My guess is that the unpleasantness around it arises from the chips on various alternate shoulders, and that the concealed agenda may prove more troublesome than the disclosed one.
I'm interested in the phenomenom, rather than the people, particualrly in the way that copied information spreads, despite later corrections, across websites. Also in the sociological view of the whole thing. Midgley02:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment: Are there any health controversy pages which don't have Ombudsman and Leifern in their edit histories, because if there are no great number, a solution to the problem presents itself. Midgley 01:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC) humored me. Mathematicians have a concept of attractors, which seems apropos. Do you have experience in clinical trials? A sense of efficient case finding is common in people who have such experience. Steve Kd4ttc02:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a bit - we are in an asthma one and ramping up for a hypertension one that I can't yet talk about. I first read James Gleick's book "Chaos" C17 years ago having bought it in Dulles airport and while travelling South backward at 500 mph, and some of the attractors are indeed strange. Leifern has been away for a while, and returned in foul form - really obnoxious to the extent that something should be done. Coincidentally whaleto popped back up at the same time, I guessed he had been having a lie down. Midgley02:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After a bit of inactivity, Medicine has been selected as the new medicine collaboration of the week. I am taking the unusual step of informing all participants, not just those who voted for it, since I feel that it is important that this highest-level topic for our collaboration be extremely well-written. In addition, it is a core topic for Wikipedia 1.0 and serves as the introduction to our other articles. Yet general articles are the ones that are most difficult for individuals to write, which is why I have invited all participants. I hope it isn't an intrusion; I don't make plan to make a habit of sending out these messages. — Knowledge Seekerদ02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the common sense edits. English, you want English? Was ist los, sprichst du kein Deutsch? Ok it is late. ;-) Point taken. That was a stupid sentence.
Only I do have a question about one change you made. Your phrase 'tending to wall off' isn't exactly what I was trying to say. Don't you think the body's immune system actually does try to wall off the foreign object? I agree that 'in an attempt to' is rather awkward. Can you help me think of a better way to describe this, without a detailed explanation of the immune system? I don't think 'tending' provides quite the correct meaning, do you? Thank you!! molly bloom05:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just caught your 'it evolved that way'. ROFL Of course it did. I daresay that you might get an argument from some fundamentalist religous people on that one. There are folks who insist the earth is 6,000 years old, too. I don't think I would want to be the one editing that Wiki article. molly bloom05:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Midgley, first of all, I'm sorry about any work you did on the Biological psychiatry article that was discarded with the re-writes. If you'd like to put any of that back in, feel free. Thanks for all your work on it. However we have a bigger problem with Cesar Tort and Ombudsman constantly pushing the POV tag on that article.
I asked Cesar Tort and Ombudsman for mediation or arbitration. They didn't respond so regretfully we must proceed. Without mediation, we go straight to arbitration. If you're willing to support this, please read the below. I'll file the request later today, unless you suggest otherwise. Joema19:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, I must have misconstrued the original version when I was copyediting... I haven't added anything new, just changed a few words so it doesn't imply why the war might have caused any epidemic. Obviously add more at will. Sparkleyone06:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Re: your comments in this edit). The "100k" case number seems high to me as well. The CDC's MMWR report (PMID16617290) cites ~56,000 in '04-05, which leaves me at a loss to find the other 40,000+. Heathhunnicutt cites this cite for the 100,000 figure - which just boldly states it without citing. -- MarcoTolo02:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest holding such discussions on the page's discussion page? There's no need for secrecy when it comes to finding references, is there? Heathhunnicutt13:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
