Mark v1.0
2007 Welcome from Wikipedia edit
Hello, Mark v1.0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR 19:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Copyright violation in Music-Thanatology edit
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Music-Thanatology, by Axlq, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Music-Thanatology is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Music-Thanatology, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Music-Thanatology itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 05:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Disruptive editing edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors You have been invited to discuss issues on the ECT talk page but have declined that invitation. Consensus instead of unilateral editing is the process that one is to follow on Wikipedia. Your contribution on the talk page would be welcome.--15:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a last invitation to follow Wikipedian guidelines. A well supported sentence, that ECT does not cause brain damage, has been deleted 3 times by you. This has been done without proper citations, as requested, to back up your claim that ECT causes brain damage. Recently you are placed a citation request several times on this same sentence and again offer no support for the request. This goes against WP:VERIFY and this repeated action is seen by editors as disruptive editing. I'd ask you kindly to change your behaviour now.--scuro 03:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
No I dropped my claim to brain damage. After another editor (different from scuro) reverted it. I had agreed in talk to another party. I had stopped deleting the sentence once another editor arrived. I switched to "who", after some other person put "who" in. I said it needs to say psychiatrists(who) beleive it doesn't cause brain damage. In talk under the title you created with my name in it I listed the names of outspoken activists who do NOT accept ECT is not damageing. Therefore you/wiki have to change the sentence to specify who is accepting that ECT causes no brain damage.--Mark v1.0 06:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
my VERIFY ? is a list of outspoken activists [List at bottom]who claim ECT damages the brain. They do not accept, so the sentence has to specify who it is accepted by.--Mark v1.0 06:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
With due respect for your viewpoint, while the reverting has changed you are still targeting the same sentence with unreasonable edits. First you attempted to delete the whole sentence, then you attempted to ask for a citation for the same sentence even though a paragraph of excellent citations and reasoning was provided for you. Now you want to qualify the sentence and that request is also unreasonable. See ECT talk page. Your actions are different but the pattern of behaviour is predictable. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Now might be the time to take a long hard look into the mirror. You are passionate and intelligent and have much to offer, it would be wikipedia's loss if you were eventually banned over your instance that the sentence can not stand as is.--scuro 20:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I apologise for the multiple deleting of the sentence initially, it was done through ignorance. I believe the sentence false and misleading. Again, I state I dropped my claim of deletion when a second editor arrived to the scene. As we agreed upon in Talk:ECT.
- 2nd thing,I did not start the citation asking for sources.
- your 3rd allegation of "qualify the sentence", THAT IS WHAT I MEANT BY "WHO" IN YOUR SECOND ALLEGATION. not to site sources, but to clarify the sentence as to who is doing the accepting.
- 2nd thing,I did not start the citation asking for sources.
Image copyright problem with Image:Graphsmi sm.GIF edit
Thank you for uploading Image:Graphsmi sm.GIF. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This was a graph I made on the causes of death of the serious mentally ill .--Mark v1.0 (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Wiki flaw edit
Hi Mark,
I have seen your archived discussion on brain damage caused by electroshock. Your arguments impressed me. Alas, there's a Wikipedia flaw in its system, as you can see in my user page.
Big Pharma sponsors psychiatry, which means that they have, literally, billions of dollars to promote a pseudoscience. The massive data of peer-reviewed journals advocating biopsychiatry are as pseudo-scientific as the tons of peer-reviewed parapsychology journals which purport to demonstrate the paranormal. While Wikipedia is able to deal with paranormal crank theories, once a pseudoscience reaches the academia, like the use of psychiatry against political dissidents in the former Soviet Union, there's little to do except to destroy the commie system. In our case it'll be a little harder to destroy the Therapeutic State since, with the exception of Slovenia, all states approve electroshock.
This is a huge subject. I've read Thomas Szasz, Peter Breggin, Robert Whitaker, Jeffrey Masson, Elliot Valenstein and many more critics. But they're still a minority and, though they're right, Wikipedia cannot recognize it because of its rules. If you want to discuss this in a more private way, just e-mail me.
