User talk:Pia L/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

I must....

give you the

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		for going that extra mile on improving articles, helping out and giving helpful advice. Most your elaborate response to the Request for Comment about Christopher Gillberg // Fred-Chess 14:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Gillberg

Hi, Pia. Thanks for the note ! I'm afraid I don't have good news: the situation with respect to finding "expert" "medical" help for neuropsychiatric conditions on Wikipedia is not good. In this situation, you are probably the expert :-) I would say to just dive right in and do whatever you can, and I can give you a list of people who would be able to help out. The key to getting inaccurate info out of the article is strict adherence to Wiki policies: WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. But, more importantly, the first thing that you might become familiar with, inside and out, and which should be of great help in attacking the problems you describe is WP:BLP. You can immediately (and not subject to 3RR) delete any criticism of or inaccurate info about Gillberg if it is not well sourced. I don't know autism as well as I know Tourette syndrome: I just know how to research autism because of my experience with TS. The people who could most help you out are probably Users RN, Natche24, Dubhagan, PurplePlatypus, and Keyne. Perhaps if you leave them a message as well, we can all peek in and try to help. I can help with sourcing and making sure statements which aren't well sourced are not included (particularly in the bio of a living person), but I don't know the legal situation there very well. I'll put the article on my watchlist. Because summer is winding down, it might not be the best timing to tackle something? I have a sense that many people aren't around. Good luck, Sandy 12:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Pia, I feel really at a loss to help on the articles, because so much of the referencing is not in English. It's hard for me to discern what is going on in terms of POV. One thing I'm really not clear on is why the whole study controversy isn't moved to the study article and out of Gillberg's personal article, with a link from the personal article to the study article. I put that link in twice, but Denis deleted it, so I'm not sure what to do next, or how I can help. Sandy 19:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Pia,

I wonder if you could help with the new article on the "Gothenburg Study". It's really in terrible shape right now, and you seem to be familiar with the background. Also, thank you for the help with the Christopher Gillberg article. --Denis Diderot 14:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Gillberg, arbitration

A Request for Arbitration has been made; see here.  —Daphne A 08:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully point out that I do not believe this issue deserves arbitration, nor that I can be a party in it. My first contribution to the Christopher Gillberg article was on a 15 Aug. 2006, a correction of a factual mistake, which I do not think had been reintroduced by the user Daphne A.

At this time, the following development had already taken place, as evident in the the history of the article, (most of them during the month before I even contributed my first discussion page comment about the fraud allegations introduced into the article on 10 July 2006 by the user Daphne A):

• 1. User Daphne A had added an unsourced "scientific misconduct" tag:

Category,Scientific misconduct Gillberg, Christopher

• 2. User Daphne A had (without adding any references) removed all fact requests inserted by user SandyGeorgia, here, for example "They accused Gillberg of forging his data.{ {fact} }."
• 3. User Daphne A had added a false allegation of fraud and scientific misconduct, a false statements about who destroyed the files and about an "investigation": "Gillberg was accused of having committed scientific fraud for much of his career", "most of the records of Gillberg's research were deliberately destroyed by Gillberg", "The destruction of the potential evidence ended investigations into misconduct".
• 4. User Daphne A had engaged in a long revert war over the allegations. See for example [1], [2], [3], [4], eventually causing the page to be protected. However, upon unprotection the reverts about the fraud accusation by user Daphne A continued, [5], [6].
• 5. User Daphne A re-added POV and scientific misconduct tags, [7], as well as the allegation about fraud [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], even after extensive discussions about why this was inappropriate.
• 6. User Daphne A also included a long row of opponents of Gillberg into his biography, from non-mainstream sources and from non-fact checked letters to the editor, to support the impression of fraud, for example a link labeled "Discussion about Gillberg fraud allegation" at the bottom of the page, leading to a debate page with 6 letters to the editor (called Rapid Responses) from detractors--two were from people involved in a legal dispute with Gillberg, with an extremely negative POV, three of the letters came from the Sociology Department of Lund University, and were part of a long debate in the press to discredit neuropsychiatry in general, and Gillberg in particular. In her early editing of the article she also removed the sentence, "The purpose of his research was a better understanding of the children with DAMP" and added a statement that the court did not "believe" what Gillberg had "initially" stated. The problem is, of course, that she has no knowledge about what the court was "believing", as Gillberg was never charged for this (and never stated something "initially", as the same answer seems to have been given to press each time he was asked.)