THe pyramidal tracts carry motor signals into the spinal cord and thence to the muscles. (Roughly). They are fairly plain wiring. There are various systems that work on _position_ rather than power, and allow you to eg specify the position your hand should be in, that being different to where it currently is, movement occurs until it is there. (Very roughly). SO things affecting movement that are not due to a problem with the pyramidal tracts are extra-pyramidal effects and are common with anti=psychotic drugs of the Chlorpromazine --> Olanzapine sort of axes. (Very very roughly). Parkinson's disease, whcih is related to Dopaminergic nerves, produces effects that are not completely unlike some of these. Anti=psychotic drugs as above have efects on dompaminergic neurones. I may have to write an artile on this now, if there really isn't one, here or more likely on http://ganfyd./org but I'd need to do some reading _first_. Tardive duskinesia is a late (late = tardy - tardive) and unexpected effect, extra-pyramidal effects are prompt and expected and reversible. Midgley21:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. Anti-vaccinationists seems like a really interesting topic and I'd really like to get the article to a better standard, but its so difficult to find comprehensive, unbiased information. Anyway, I suppose its me who should be thanking you - you obviously put lots of time and effort into the article (and many others), it's very much appreciated :-). Bodil18:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been searching for information on this (Steth actually did remove it), and it is quoted as being from a book by DD Palmer, but I don't have the book.... Please email me and I'll send you what I have. It's all very interesting. The spiritualist, occultist, Freemason, roots of chiropractic. -- Fyslee20:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - just moved this from your user page where, with great shame, I have to admit I put it in error, y'day! Apologies - Ballista04:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was the reply from you? - yes, I'd been told as a teenager, by a local, that it was a smallpox hospital but had never verified that fact. For all I knew, it was just a great local legend, but why shouldn't it be true? - Ballista16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I also replied to User:Downhamhill[reply]
Science is science and many other things are perfectly reasonable other things. Pseudoscience I take to be wrapping non-science in the trappings of science in order to confuse. Orgonite, [[[Royal Rife]] and - given the assertion of subluxations - chiropractic's fundemanetal theoretical basis are pseudoscience. Science is powerful and pseudoscience is an attempt to steal that power for fraudulent purposes. Midgley08:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've run over this hill many times in the last fifteen years (it's on a round, together with Cam Peak, Cam Long Down and Uleybury, which we cheekily call the '4 Peaks') - the long top bears many hummock marks but no signs of building footings; as I'm sure others have mentionned, plans to excavate the site were firmly squashed, for a variety of reasons, some ten or so years back. Bob aka Linuxlad16:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Midgley, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiensну?04:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carefully through WP procedure I think. The first thing is that John having responded rather shortly and essentially denying the legitimacy of the RFC, should be encouraged/given another opportunity to either respond or reject it. If he would accept a mentor or if anyne felt like offering him advice (Arcadian did several times I know) then this would be a reasonable part of demonstrating he has had every cnhance to take on board the criticism of Whale and of his linking to it. If he indicates that he does not accept the WP procedure - the RFC and so on - then it is a request to ArbCom to consider it next.
Meanwhile, my feeling is that an admin looking at a link by John to Whale.to , and arguably at a link by anyone who can be shown to have been made aware of th RFC, to Whale.to , would not be acting unreasonably in blocking that user. But of course that is just my view.
As a secondary activity, I note there is an RFC on WP:RS one idea in which is to list certain sources that are reputable, and by implication at least, certain sources that are not reputable. It may be reasonable to write an essay which would have the same standing as eg WP:CB or WP:SNOW saying in essence WP does not link to Whale.to or its clones as a source becuase it has been determined by RFC that it is not reputable as a source. Midgley12:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me think about it - I think there are some significant differences between RFCs and RFArs that should be addressed, but I haven't given any thought at all to how to approach them before today. Phil Sandifer00:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mumps vaccine is a reasonable topic combining history with a view of a subject of wider than N. American, or even N. American + UK scope. From a historical point of view, the story of Jeryl Lynn Hilleman and her father is an interesting one that actually points to serendipity and the personal touch still being a significant part of science. Buried somewhere in there is a Cold War commentary to be written on how the USA neither bought a Russian 1950 vaccine, nor really used their existing, killed, one, instead waiting until Merck produced one. Seventeen years later. A general point on managing vaccine articles is under Talk:DPT vaccine.
Vaccine articles need the sticker often found on food on them though.