Cesar Tort 06:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Thomas Szasz edit edit
Might I suggest that you move the information you just added to, perhaps, the references section so it serves more as a source of information... I do not think that its current location as the very first line in his main arguments section is the appropriate place. In any event, I expect that another editor will soon delete it or move it somewhere else in the article if you do nothing with it. κaτaʟavenoTC 14:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
ok I will move it elsewhere, I was a bit emotional at the time from reading yet another persons enterpritation of what Szasz means when he says that mental illness is not a disease, people understand it as mental illness doesn't exist.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The article Rapides du Cheval Blanc has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- No proof of notability
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Philip.t.day talk 20:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Substantial capacity edit
Hi Mark,
Apologies for my ignorance with respect to Wiki protocol—I am new. I will add my explanation (below) to the discussion section of the page My edit is correct, though, so I'm changing it back.
The substantial capacity test is the American Law Institute model. The American Law Institute (ALI) published the Model Penal Code (MPC) in 1962. With reference to insanity, the MPC says that "a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law."
The phrase "substantial capacity" comes directly from the ALI's definition of insanity in the MPC, which is why there is no need to have two sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apfg (talk • contribs) 05:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Insanity defense edit
Mark, I'm the editor who closed your DRN request. Rather than just letting you hang out in the cold, I've looked at the Haines article and the Yoder article and I'm afraid that I have to agree with Doc insanity that they're not appropriate, but let me see if I can do a better job of explaining why. The section in Insanity_defense#Psychiatric_treatments in which they appear is about the situation in which a person is charged with a crime, is found not guilty by reason of insanity, and then is involuntarily committed as a part of that same legal process. The assertion to which you are appending the references says, "Authorities making this decision tend to be cautious, and as a result, defendants can often be institutionalized for longer than they would have been incarcerated in prison." The problem is that according to the articles neither Haines nor Yoder were found guilty by reason of insanity. Yoder was directly involuntarily committed in a case in which his alleged crimes were used as evidence, but he was not committed as a result of his acquittal for those crimes and the length of his commitment has nothing to do with the length of sentences which he might have received had he been committed for them. Haines is a much closer case, but he was committed after being pleading guilty (and presumably being found guilty) and the article does not make it clear whether his commitment under UK law was merely after that conviction or somehow grew out of it. (It may be that a plea of "Guilty but Mentally Ill" is possible in the UK and that he plead that, but the article does not say that's what happened.) Either way, however, these cases do not illustrate the idea that a person can be found not guilty (or Guilty but Mentally Ill) but still serve a period of incarceration longer than the sentence that would have ordinarily resulted had they been found guilty of the crime with which they were charged. I hope this helps. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- TransporterMan, I still don't understand. You wrote "the length of his commitment has nothing to do with the length of sentences which he (they) might have received had he been committed for them". I am looking at the subject of the length of the commitment. Incarceration is incarceration wither it be jail or "hospital"
- The length of the psychiatric commitment has EVERYTHING to do with the insanity plea. Doctors determine what sanity is, and it is arbitrary. One doctor can find a person sane, where another doctor would find insanity. There is no way to prove or disprove sanity. If a mentally ill person commits a crime, the psychiatrist can be held liable for releasing them to the public. It is then in the psychiatrist interests to keep innocent OR guilty people behind bars for a longer period of time. Haines and Yoder served more time behind bars than what a sane person would have received found innocent or guilty. The punishment (psychiatric commitment) is Cruel_and_unusual_punishment as it is unlimited in time. This all comes from having the idea of "sanity" the (insanity defense and psychiatry) as a higher value than the process of the judicial system where FACTS of evidence judge the case.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Mark and TransporterMan, actually to resolve this dispute to Mark's satisfaction a bit better, Haines WAS detained as a result of his crimes (but his continuing detention is under the Mental Health Act so civil), so maybe this example should be allowed with a suitable explanation. It certainly illustrates the point about the caution of mental health tribunals quite well so I will reinstate it, if that's OK TransporterMan. