is a mom blogger...well, I think if such a person would sniffs and say, "Wow -- maybe in the future sometime some witty woman might be able to sit at home composing a witty, high-traffic blog on the Internet that's about sitting at home, blah blah. But that isn't now. So that's WP:crystalballing" -- I think a person who'd say such a thing is struggling to see what's in front of the nose. ↜Just me, here, now … 05:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per your latest comment at the AfD

I'm gonna try and find what I can. Also, sometimes the exact iteration of title, in circumference of a certain locus of topic, sorta gotta be worked out. Alas, I've spent without exaggeration 2% of my time researching the article and 98% responding to the AfD! There really otta be some mechanism whereby a brand-new articles being considered for deletion could be assigned to either one of two tracks: the first, for immediate AfD, and the other, to wait a cuppla weeks. ↜Just me, here, now … 06:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per contemporary English idiom: Commentary focusing on especially on straight/LGBT is generally labeled as being associated with "relationships" (although the old standby "romance" is still hanging on). Yet there's a lot of overlap between this category and the one, whatever we should call it in the post-modern world, of family caretak(-er/)-ing one.

For example, not wanting to be ageist, I've included "Mom's Cancer" to "Home and family blog's" list. (And fwiw, concerning the hypothetical you'd mentioned the other day wrt an adolescent's blogging about hi/r family: In order to avoid ageism, if such a blogger became notable, hence meriting encypdc coverage/blue link, and if hi/r writing were notable as being characterized as being especially about taking care of other family members (eg helping raise a large brood or a sibling or other relative with special needs? ironically helping "parent" a disfunctional mom and/or a dad?) then in such a hypothetical case, such a blog would merit inclusion on such a list as well IMO. ↜Just me, here, now … 17:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Merge and delete. In short: when mergers are done, the relevant edit history needs to be retained so anyone who wants to find out, can look up who edited what. It is hardcoded into WP:MERGE policy. Unless only one person edited the article in question and a merge can be done by mentioning the relevant paper trail info in the edit summary of the merging edit, deleting the edit history would violate the GFDL (and the subsequent license if it is adopted) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you know how to change the main name of a page? I recently started a page for Yvonne Delarosa and I would like to change it to Yvonne DeLaRosa instead of Delarosa —Preceding unsigned comment added by I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sansonic. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide#Name. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for all the excellent research, Faces and windows. Btw, I've just now suggested a new name here: Talk:Internet homicide#Proposal. If we'd be so lucky that you've a spare moment to comment in this talkpage subsection I'd greatly appreciate it. p/s Should you participate, please indicate a second choice if your support is for "Internet killer," OK? (That said, should you be able to garner substantial support for such a designation in the article's title, I, for one, wouldn't mind a bit!) ↜Just M E  here , now 07:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was asked to participate in the AfD of "Home and family blog". I looked up the relevant guidelines, and have posted them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog for your consideration. The Transhumanist 21:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you know if you can create those boxes that go above the article?

Here's an example......

Or.....

Can you type what's written in the box, therefore creating your own, if so, how?

Thanks For Your Time, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do add multiple references for one website without having it appear as mutiple refernces at the references section, so it will appear as one reference with a b c d e...... at the begining.

EXAMPLE: (Note: I added dashes at the beginings so it wouldn't transform)

So & so did this and that <-ref->URL removed<-/ref->

After doing that he did other things <-ref->URL removed<-/ref->

"URL removed" because the domain name is parked on Sedo.com and it listed for sale.89.117.242.235 (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your time, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Bookbound barnstar
		Fences and windows, for pursuit of knowledge via many searches through the electronic stacks.  — Justmeherenow 01:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for finding good references for PureVolume. It was one of those things where I knew it was notable but I just couldn't find enough good sources. Have a nice day. ~EdGl ★ 22:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Fences and windows, Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will you be interested to join the discussion on topic of Ice Hockey World Championships and whether medal count for Russia/USSR and Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia should be grouped together. The evidence I've provided from a reliable source in support of this argument is being rejected and there is seems to be a questionNeutral point of view. Please join in. Andreyx109 (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am very pleased you were able to join our group. please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you, or if you have a question how wikipedia works.

Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found Hi, Fences and windows, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification. Many times we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Many of these editors are also new to Wikipedia so may see deleting "their" article as "bitey". Encourage civility and maybe even ((welcome)) them if they have only been templated with deletion messages. The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion. Our primary work is improving articles tagged for rescue. On this template you can see a drop-down list of current articles tagged. You can install it on your own page by putting ((ARS/Tagged)). A more dynamic list with article links and description is on our current articles page. It is highly recommended you watchlist it. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves. Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Do you know how to do print text aside of a wiki-table?

EXAMPLE:

How do you write something or put text to the right of the table like the example above?

Thanks For Your Time, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need certification on the RFC for Stilltim. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Stilltim Gigs (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a template notice to put on top of an article to notify readers of possible mis-spelling?

Thanks, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, there is a page that had many foreign names and a lot of them were underlined indicating mis-spelling and my dictionary to my spell check contains many of these names.

Thanks Again!, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you know of a template I can use to tell readers that the page is incomplete?

Thanks, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I keep getting an error message after edits that says:

Database Error: A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database...

DoYoUkNoWwHaTtHiSmEaNs?

Thanks, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Me too. It means the database is falling over, and there's nothing we can do about it. Don't do any major edits without copying your text first, or find some other part of the internet for the time being! Fences and windows (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you create templates?

Thanks4URTime!, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind!

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a move discussion & survey going on, on page Lullaby (Jewel album), please express your opinion, click here to do so

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank You, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a moving discussion & survey going on, on the page "Bitch". Your opinion has been requested, click here to vote, it is urged that you vote in a timely manner. Thank You.

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank You For Your Opinion

Thank you for voting, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]