I don't quite see the problem. Could you point me to the specific sentence that is causing you trouble? You should be aware that WP:ANI is not for settling content disputes. enochlau (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you made a mediation request here. Could you please fill in all the required information as soon as possible or it may well be removed. We are happy to help mediate discussions but we have to know the full details before doing so. I understand you may be angry or annoyed at the conduct of other users but the best way to resolve such disputes is by providing full and frank information to all parties. Thank you for youy time -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)talk18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your mediation request will be considered and should be taken up in the next few days. If there is no mediator response within 5 days then please feel free to get in touch with me or any of the other mediators on the list. Thanks -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)talk19:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The message is being sent to all those involved in the G. Patrick Maxwell editing dispute. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Please also note that this does not mean you have three reverts to use every 24 hours, and such deliberate attempts to work around the 3RR will also lead to action being taken. As a note, should I take action against anyone involved for reverting after this warning was given, all parties who have broken the rule will face equal punishment. Thanks! Ian13/talk18:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote:
"It is late here and I can't see what the point you are worried about amounts to, but there is a copyvio tag you should put on a page from which you have removed material on the grounds of copyvio. That makes a link to the place where people who understnad this watch to see what happens. I would think it very surprising if a link was a violation of copyright - how would the Web work?"
Thanks for the info. I checked WP:TM, and the only template I could find was *enormous*. It seems there should be a smaller tag like (citation needed), so that others would check, and I hesitated to add that enormous tag when I'm not not sure of the violation, and no one has yet responded. At any rate, to answer your other question (how would the web work if a link was a violation of copyright), a link that it is a PDF copy of someone else's article easily violates copyright. It's the same as taking a picture of someone else's work, and putting it up without rights. You get the Times article, convert it to PDF format, upload it elsewhere -- that's a violation of their copyright. The NY Times (or any other source) doesn't allow you to capture a PDF picture of their article, and put it up on another website, without their permission -- at least, that what appears to have happened there. Hope this makes the problem more understandable? Sandy03:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it as a copyright violation (which I believe have a somewhat urgent nature?), as I don't have access to the original article. I was looking for something to justify that the man was notable, which he doesn't seem to be, but those who wrote the article and included the references should find and provide legitimate references. I only noticed the copyright violation when I was trying to follow up on the references per the AfD. Hopefully by deleting the copyright violation and calling attention to it, the person who added the reference will be able to track down the original source? Sandy03:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I come here to ask you to please stop responding to comments by Molly (Jgwlaw) in the talk page of the AfD debate in the interest of putting the conflict behind us. I have asked her to do the same. Thanks. Cowman109Talk22:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it is sugar-free. I'm on a diet. Except yesterday was my birthday and "DH" (dear husband) took me out for an all too large steak dinner. ;-) MollyBloom22:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
can believe it - I'd been there before, and some of the same people were there... did you look at the anti-vaccinationist RfA. I saw it coming... in April. Midgley 22:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
no, I haven't. I hope to never see another ridiculous free-for-all like this again. It is a waste of energy, and it is uncivil. I am going to have to look up all these TLA s (three letter acronyms) since I am Wikifuddled (to plagiarize someone else's term). I don't even know all the debate or whatever over vaccines. I am only glad that there were polio vaccines, for example, so we did not have another generation of crippled people. I wish there were a vaccine for some other disease like MS, or lupus. ;-(
My own personal belief is that some of the pharma has gone too far, like advertising on US television for meds for made up disease like "Social Anxiety Disorder" (what the heck is that?) to sell a new drug, but that is a whole nother topic and not germane here.MollyBloom 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
As to Ombudsman, my only suggeston is that kindness (or civility) goes a long way to mend fences. I don't know a whole lot about your disputes with him, and I don't want to get involved.MollyBloom
Mmmh. That's a bit radical. (I think US: Liberal is only a little to the right of our conservatives, isn't it?) There is something in that. Are you sure you are not going to get into the mediation thing - although maybe not there to start with? I saw US television a couple of times*... I think that the nuts and bolts of the immune system are slowly being teased into piles, and we are likely to come up with some sort of fixes. I rather like telling my (Type 1) Diabetics that if they stick with it, there is likely to be a cure for them ... I suppose we have to either get very radical with dissemination and sharing of knowledge, or put up with some of the Pharma foibles. I think social anx. dis is what we used to call shy, and needed drawing out and not teasing - over here telling people they work that way and it is all right and tablets will not improve their life still works, often, so the rearguard is still in place. (*CNN has its moments though)Midgley23:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. US:Liberal. Yes, I think you're are absolutely correct. Conservative in the UK v. conservative in the US are altogether different. The US conservatives have been overrun by right wing religious fanatics and Lochnerites (um. ;-) You would have to look up Lochner in Wiki). My brand of 'liberal' once was considered fairly conservative in the US.