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I disagree, and the problem is that this article is about the insanity defense. Yoder did not, as far as I can tell from the article, use the insanity defense and that's what the article is about. He was convicted of the criminal charges, then a separate commitment proceeding was filed in a wholly separate and voluntary (on the part of the people who filed it) legal process, unlike the process that necessarily follows a successful insanity defense. The article about Haines is vague about what actually happened, procedurally, in his case and that's the reason it is inappropriate for this article. If these cases were being used in the article about Involuntary commitment to support a notion that involuntary commitments can be, in effect, life sentences they might be apropos (though the Haines article might still be iffy because of its vagueness). If there were an article about people being convicted of crimes then subsequently being involuntarily committed in a separate process, the articles might also be apropos. But the point of the section where they are being used is, in its essence, the dilemma one faces in making the insanity plea and neither of these guys did that insofar as can be determined from the cited articles. The current sentence in the article, "This also applies when the defendant although convicted is detained in a secure hospital and detained under civil committal powers, as the recent appeal to a mental health tribunal by Albert Haines in the UK demonstrates," is similarly inappropriate because it does not have anything to do with the insanity defense. Let me close by noting that I was merely responding to Mark's request at DRN for an independent, neutral evaluation of the citations; I'm offering that just for what it's worth and do not wish, myself, to become involved in editing the article (so as to better retain my neutrality). It's just my opinion and you are both free to accept it or reject it as you see fit. I'm particularly glad to see you beginning to work towards consensus as that is, at the end of the day, what is best for the article and for Wikipedia as a whole. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- regarding "Yoder did not, as far as I can tell from the article, use the insanity defense". Yoder WANTED to go to jail. The Psychiatrist of Yoder figuratively used the insanity defense. The power of a psychiatrist to take away a person freedom is directly linked to the insanity defense. When medically insane we are not legally responsible for our actions. --Mark v1.0 (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I disagree, and the problem is that this article is about the insanity defense. Yoder did not, as far as I can tell from the article, use the insanity defense and that's what the article is about. He was convicted of the criminal charges, then a separate commitment proceeding was filed in a wholly separate and voluntary (on the part of the people who filed it) legal process, unlike the process that necessarily follows a successful insanity defense. The article about Haines is vague about what actually happened, procedurally, in his case and that's the reason it is inappropriate for this article. If these cases were being used in the article about Involuntary commitment to support a notion that involuntary commitments can be, in effect, life sentences they might be apropos (though the Haines article might still be iffy because of its vagueness). If there were an article about people being convicted of crimes then subsequently being involuntarily committed in a separate process, the articles might also be apropos. But the point of the section where they are being used is, in its essence, the dilemma one faces in making the insanity plea and neither of these guys did that insofar as can be determined from the cited articles. The current sentence in the article, "This also applies when the defendant although convicted is detained in a secure hospital and detained under civil committal powers, as the recent appeal to a mental health tribunal by Albert Haines in the UK demonstrates," is similarly inappropriate because it does not have anything to do with the insanity defense. Let me close by noting that I was merely responding to Mark's request at DRN for an independent, neutral evaluation of the citations; I'm offering that just for what it's worth and do not wish, myself, to become involved in editing the article (so as to better retain my neutrality). It's just my opinion and you are both free to accept it or reject it as you see fit. I'm particularly glad to see you beginning to work towards consensus as that is, at the end of the day, what is best for the article and for Wikipedia as a whole. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
TransporterMan - yes, I agree. I was perhaps trying too hard to be conciliatory. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Quick how-to edit
Please don't take this as a criticism as I certainly do not mean it to be that, but instead just a quick note of advice and help. It's not necessary to leave a response to someone's comments in more than one place as you did above and on my talk page. If you're leaving a note on an article talk page or a talk page of some administrative forum or page, it's always expected that the person you're addressing will respond to you there. If you're leaving a note on a user talk page, most experienced users will have an indication on their talk page or, sometimes, on their user page about how they normally carry on conversations. At the top of my user talk page, for example, you'll find a banner that says:
- If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page - it will be on my watchlist for at least a few days, so I will see your response
- If you leave me a message: I will answer on this talk page - please watchlist it so you'll know that I've answered.