Pia 01:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

top 100 most viewed

Williamborg: did you know that you have one of the top 100 most viewed user pages on Wikipedia so far for the month of September? Man, you are hot and happening. He, he. I only contributed one little peek to these September statistics, but now I know I've got to keep more than one eye on you. ;) Best, Pia 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting; I’ll have to improve it a little if folks are going to look at it; it’s been rather long since it was seriously updated; certainly not as good as yours.

Recognizing it is very early in the month & just a few peeks could bias this count, I will have to resist the immediate urge to write controversial things & monitor this link to see if I’m able to influence the count.

Saw you name the other day, as I recall it was while browsing “requests for arbitration” where you were asked for a deposition. Very concise, well thought through write-up; a pleasure to read, which is an unlikely observation when reading depositions. You even write difficult things well; I’m indeed impressed.  ;) Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 04:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, skål to you W..and to the speedy end to that particular arbitration. The thing is, I think the person who filed that arbitration request had contributed some pretty neat stuff to other articles, before getting carried away by a passionate and all-consuming antipathy in that particular biography, so having to put the person in a such bad light in an official discussion was uncomfortable. Finding my way back to your popular page was great though. No, you don't need controversy to make people peek twice there, no worries. Pia 06:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wordiness

Your reverts at Scanian (linguistics) seem very pointless and only hint (even if unintentionally) at that ever-present dialect/language POV-problem. It's also unnecessarly verbose. What "Scanian" means is established in the the article as a whole, not in each separate section.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Sweden

Hi Pia. I thought I'd just ask you, if you'd be interested in at Wikipedia:WikiProject on Sweden? I proposed one at Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects#Sweden. I'd need someone to help me set it up and do the basics, because I am not acquainted with WikiProjects, and besides I don't have enough time. If you don't have interest in helping me with this, you might still want to just be a member of the projects. That's welcomed too, of course. Just sign your name at the link.

Fred-Chess 13:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Replying.

Yes, I think we should move slowly. I think there are around 10,000 articles on Swedish topics here. It may sound unbelievable, but many people like to write about things virtually unheard of such as small villages or unknown artist, or people from the 18th-19th century, mythological kings, etc.

I suggest that we create a set of core articles. Maybe 50 articles on general biographies, 50 on geography, 50 on history, 30 general "... in Sweden" articles, 50 on arts and music, and what else?

Then it is only a question about defining the core articles.

Fred-Chess 17:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Black billionaires

I thought your comments on that article's most recent AfD were awesome. Anchoress 17:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anchoress, sorry for the late reply. Thanks for your kind words. Pia 07:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. :-) Anchoress 15:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Do your homework next time

"The whole cluster did a similar marketing raid a while ago, in order to have someone without a single role credit be declared a TV actress"

I'd say these must be imaginary cameras then you know...

Certainly looks like a ton of on set pictures to me, each showing the girl in question]

especially this one:

wow the entire cast for Grand Strand tv show, imagine that!]

and a fake resume...

Doesn't look bad for a 10 year old]

and a fake agent...

Star Maker Talent
800 Shipyard Blvd
Wilmington, NC 28412
(910) 233-3566

in a fake building...

Google is lying to you now!

Statement by UNenvlolved party: Pia

See above, UNENVOLVED.