2. Soc. Anxiety disorder. Exactly. I doubt that either you or I are in danger of having this "illness".
3. Pharma. I wish that we had more sanity about tablets over here. I don't know what the answer is to the Pharma foibles. It is an increasing problem, though. Another ad I truly detest is the one for viagra and 'EDD' or erectile dysfunction disorder. Wasn't that one time just called impotence? oi vey maria
4. Autoimmune disease. I wish there were more knowledge in this whole area. IT does make sense that the 'cause' is a combination of genetic susceptibility and environmental exposure...but then, that doesn't shed much light. I hope there is a cure for Ty 1 diabetes, but also MS, lupus and other autoimmune disorders.
I truly appreciate the truce. Now I can go do some editing on the law project. The editor on criminal battery didn't define it correctly, or distinguish it from tortious battery.MollyBloom00:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the left of me? Better not tell many US doctors that. um. ;-)
You might take a look at the entry,. There is something wrong with it....looks like a partial URL or something on the page. MollyBloom02:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I have apparently been successful at generating a potential compromise regarding biopsychology article. (at the RFC)Perhaps you will go look at it, thanks.
Prometheuspan03:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
en-WP is an encyclopaedia about things that happen in English speaking countries?
When I added that comment tag, the sentence was adjacent to another sentence in the preceding paragraph. The duplicated use of "monovalent mumps vaccine" seems unfortunate in that the lay reader will think all monovalent mumps vaccines are literally the same thing. Therefore, the sentence about Leningrad-3 as a monovalent mumps vaccine was actually obfuscating to the audience. Naturally, the vast majority of the en-wiki audience is from the Anglosphere, and optimizing for relevance to the audience is good.
I agree that the account should remain. You can see that I moved the sentence to its own paragraph in order to disambiguate the two monovalent mumps vaccines in question there. But you throw the noun-phrase "monovalent mumps vaccine" around so much it must be confusing to the audience. In my opinion.
As for your examples including French couture, I am completely struggling to understand why that would be a relevant example in your mind. Even in that article, the material is likely organized in a way that is relevant and useful to the reader.
It almost seems like you are going around looking for little barbs to be wounded by, and you don't understand American sarcasm, i.e., take things too seriously. To take that comment tag and blow it into the extremes you came up with, I again find remarkable. Heathhunnicutt05:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Americans didn't do sarcasm and were bemused by us Englishmen:¬). The thing about monovalent ("single" perhaps, but "single" in the UK has acquired emotional baggage, and monovalent is a useful term) vaccine is that there was the moderate-sized row in the UK, and the two other countries, Russia and the USA, give two contrasting examples of what is done with the vaccine - the USA introduced a vaccine, Jerryl Lynn sold as Mumpsvax, and then mixed it into MMR leaving the already approved vaccine avaialble, whereas Russia never bothered to mix Mumps with anything else, thus leaving Mumps vaccine available. The UK didn't adopt a mumps vaccine until it adopted the mixed one, and thus (Merck Sanofi et al never spent the money to get the individual component vaccine licenced separately and the UK) never made it available.
So when the question in the reader's mind is "why didn't the UK adopt a single Mumps vaccine?", as it has been from time to time because of that row, WP now answers it. The England & Wales dept. of Health never did answer it, as far as I know, so WP is a more useful resource on that single point than the government information service. So that is why I dug into that. It isn't perfect, of course, and we can shape it better. (I think the section above would be easier to read if I'd allowed myself the use of "monovalent". Midgley18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tradenames... Most UK doctors prefer to use the drug name (eg "Live Mumps vaccine - Jerryl Lynn strain" or "Lercanidipine" to the trade names (Mumpsvax and Zanidip). Is there a convention on WP yet? Midgley18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to know, DId you put in the image of the hooka smoking caterpillar? (sp?)