(and that, in my experience is the most common way that it is done, so that you don't have to switch back and forth between pages to follow a conversation). If you want to make absolutely sure that the person you're addressing sees your message, you can use the {{talkback}} template (which is most easily accessed by the "tb" tab at the top of your screen that you'll get if you enable Twinkle in the "Gadgets" tab in your user preferences), or simply leaving a note on their user talk page that says, "I've left you a note at [[page link]]. — ~~~~". But doing either of those things is not normally needed and is better reserved for the situation where you leave a note in the most obvious place and don't get a reply within a day or two. Good editing and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Refs edit
Hey Mark. Refs for medical content need to be either review articles or medical textbooks per WP:MEDRS. Thanks and happy editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
A kitten for you! edit
thanks ;)
Speedy deletion nomination of Hershey Rosen edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Hershey Rosen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. TheLongTone (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
cut and pasted from TheLongTone edit
I don't know if I should write here on your talk page or mine, so I choose yours as you will definitely see this (my) response. You stated I could contest the deletion of the article Hershey Rosen, but I did not see the place you indicated to click on to file the contestation. The person named Hershey Rosen is important enough for an article because of the significant amount of money he has defrauded people (several million) . In the short article I included two references, one to a newspaper article of 1977 and one of 2010. The person named Hershey Rosen is also named in another Wikipedia article on fraud. The article I wrote was incompletely made due to my inexperience.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Make your assetion of notability on the article talk page. I would look at the notability guidelines though: it did not seem to me that he was sufficiently notable to qualify.TheLongTone (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- The article doesn't exist anymore to my knowledge, but I write on the talk page? YES/NO .The Wikipedia notability guide for crime says "execution of the crime is unusual" this is subjective, and I say defrauding people of millions of dollars once in 1977 significant, then today in 2009 defrauding people of almost a million again, is unusual.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- It may be unusual, but we live in a world where it does not seem to have attracted much in the way of media attention. And in fraud terms, a million is pretty small potatoes: a few more noughts are needed on the end. It's a wicked world we live in. Since the article has now gone, you could try contacting the admin who deleted it putting your case & asking for it to be reinstated.TheLongTone (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- The article doesn't exist anymore to my knowledge, but I write on the talk page? YES/NO .The Wikipedia notability guide for crime says "execution of the crime is unusual" this is subjective, and I say defrauding people of millions of dollars once in 1977 significant, then today in 2009 defrauding people of almost a million again, is unusual.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Ways to improve Thomas Ray Lippert edit
Hi, I'm Carriearchdale. Mark v1.0, thanks for creating Thomas Ray Lippert!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add some links from within the article. Thanks!
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Carriearchdale (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Removal of watermarks/timestamps edit
Hi Mark, i normally use the tool "inpaint" (http://www.theinpaint.com) for my removal work, it is not freeware but saves lots of time in most cases because it is much faster than manual cloning. It gives good results in randomly patterned areas, areas with regular geometrical structures and areas of more or less uniform structure. It has some limitations in certain cases where important image information is really lost and cannot be restored without using human intelligence (eg. restoring a lost window of a building by copying another window into the affected area. In many cases the watermark/timestamp seem just to "disappear". I have a license, so if you have some watermarks to remove feel free to ask.
For difficult cases I use Gimp for manual cloning (i think any other better editor with a "cloning stamp" function would do.) Takes some 10-100 times much time depending on the situation. - Andy king50 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this. After some checking, the page is actually a composite. The facts stated in the article refer to Hans Heinze, who has a very long article in the deWP, which I will translate part of. There seems also to be a physician named Carl Hansheinze Sennhenn involved in some way with the Nazis, apparently in chemical warfare. I do not have enough information yet to write about him--he seems quite obscure by comparison. The relative dates make it possible that he is the younger relative of the other, thus accounting in some manner for the name.
BTW, when you tag an article for deletion, it's required to say so in the edit summary. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 2 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Terminal Man, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brain stimulation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted edit
I have deleted List of criminal doctors as it was without references making it a WP:BLP violation. You may recreate as long as their are high quality sources. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- The list of criminal doctors I made ( now deleted) did not need any references because they were all Wikipedia pages. None was original research. The list consisted of about ten well known doctors.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
May be of use in the future
- http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2014/07/01/audit-finds-doctors-criminal-cases-unreported/hez6ampFounHTZnayFRqBL/story.html
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10470951/Hundreds-of-convicted-doctors-still-practising.html
- http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/927-doctors-keep-jobs-despite-1508052
- http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/doctors-with-a-dark-side-20111105-1n11m.html
- http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/11/michael.jackson.doctor.manslaughter/
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/627104.stm
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Shipman
I found a criminal list on "List of Physicians" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physicians#Physicians_famous_as_criminals
Talk Page of article edit
I just read that a Wikipedia editor is not supposed to copy and paste deleted text to the talk page of the article. My mistake.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The links ALL WORK. You are not looking. Read up on the {{ill}} template before blindly reverting next time. You don't revert because you don't understand. Ask questions next time. Bgwhite (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
December 2014 edit
Your addition to Stone Soup has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Reify-tech (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
2015 edit
(Undid revision 654057487 by Anmccaff (talk)There is no explanation as to why Montreal Streetcars were replaced with combustion buses. Why did the electric streetcar in Montreal get cancelled?)