Concerning your note above about my entry as an uninvolved party arguing against the inclusion of the website and the name of the web hosting company and its owner, as well as the words of a killer about a murdered child in the Jessica Lunsford request for arbitration [14]: As you may have noticed, I believe that restrictions on vanity edits and advertisement should be adhered to in the article under arbitration. I also think that the pleas from other editors for similar restrictions in List of female television actors should be respected. (I am not contributing to the mentioned articles, by the way, neither do I plan to). I still want to point out that the editors, in order to prevent this kind of situation, have made the TV actor article restrictions explicit: "This is an alphabetical list of notable female television actors. Actors who only have had minor appearances in television films or series are not included in this list". Since your little girl seems to (just barely) fall into the second category after having been involved in a commercial and a TV pilot which was cancelled, I'm afraid my answer to your post would have to be similar to the argument presented by User:Kevin_Breitenstein here [15]. That said: I wish her lots of success and I hope she will have a chance to appear in many TV shows in the near future, and in legitimate Wikipedia entries of course, once she made her debute in a titled role and is mentioned in cast and credits for the show or movie. If the talent is there, she will have a long and illustrious career in front of her, and not even bad, premature publicity stunts like this will hamper her rise to the stars. (I have made the links to the pictures of the child in the entry above invisible because I do not believe in posting vanity pictures of children in conjunction with a debate about the inclusion of an alleged killer's words about a sexually molested and murdered child (Jessica Lunsford).). Pia 11:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the world Pia, we can't control what people type on the internet. Months from now someone will pull up your statement here and use it as "evidence" that she has no "credible" roles and yet she was on imdb.com for over a year, if you look hard enough you can find the publicv support ticket her parents wrote to have her imdb.com page removed for the very reasons you stated above. Grand Strand is on Fuse Network, it is a viable shoiw, just because it airs in Canada does not mean its failed. Its not my little girl, but I do know her family very closeley. The "commercial" is notr a commercial it is a PSA that aired in Philedelphia, Baltimore, Harrisburg, Washington DC and Annapolis, millions saw the PSA (Public Service Announcement), it ran from 5pm untill 7:30pm with a minimum of 100 airings. So for over 2 months her PSA was airing. That's not really a commercial now is it. This October 9th she will be gone and filming with Cheech Marin and Cuba Gooding Jr, perhaps I can send you pictures later if thats just okay with you.

Some people don't want their daughter all over the internet on bulletin boards, which is all imdb.com is.

65.184.18.231 14:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this reasoning for her inclusion in the List of female television actors is that she is nowhere to be found among the cast in the IMDb entry for Grand Strand:

--Grand Strand (2006) (TV) SUSPENDED--

• Production: USA, Fuse Network [us]
• Director: Anghus Houvouras
• Cast: Aaron Carter (I), James Forgey, Tristan Jones, Brent Lovell, Eric Nies, Taylor Shipe, Tim Woodward Jr., Cory Broadwater, Ryan Cabrera, Heidi Lingren, Melissa Lukon, Danielle Motleysee copy below).

And according to Swirl films' web site it has not been picked up, so I seriously doubt it is playing in Canada. Simply being photographed on the set of the pilot, being an extra, or having a minor role for the first time, would probably not qualify as notable enough and would probably not be sufficient for inclusion on the page in question either. Being in a public awareness campaign, anonymous, with voice-overs, petting a cat, is not what I suspect is meant by major "appearances in television films or series TV acting" either, no matter how many places the announcement is shown. Also: I find it hard to believe that someone who is cruising people's user pages to insert pictures of a child and who wants to feature comments about a murdered child like those inserted about Jessica Lunsford, would be overly concerned about an IMDb entry about her. However, this is all beside the point and I don't intend to drag this on any further. As you can see on the arbitration page, the argument was presented to show that the same cluster of users, including 65.184.18.231, was engaged in edit warring over her inclusion on that list of female TV actors (including an AfD discussion page about her) and in edit warring over the Jessica Lunsford article, also an effort to have a member of this family prominently featured. The same users are also appearing in Grand Strand discussions, are blanking comments about impersonations, removing tags, etc, etc, on each other's user pages. In regards to the quote you want to have inserted in Jessica Lunsford's article from the mouth of the alleged killer: you state, "This is an entry about Jessica Lunsford, her emotional state, comments, statements during her detention are very much important facts". No, it is not. It's about the twisted state of mind of an alleged killer who saying things about her. It is words about a murdered child from an alleged killer who is implying that it didn't hurt the child to get molested and killed because, he believes, the child was not a virgin when he raped her. How is his view of her important information about her state of mind? If a killer said that she begged him to put her in a bag and suffocate her, would that also be a believable version of her "state of mind"? In conjunction with your statement about pornography in the home, the alleged killer's words is nothing but an attempt to make it appear that the victim was a willing participant and to prolong the family's suffering. If the father is "still working" with your "companies" while your aim is to put this version of his dead child on Wikipedia, I think it must be because of an obvious lack of knowledge about what is going on here. Pia 17:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot argue with someone who knows "everything" the whole way from Denmark. But just for shits and giggles

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:1B-P5o4KqmUJ:www.imdb.com/name/nm2300473/+alexis+stodghill&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6

before her parents asked her imdb.com page to be wiped.