Yes, Tenniel from Wikicommons. There is often something suitable there. Someone mentioned "sheer brass neck" in the anti-vaccinationist talk page, so ... File:Padaung-f.JPGPadaung woman.
(arguably the hot air balloon was going too far) AKM
I was thinking about our dispute....and after we cooled off, I was thinking of people I have known that I have fondly called Curmudgeons. And I thought, oh know, Midgely is a Curmidgeon. Don't take this wrong, because it was meant to be humorous, not an insult, and I would never call you that on any public page as disparagement.
Thanks for your comment. I noted stubs on a law clerk (forget judges) which is patently absurd. While it is quite an acccomplishment to be the law clerk of a US SUpreme Court Justice, a career of law clerk positions is hardly notable in itself. That astounded me. See [[1]]
I do have a problem with vanity pieces. I have seen all too many in Wikipedia. Frankly, Maxwell's bio looks like an ad for any dozen plastic surgeons, as well as a POV. But that pales in comparison to the stub for this law clerk. Exactly why is a law clerk notable?
Interesting. I went via history to the originator, and I think the answer is there is an effort to cover all of a certain group[2] - it took me longer than it would you to de-acronymise SCOTUS but I got there. See User_talk:Pmaccabe. There is a topic in there which comes up in various places, of lumping versus splitting. I tend to lump, resulting in an article such as Mumps vaccine and a paragraph on Jerryl Lynn (which is not in that article, at present, but could be) whereas Heathhunnicutt tends to split, resulting in Mumpsvax, Jeryl Lynn and at least potentially Jeryl Lynn (strain) and Jeryl Lynn Hilleman. Neither is wrong, and a lumped article tends to make a splitter say aargh and vice versa. So I suppose the answer is "as a member of a group of some notability and/or potential notability". If each of those individuals had a paragraph on the main list page then it would get big, and also a page called "list of" seems by convention to stay close to being a list (and to be vulnerable to deletion, though that one is definitely not). So notability by concatenation, I suppose... My view is that the solution to that is to use clear sub-pages for such things, but there may be technical reasons in MW development that make that unwise. 16:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I see. Well, that does make more sense, although a separate bio is not neccessary for all. Obviously, many SC law clerks have gone on to be highly notable in their own right. It's a bit premature for the law clerk of a brand new SC justice. Still, thanks for the info. I need to spend some more effort and time on the WIkiLaw project. I am still new to Wikipedia, and that.Thank you Pmaccabe. MollyBloom18:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You made a comment in April about the graphs on the nculear fuel page. Are you talking about the graphs of temperture as a function of distance from the center of the pellet ? I could not understand your comment. Please could you explain what your worrys are. (Answer on my talk page please).Cadmium21:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Midgley: I introduced the article Eschatology (cult). Perhaps you may find it interesting since I mention the religious beliefs of Christian Scientists and other cultists who die prematurely because they are reluctant to go to the doctor when needed? —Cesar Tort04:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are basking in the sunshine? Isn't it a little warm there? I'm used to it here, because our seasons are 'hot' and 'hotter'.jawesq16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for drawing attention to Alan Yu - there's not a lot there, and maybe he's not worth having on Wikipedia. I'm going to do some research in the next few days and see what I can dredge up on him. - JustinHall05:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Midgley, saw You there. if you like, i may translate the german article *http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnther_Enderlein
into simple (perhaps ugly) English. I wrote that article a couple of days ago. However: i need a native englisch speaking expert to check my spelling. I may shorten that article, the german version is quite long. btw: i am a 50 years old ex-doctor. CU, michael Redecke11:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i forgot: you may also contact me, if you need info about german-related health or quack articles or issues (bioresonance, dark-field microscopy in alternative medicine, alternative diagnostics, anti-cancer diet...) on my user-page you will find my email-address, to contact me if i do not answer on my discussion-page. michael Redecke11:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Günther Enderlein, made about half the way. finished. there is however a contradiction to the english speaking text i linked, it concerns the role of pH. This issue should be checked later. michael Redecke23:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Midgley ! Can you take a look at that article ? these image forming methods of anthroposophy are not suited for any cancer detection, they play a very limited role as tests for bio-food in some contries. regards, Michael Redecke17:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments, Midgley. Levinson was not merely a recent Ph.D. graduate; when Levinson returned from his fellowship at Cambridge, he had already proven himself to be one of the most outstanding mathematicians of his generation (certainly to both Hardy and Wiener), so there was no excuse for Bush not to hire him. -- Rglovejoy16:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Three administrative levels were implied in the plan: president, vice president, deans and administrative officers. However, all administrative officers reported directly to the president. Vice President Vannevar Bush served largely as an advisor to the president and as chief administrative officer in his absence. Bush had an office in the presidential suite where he could confer daily with Compton. They shared files and secretarial staff."