Line 183: Line 183:
- Streetcars in Montreal, Canada. From 1939 to 1945 Montreal's streetcar system carried huge passenger loads. Electric streetcars service ended in Montreal in about 1959.}}
Well, as the GM/Streetcar page, as well as several related pages tell, there are a whole slew of possible reasons; what credible sources do you have that suggest that Montreal bus replacement was caused by GM? The Streetcars in Montreal page, for instance, doesn't even mention GM. Anmccaff (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The buses Montreal used and use are manufactured by GM. I do not have any direct proof on hand.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Proof.
"the New Look from General Motors, was put into service in 1959." from http://www.stm.info/en/about/discover_the_stm_its_history/history/bus-history --Mark v1.0 (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Proof of what, beyond that Montreal adopted a GM product about 8 years into its elimination of streetcars? Please take a look at the article talk page; beyond some worthwhile source being provided, I think a revert is strongly in order. 23:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Food irradiation edit
The information you keep adding is found in the next paragraph, and irradiation is not only used for those purposes, as it seems dubious that it only effects the surface of the body irradiated, especially as entire pallets of products are irradiated at one time, the food does not require to be rotated, and the waves must pass through other food to get to the target. Also this would make delaying ripening and sterilisation of seeds and pests (to stop germination or reproduction hard. Please provide citation if this is true. 104.2.168.238 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I just wanted a simple explanation as to why food was being irradiated. I do not know the depth of penetration in irradiation, I would assume it relates to the power involved. You are correct in that it says "reduce the risk of food borne illness" , but I find that somewhat vague so that's why I kept adding "to kill the bacteria, molds and yeast". Perhaps I should have specified harmful bacteria, molds and yeast. I will let it be as you are looking after the article.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- My source is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/information-for-consumers/fact-sheets/irradiation/eng/1332358607968/1332358680017 . See "Why irradiate food?".--Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- My concern is your focus on the radiation not passing throuhg the surface, as well as your list is not being complete. I moved some stuff around to try to help people see the purpose sooner. Look to see if you like. Make some suggestions. The data you included along with further details are enumerated in the Uses section. The introduction section is already a little long. If you want to enumerate you would need to make the list complete, including all types of living organisms and viruses.24.12.10.0 (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- My source is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/information-for-consumers/fact-sheets/irradiation/eng/1332358607968/1332358680017 . See "Why irradiate food?".--Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Permafrost—Lower limit edit
Hi Mark, Thanks for your contribution at Permafrost#Lower limit in permafrost. It's a helpful addition, however two things would benefit from clarification.
- Are we talking about the "lower depth limit" or the "lower geographic extent" or both? I infer that you are talking primarily about the lower depth limit.
- The link to the reference results in "HTTP Error 404. The requested resource is not found," so it's unclear whether the article covers the lower depth limit of permafrost.
I'll plan on doing some tinkering in the meantime. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 17:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Lower limit changed to Base depth. It took me two minutes to figure out you changed the working title. I chose "Lower limit" because that is what is written on the graphic on the page. I copy and pasted the reference from another Wikipage on the assumption it was good.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, "base depth" is used by Osterkamp et al,[1] whose graphic suggests that the one in the article is flawed where the thermal gradient bends before reaching the base depth 0° C line. Thanks for helping with the emphasis of this subtopic. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- I just uploaded a new version of File:Vertical Temperature Profile in Permafrost (English Text).jpg that reflects Osterkamp "base" terminology better and adds "thermal gradient." Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 22:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- To Editor HopsonRoad. The relative depth of base is important IMO. If we say the permafrost has a depth of 1,493 m (4,898 ft), is this from ground level or mean sea level? It could be in a mountainous region many feet above sea level. The maximum depth of permafrost relative to mean sea level ( and the earths geothermal gradient) is a curiosity of my own. "The heat increase is 1 °C or 1.8 °F for every 30 to 60 metres of depth"--Mark v1.0 (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your interest, Mark. Since the citation refers to "in the northern Lena and Yana River basins in Siberia," we're talking river valley, above the Arctic Circle. So, it's predominantly latitude and not elevation that is responsible for the penetration of cold temperatures. I can't see the exact wording in the source material, so I don't know what elevation, but it's at the northern end of two river valleys, so it's close to sea level at the Arctic Ocean. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 02:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- To Editor HopsonRoad. The relative depth of base is important IMO. If we say the permafrost has a depth of 1,493 m (4,898 ft), is this from ground level or mean sea level? It could be in a mountainous region many feet above sea level. The maximum depth of permafrost relative to mean sea level ( and the earths geothermal gradient) is a curiosity of my own. "The heat increase is 1 °C or 1.8 °F for every 30 to 60 metres of depth"--Mark v1.0 (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- I just uploaded a new version of File:Vertical Temperature Profile in Permafrost (English Text).jpg that reflects Osterkamp "base" terminology better and adds "thermal gradient." Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 22:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, "base depth" is used by Osterkamp et al,[1] whose graphic suggests that the one in the article is flawed where the thermal gradient bends before reaching the base depth 0° C line. Thanks for helping with the emphasis of this subtopic. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- ^ Osterkamp, T.E.; Burn, C.R., "Permafrost", in North, Gerald R.; Pyle, John A.; Zhang, Fuqing (eds.), Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (PDF), vol. 4, Elsevier, pp. 1717–1729, ISBN 0123822262
Mark, Help please. edit
Mark,
A few months ago I ran across what seemed to me like a rather crude attempt to manipulate Wikipedia in a way that I thought inappropriate, and indeed wicked in the real, i.e. non -pedia, world. The perpetrators, I am sure, thought that they were bringing enlightenment to the masses.