65.184.18.231 23:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweden related List, first candidates

A list is now up, at User:Fred Chess/WikiProject Sweden. You might fancy giving your input. If so, please, do it at the talk page for now. / Fred-Chess 14:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, the page has now been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden, and with that it has been officially started. I hope it can manage itself now :-) / Fred-Chess 11:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

WorkingHard 06:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

WorkingHard

Just wanted to let you know it looks like WorkingHard has been banned by JimboWales himself for making a veiled death threat against you. Cumberbund 08:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavia

Hi, Pia! I'm glad you're pleased with my stuff :) The issue of the definition of Scandinavia in English has been dealt with at some length on Talk:Scandinavia. Here are some sample reference works where I've bolded the crucial parts:

"Scandinavia (skăn'dĭnā`vēə), region of N Europe. It consists of the kingdoms of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark; Finland and Iceland are usually considered part of Scandinavia." Columbia Encyclopedia

"SCANDINAVIA: a region of northern Europe consisting of the kingdoms of Sweden, Norway and Denmark; culturally and historically Finland and Iceland are often considered part of this area." — The Random House Encyclopaedia

"SCANDINAVIAN: a native or inhabitant of Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland)." — The Concise Oxford Dictionary

"SCANDINAVIAN: of the countries Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland in northern Europe, or their people or languages." — Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

Some sources include Finland but not Iceland and vice versa. The meaning of the word in English is somewhat flexible. Haukur 18:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pia, liked your latest edit on the scandinavia article, hope you don't mind my humble try of refining it a bit. Even though us nordic people DO use the term scandinavia correctly, pretty much the whole of the rest world uses the term for D, N, S, I & F. So I just changed it to "..should be used" from "..is normally used". -J

Hi J., sorry, I didn't see your message until after I pressed save and had already changed the same sentence your were referring to. Sorry to appear so rude. The problem with "should be" is that it appears to be prescriptive rather than descriptive, and it is problematic to talk about what words "should" mean in popular usage. The meaning of words change and meaning has evolved and changed throughout history, in spite of various language police organs ;), like the countriesä various forms of "academies", such as Svenska akademin, or organizations like Nordiskt Språkråd, etc. No offense meant and thanks for your kind message. Pia 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sweyn Forkbeard

Hi Pia. I must say that I am mutually happy to have a message from you on my talkpage. It has been a very long while since I followed that article. The article degraded after king Eric the Victorious' conquest of Denmark was added. Nationalencyklopedin says:

Hos Adam [av Bremen] uppges E[rik Segersäll] - sannolikt riktigt - tidvis ha behärskat Danmark ("In Adam of Bremen's work, Eric the Victorious is reported - probably correctly - to have ruled Denmark for some time").

When this information was added to the article, an anonymous user took great offense and started to do what possibly is original research and claimed that such a conquest was widely rejected, adding a lot of unreferenced information. This strikes me as quite odd since NE takes good care to state if something is contested or not, which it does in the case of the Battle of the Fýrisvellir, just after it discusses E's conquest of Denmark. It appears that not even the history professors hired for writing NE (including Dick Harrison) find it very debatable. If you want to, we could

1) trim the article down to what is easily referenced and remove everything unreferenced or difficult to verify.

2) add a lot of in the article.

Tell me what you think.--Berig 18:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. Both Gustav Wasa and Sweyn Forkbeard deserve a place on the List of famous bearded people :-).--Berig 19:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I adore your dilemma with categorizing Gustav Wasa :D. On a more serious note, I have had a look at Sweyn Forkbeard. Something that I don't really like in the article are claims such as "cannot be proven" and "no evidence". Six years of writing a dissertation has taught me that such statements are inherently POV. Compare with a court of law, where "evidence" is something that is submitted to subjective evaluation, and where a judge accepts or does not accept a piece of evidence as evidence. Scholars do the same thing (called selection bias), and arrive at different interpretations, and in the end at different judgments based on their POVs. What a WP article can do is to state what different primary and secondary sources say.--Berig 19:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Good luck in the library. I need to take a nap. Love, --Berig 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pia! You have done some great work on Sweyn Forkbeard. It looks much better now.--Berig 14:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of name change of Skåneland

Please see Talk:Skåneland to discuss a possible name change. -  AjaxSmack  00:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)