So although he did not have the title of provost, he did have many of its powers. What would have happened was that Bush tried to block Levinson's appointment, and Hardy and Wiener went over Bush's head to get Levinson hired.
I'm no longer an MIT student, having graduated in 1991, and unfortunately I live a couple of thousand miles away from the Institute. So all I have to go on is what I am able to find on the web. -- Rglovejoy17:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So corrections to the text indicated, at the very least, and I continue to think that one assertion, by someone who was not there, based on hearsay, and written in half a century later, is not a good basis for the assertion made.
Ta! (I must add in the Maurice Gibb reference sometime) I also made a passing comment on Smallpox Hill, which I sometimes run over with the Dursley club. Bob aka Linuxlad
Thank you for your message on my talk page. This discussion should preferably be on the talk page of the article where issues such as these are discussed. While I respect your point of view, the issue of dental amalgam , as a source of mercury amongst other sources, does not preclude the inclusion of thiomersal. One of the reasons given by those supporting restrictions or a ban on dental amalgam is to reduce such sources of exposure. There is a wiki link to mercury as such in the article and thiomersal is a mercury containing compound. So while there is no thiomersal in amalgam, a child with amalgam given a vaccine with thiomersal will have additional exposure to mercury. The point made is that the exposure to mercury is the problem.
I am not sure if there is an underlying issue here regarding vaccination....As far as references you are certainly welcome to add them.NATTO23:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very general statement based on your point of view. The Dental Amalgam Controversy is a well defined issue related to mercury pollution and toxicity. Wiki links to relevant articles and topic are acceptable. If you have other reasons please discuss them on the talk page first. Thank you. NATTO07:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Autism incidence is increasing in Denmark, and in a fairly linear fashion (see the journal article for a graph). Thus, there is a rate of change in the incidence, which did not change as a function of the changing criteria. I've attempted to clarify the writing a bit, so that it is more clear. --Limegreen00:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your input into the dental amalgam controversy article. It is very easy for these kinds of articles to portray some concepts as true when the majority of experts believe it to be untrue. Even though I think an article on this specific topic is needed, hopefully we can keep the information clear, concise, and accurate. - Dozenisttalk15:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A bit colorectal surgical for me, IE outside my area of expertise in particular techniques. It isn't rubbish, I would tend to assume it is correct. In the 20 years, or thirty anyway, staple guns have made quite a difference to how low an anastomosis you can do. Midgley01:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm a contributor on the French Wikipedia, and I see you've uploaded this picture on the English WP. Could you please upload it in Commons so as I could be able to use it on the French article about Richard Hooker ? My server doesn't allow me to upload in Commons... Thanks ! --Bsm1511:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you made some useful edits on the article Fraser Island recently. I've been trying to clean up the article as of recently. I too visited Fraser Island when I did a tour of Australia this past July (I'm originally from Canada). If you have any more info please continue to edit, I'd be happy to have an editor to help shape up the article. Bobo is soft08:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the edit history of MMR Vaccine as soon as you have time. I can't revert to my own most recent revision, and IMO the POV war has begun again. Heathhunnicutt17:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't edit war to restore your comments on Ombudsman's page
I have warned him not to use edit summaries that imply your remarks are vandalism.