I've quite forgotten who and what it was, so common has this kind of behaviour come to seem to me. Still, I'm sure I shall run across that precise case again, and I'd like your advice on what to do.
Here is the situation, roughly. Within the large swath of American theologians who might quite neutrally be called neo-Calvinist, there is a small minority whom I would judge to be crazed extremists. (I am not sure that this, neo-Calvinist, is the best term, but I intend no offence, nor has any been taken by friends of this faith with whom I have discussed churchly matters. "Crazed extremists" I have no doubts about. Reform and reform tradition are terms used within the group, the "reform" being The Reformation, the dust-up between Martin Luther and Leo X and so forth.)
As now seems to me to be normal, some of these extremists are apparently highly intelligent but obsessed with a small number of ideas which they have spun out into peculiar extensions, while most of them are merely stupid and gullible.
They have invented a bogus theological discipline.
This discipline has supposed experts, teachers, institutions, historical events, doctrines, and of course Biblical Authority, exegesis, a hermeneutics of depth and wisdom previously unknown to the mind of man, you name it, all of it condensed into the Historical Era maybe 1990~2016. Each of these is the subject of a Wikipedia page or stub, and I ran across perhaps twenty screensful of this bumf before I said the hell with it all. The pages all refer to each other with reverence.
I would have liked to have brought it to the attention of somebody in the awesome array of toilers who maintain Wikipedia, but I did not know how to do so.
What should I do the next time I run into these folks?
I've been told not to post my address in places like this, so I hope you can reply to my User page, which I understand is accessible through my four tildes. Damn, but this thing is cleverly put together!
Best wishes,
David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- David, I read your letter here and am sorry to say I am in the same boat as you on the workings of Wikipedia. I might help you with this general information. If the writing on Wikipedia is obviously wrong "The pages all refer to each other" you can just delete it yourself. If you do this on a "good" page those who maintain Wikipedia would restore a well written page. If you delete a "bad" page there are no repercussion except for the possibility the page can be put back again. In this example of a bad page restoration, the users IP address who restored it should be noted and blocked from administration powers of editing Wikipedia.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- If the Wikipedia page is well written and fits the standards of Wikipedia, and you still do not think the page a valid source of information you can submit the page for deletion to Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion --Mark v1.0 (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Mark, Thanks. I don't particularly want to get into a deletion-undeletion cycle with these folks, or any others. Your suggestions for deletion page suggestion is good, and I'll keep it in mind.
- I see now that the problem is very widespread: the entire China Portal is a swamp of misinformation and ideological crossfire. Reading through the talk pages over there I see nothing much has happened since 2008, so I guess everybody has figgered out what's happening and just moved on past it.
- The is probably just the usual bad news about the human race. Or the Second Law. Or Murphy. Or some damn thing. Anyway, thanks. Your own interventions seem to me sound and sensible.
David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding "a deletion-undeletion cycle" you can get the page locked or protected. If anyone breaks the protection their Wikipedia account gets under review and probably blocked.
If the editing war has stopped, you said 2008, then a reasonable approach to the writing of the article would be easier.
A person spends time with what they love, if you love the subject/article , you will spend the time to fight for the correct information to be displayed.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
We'd like to invite you to participate in a user study closely related to SuggestBot. User:Another Article is seeking to understand more about the workflow and time commitment of contributors to the English Wikipedia. As part of this study you will occasionally be prompted to answer questions about your editing activity, and these questions should never take more than a minute or two to complete. The intended length of the study is two weeks, but your actual time commitment is totally up to you. If you would like to see more details you can read the project proposal at Research:Measuring editor time commitment and workflow (on meta), but if you are feeling bold and would like just like to sign up right now you can add the line importScript("User:Another_Article/workflowstudyclient.js"); to your common.js. Contact User:Another Article if you have any questions about this study!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
We'd like to invite you to participate in a user study closely related to SuggestBot. User:Another Article is seeking to understand more about the workflow and time commitment of contributors to the English Wikipedia. As part of this study you will occasionally be prompted to answer questions about your editing activity, and these questions should never take more than a minute or two to complete. The intended length of the study is two weeks, but your actual time commitment is totally up to you. If you would like to see more details you can read the project proposal at Research:Measuring editor time commitment and workflow (on meta), but if you are feeling bold and would like just like to sign up right now you can add the line importScript("User:Another_Article/workflowstudyclient.js"); to your common.js. Contact User:Another Article if you have any questions about this study!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! edit
Hello, Mark v1.0. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Case reports edit
We tend to try to use reviews rather than case reports. Thus trimmed [1] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Compulsive hoarding/Dunning–Kruger edit
Hi there—Dunning–Kruger was removed from the Compulsive hoarding article in this edit with the reason "A hoarder denying that they have a problem isn't a case of dunning-kruger. It applies to ignorance of one's ability and overstatement of it". The term Dunning–Kruger is also not referenced anywhere else within the article outside of your addition to Compulsive hoarding#See also. Can you please provide a little more context why you feel this link should be included in See also even though it is not referenced or discussed within the main body of the article? Thanks! AldezD (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for writing. I think Dunning-Kruger is a description from the field of psychology, so fits in the "see also" section for the article of compulsive hoarding. At this time I have no solid references to D-K and hoarding, but I have watched the TV shows on hoarders. During the TV interview, hoarders often at first believe they have a handle on the problem. Only in time, can they admit the problem is too big for them to handle. I can not perceive the reason for your objection in the article as it does meet the criteria for Dunning-Kruger.
- fail to recognize their own lack of skill ( daily diligence to clean)
- fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy (police or fire officials called in)
- fail to accurately gauge skill in others ( do not recognize fire officials declaration of fire hazard, or health hazard breathing and sanitation)
- recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill only after they are exposed to training for that skill ( A year later on the TV shows, they show most compulsive hoarders having some success after a fresh start)--Mark v1.0 (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Without WP:V ref linking D-K to hoarding, I would recommend not adding it to the article at this time. Unfortunately, stating that you're using television episodes you've watched as the basis to add this link does not meet WP criteria, since that would fall under WP:OPINION. Let me know if you have any additional questions or other WP:V sources you can add to include this info. Otherwise it should be removed. Thanks. AldezD (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Not in this clip but goes with the four criteria.http://www.tlc.com/tv-shows/hoarding-buried-alive/videos/a-grave-situation-for-the-kids/ --Mark v1.0 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- You could use that as a WP:V source and even expand upon D–K within the article. Have you used Template:Cite Episode to reference video clips such as the one you linked? AldezD (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot edit
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Belated Hello edit
Hi, Mark, I've just run across something that I'm going to have to fix over the next little while. There is a little knot of errors around the Second and Third Congressional Districts of Indiana, and this unfortunately means errors in a whole bunch of places.
I was reading up on Mike Pence someplace, and it said he represented the Second District at some point. This seemed unlikely to me, since I knew he was from the south end of the state, and from there I found that Wiki had John Brademas in the Third, which is incorrect, and Earl Landgrebe in the Second, which is also false. I know John Brademas was in the Second because I worked for him in the 89th and 90 Congresses, and have walked the streets and driven all around the place, but I don't know the others at all.
It turns out Pence represented the Sixth, according to Wikipedia, for most of his Congressional years, and this seems perfectly plausible to me. I don't know why there is a reference to the Second creeping into his biography.
I'll e-mail John's ex-LA (Legislative Assistant) Jack Duncan, and I'll see who I can make contact with in the others just to make sure I get it right. I'm fairly busy, so I doubt that I'll get around to it for a while, but...
Where should I look to find out who originally wrote those articles? The easiest thing would probably be for me to e-mail them politely once I've got good dates, places and sources.
Anyway, at some point in the middle of the year I'll probably ask you for help. So thanks in advance.
BTW, Is this the easiest way of communicating around here? Isn't there any kind of intra-Wiki mail system?