Please don't edit war to keep your remarks on his page. Given the history between the two of you, it's understandable that both of you might be touchy, and it would be best if you took the high road. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching them, and it looks like I've got some good company with User:MastCell and others. I actually decided it was time to try and overhaul the article(s) because of the timeliness of the "controversy" in relation to the lawsuit. Cool HandLuke01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(cur) (last) 11:42, 3 August 2007 Midgley (Talk | contribs) (38,463 bytes) (→Biography - where did Rife claim that? And unless it is established true, "fraudulently claimed" would be the correct phrase.) (undo)
Hi, recently the Kardashev scale entry has gone through some major reverts, I'd like to talk about the reinstatement of the material. I've looked around and have seen that you've made some remarks about the article, you mentioned that a Type II might not shout signals from space, and that part of the talk page has recently been updated. I feel we need to talk about the reverts and reinstatement, and talk about whether either are justified. Talk:Kardashev scale If you could help or add your two cents I'd really appreciate it. Thanks--Sparkygravity (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.
Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!
The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ganfyd until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 10:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Richard Granger, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MarkDask 20:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
THat's a bit quick, I'm still writing the second paragraph. Work for NPfIT do you? Midgley (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Richard Granger, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MarkDask21:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for double stamping Richard Granger for speedy deletion. The article was severely lacking but tagging it the second time was only because you annoyed me. I dont often compromise my worth to Wikipedia but on this occasion Mea Culpa. MarkDask17:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I spent the entire day on New Page Patrol and only CSD'd these. Choose which you would keep and let me know. Most of my time I spent reffing decent articles - and you can check that on my contribs. I hope this serves to assure you that I dont CSD carelessly. MarkDask18:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Coombe, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. nprice (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded on my talk page, should you care to read it. Since you have *so* much tenure here, you probably don't really need to read what I said anyways. nprice (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is age relevant? The only thing you accomplished there is sounding like a dick. You didn't even check his account age! Frankly, I'm inclined to regard you as a pompous individual. It's an accident. Accept it and move on. Be the bigger user, if indeed age matters. Mythpage88 (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Age is nothe same as experience here. His page declares his start to be 2011, as mine declares mine to be 2004. The habit of checking things and thinking before acting grows with age. Both are useful for for writing an encyclopedia. Are you the same chap, because if not I see no reason why you should be joining this conversation. And you are rude. Midgley (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.
Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Artificial induction of immunity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conjugation (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.
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.
Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.
Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!
The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers
Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement
American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia
Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th
Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias
Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.
It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives
Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership
The metadata provided with it, by me, is that it is an image I made, from a passport photo. I think passport photos are not restricted from copying, otherwise the passport system as operated by the UK and the USA among others now would not work or would be illegal. Pragmatically, it seems unlikely that the original photographer or his heirs will regard reproduction as requiring a separate licence. What sort of "evidence" did you have in mind, given the declaration already provided that I made it? Midgley (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I btained a view from the National Archive, who talk to the Passport Office and other arms of the UK government. A photograph of a part of a passport - the picture of the person it was issued to as here - is not restricted. If it was practical to determine the photographer who took it, and they were available, then perhaps a problem might arise, but it generally will not be. The licence would be the UK Government licence, which is permissive for this. You might want to note that this wasn't a copy of a photograph, it was a copy of an element of a passport, and the copyright of the assembly is that of HMG, I'd say. Midgley (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:
Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.
We welcome you to have a look the journal. Feel free to participate.
You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:
Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
Technical work like template designing for the journal.
Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.
The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.
Hello, Midgley. 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.
Hello, Midgley. 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.
Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Meatsgains}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
An article you recently created, Ped fecundis, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Ped fecundis, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
An article you recently created, Bodyscape, does not appear to have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption from other editors. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. If you need any more help, consider asking a question at the help desk. Thanks! Seagull123 Φ 16:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, Midgley. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bodyscape, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
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.
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.
Cowman109Talk 22:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Coombe, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. nprice (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
...Support Open Access... 
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#A_group_of_users_framing_me_as_a_potential_fringe_and_making_allegations Prokaryotes (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library
gmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
wijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikael
The Wikipedia Library
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 20. Your name was pinged by S Marshall in a deletion review discussion for a page, which subsequently became a redirect, you created and significantly contributed. Thus, thought you'd appreciate a courtesy heads up, should you wish to participate in the discussion Doug Mehus T·C 19:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