Cheers,
David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
My revert on ECT edit
Thanks for providing the studies. The full explanation is too long to fit into the summary box, but while the edit says of the first study "the authors concluded ECT is an effective treatment with half of the study participants (30 out of 60) missing", the linked page states:
- "Sixty patients, who had completed at least one course of ECT during the study period, were identified, of which eight people were deceased (not related to ECT: either due to old age or physical ailments), 11 refused to take part, six could not be traced and five could not take part due to significant cognitive impairment. At the end, our final study sample constituted 30 patients."
In other words, 30 out of 60 were either unable or unwilling to consent to the study, but no study participants were left out. The second paper is similar misunderstanding, "In a 2012 paper titled "Knowledge, experience & attitudes concerning electroconvulsive therapy among patients & their relatives" the researchers again left out half of the study participants (77 out of 153)." But the paper states:
- "Of the 149 eligible patients, 65 responded to the first contact and 12 to the second contact. The final sample thus included 77 patient-relative pairs, 20 from 2006, 37 from 2007 and 20 from 2008. Seventy six patients could not be contacted and constituted the ‘non-participant’ group."
So out of 153 patients who recieved ECT at that hospital from 2006-2009, 77 patient-relative pairs responded and participated in the study, 4 could not give consent, and the rest could not be contacted and did not participate.
The wording may be a bit confusing, but in 153-77 and 60-30 the bigger number is the total number of patients who were theoretically eligible to participate in the studies, and the smaller is the number who did. None of the patients who chose to participate appear to have been left out. - Syd (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Syd, you are insane.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC) By their own statistics 16 (11+5) out of 60 have a terrible experience with electroshock. "11 refused to take part" + "five could not take part due to significant cognitive impairment"--Mark v1.0 (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- "Refused to take part" means they chose not to take part in the survey process itself, and cognitive impairment means a preexisting mental impairment preventing them from making legal decisions. None of those patients participated in the review, and the quality of their experiences were not recorded because they were not given.
- If you have questions about this or other parts of those papers, you can ask at the the Science Reference Desk for better clarification. And please, no personal attacks. - Syd (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
In science the object under study does not have freewill, and does not have an opinion. When studying penicillin, the penicillin doesn't have an opinion. When people have had a bad experience from a medical treatment, it can be expected they will NOT want to participate any further with those that are responsible for the treatment. To remove the people who did not(would not) or could not participate in the study is to alter the science as the collective group under treatment is not counted. The bad/negative outcome report is then not counted alongside the positive/good outcome report . This is then not science. The evidence collected and written about is wrong and the foundation for future work is fundamentally flawed and doomed to fail, as all bad science. Who will police this bad science? I do not know.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- When people have had a bad experience, it is expected that they will have a negative opinion of that experience, and that is the purpose of an opinion poll. The number of potential candidates and the number of consenting participants is recorded to establish its confidence interval. If you have concerns about the methodology of this study, I strongly suggest you to bring them to the attention of the Science Reference Desk. - Syd (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message edit
Hello, Mark v1.0. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message edit
Hello, Mark v1.0. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 16 edit
It's OK to remove this message. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 6 edit
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Grey Walter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ECT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge third anniversary edit
The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.
You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Re: Teeth edit
Yeah, the refs don't have to be online though ... your additions also disrupted the flow of the articles. Graham87 15:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message edit
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
February 2023 edit
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Knowledgekid87. Thank you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- This is in response to: "To suggest I fix your mistakes is ridiculous. I am not your mommy to clean up after you when you play."
- These kinds of things are unacceptable towards any editor, comment on content.... not the contributor. As for the content, I'm not suggesting you "fix" anything. The names are in reverse alpha order like you wanted, the "DOCTOR" distinguisher is still there, and the "Nationality" columns have been removed. You keep mentioning "mistakes" and "messed up" without actually pointing anything in particular out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- I had taken a screen shot and posted on Knowledgekid87 talk page with a description of the problem. As he could not see it he could not understand the last name alphabetical order was broken and that he broke it. The issue has been resolved I believe by Knowledgekid87.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- These kinds of things are unacceptable towards any editor, comment on content.... not the contributor. As for the content, I'm not suggesting you "fix" anything. The names are in reverse alpha order like you wanted, the "DOCTOR" distinguisher is still there, and the "Nationality" columns have been removed. You keep mentioning "mistakes" and "messed up" without actually pointing anything in particular out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message edit
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)