User talk:MidnightRequestLine

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, MidnightRequestLine. You have new messages at Francophonie&Androphilie's talk page.
Message added 22:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss something over there? I see that most of that discussion is gone... I'm not sure if I saw this notification in time... Charles35 (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I have some user names on my watchlist and I've seen a couple places of discussion where you've posted. I see that you're frustrated with Wikipedia right now. That's understandable. It can be very difficult to get started. Don't worry though. If you are determined to learn the "rules and norms" here and stick to them, then you'll fit right in. If you want to vent or ask me a question or three at my talk page, please feel free. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And since things are a bit stressful at the moment, perhaps you should consider a break for a day or three, then maybe you'll return refreshed, energized, and motivated to get over the learning curve. After all, "there is no deadline"! Biosthmors (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at my talk page. Feel free to keep the conversation going there. I'm here to help. Biosthmors (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User_talk:Biosthmors#Hi_there again, FYI. Biosthmors (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my over-reaction to your edits. Here is a kitten.

UseTheCommandLine has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}.

UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, it's okay! Don't worry about it. Thanks for the kitten! :)

Thank you!!!

For making a common-sense based-of-the-source edit like this! Keep up that good work. =) Biosthmors (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Biosthmors, I appreciate it! Charles35 (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The truth will out

There's nothing wrong with it's use in this case. Commonly used? Not really...but please don't revert again unless you have a source that disputes what the quote actually was. --Onorem ♠Dil 05:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing the quote, hence "will [come] out" instead of "will come out". Grammatically, it does not make sense. I think we can all agree on that. When you read it, it looks like a typo (and in reality, it is. Either the source recorded it incorrectly or the person made an error in speech). So, to make it more convenient for the reader, we should put the word in there to help them understand. It isn't changing the quote or deviating from the source because of the use of [ and ]. Charles35 (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the link I provided? There is nothing to say it was recorded incorrectly or an error in speech. It's an actual phrase...even if not widely used. --Onorem ♠Dil 05:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I did check it, sorry. I'm not sure why I wrote that. Yes, it does technically make sense in an old-fashioned, obsolete phrase-turned-colloquialism sort of way. But when you, and your present day reader, read it, it sounds like a typo. Putting [come] does not affect integrity. Charles35 (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Shakespeare quote and in widespread daily use. Here, 4 minutes ago, in NME, which is hardly known as old-fashioned and obsolete. Andreas JN 466 13:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing about a modern source using a phrase that doesn't make it old fashioned. That actually happens all the time. In fact, if it didn't, no phrases would be considered old fashioned! They would simply be unknown and/or unused. You said it's a Shakespeare quote - that's exactly my point! I mean it's not a huge deal. I realize that it is indeed a real phrase and is used relatively often. I just think that adding [come] won't hurt, especially because it's awkward when you read it (especially when you read it the first time; hence, I thought it was a typo). Charles35 (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truth’s a dog that must to kennel, you know.→Stani Stani 19:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very insightful. Charles35 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DR/N

I am concerned that the dispute you filed is more complicated than is discussed in your Dispute Review. Please consider expanding that a bit to clarify the dispute explanation further.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you could, under the section Objection to material you provided only partial sentences that make it very difficult to understand the issue with the source and the contribution. Please provide diffs to the edits or provide full quotes.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the full text. I trimmed it down because it seemed like they want short comments (2000 char). But anyway it's up there now. What exactly do you mean when you say it's more complicated? Again, I was trying to be brief so I just gave an outline. I figured the ins and outs of the issue would come out when/if a discussion started. This is the 1st time I've ever posted on the DRN What other info do you suggest I provide? Charles35 (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you wrote in the Dispute Review: "There are many issues currently being debated about the article, but I'd like to focus on 2. For convenience, I like to call them "alcohol" and "inner circle". These issues involve two pieces of material in the article "Breast cancer awareness". Both pieces of material are cited. The objections state that the material violates wikipedia policies including but not limited to: WP:INTEGRITY, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:TONE, WP:OR, and WP:V."

While on its face this seems fine, my only concern is that you have labeled these issues and not explained what they are about. At this point I am almost inclined to close the case as not having sufficient information for issues far more complicated. I wont, of course because it is easily fixed by asking the filing editor for more details to make this easier on volunteers and others who may wish to participate as uninvolded editors. While we do wish that your opening be short, we don't wish it to be at the expense of clarity. "Alcohol" and "inner circle" are simply not enough information to do much with without reading through a great deal. This does look to be a rather complicated dispute, involving much more than just what you have brought up and it will all be discussed if the filing goes forward (and there does not appear to be a reason for it not to at this point). I suggest at least describing what the two issues are (that you bring up) in a brief explanation. If you feel such an explanation will require more characters than we can always allow increase. I will make a note on the DR/N talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm not trying to be rude, but I really just don't understand what the problem is. I made a section called "The Objection". In it, I gave the full quotes and larger explanations for the problem. The alcohol issue is actually (for the time being) resolved, so I am going to edit that in so we can focus on the inner circle problem. I think a good idea might be for you to ask some questions on that page and then I can answer them. I see this as a good idea because the problem with communication is from your perspective which I don't really understand, and the other potential uninvolved editors probably have a similar perspective, so that way the questions you ask will probably answer their questions as well. In any case, I am adding more to it now. Charles35 (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't rude. Asking questions etc, is after the opening of the case, once we begin. I wanted a better description of the conflict as the original labels didn't mean much to someone unfamiliar to the dispute.

You seem to be going out of your way to comply to the many different volunteers making demands, but you need not do any trimming unless you feel so inclined, as I have already asked for the expansion. The other volunteers simply were attempting to stick to the set parameters of our guidelines, but DR/N is an informal process and we do ask for editors to go past a limit if we feel it will further explain the dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It just made me worried that the section would be closed. (S)he just said trim it down, or we're closing it. End of story. That's how it seemed anyway. I just don't want it to be closed, obviously. I probably don't have a correct understanding of the way everything works around here. I am relatively new. Charles35 (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

If you don't want your name to show up as a redlink, but you don't have anything you want to put in your userpage, you can just redirect your userpage to here. You can also change your default signature so that it doesn't link to your userpage at all... see User:NE Ent's signature, for example. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	i came across your handling of the earnest essay by Hartley1000 in The Wire and your defense of his effort, anxiety that it not be labeled vandalism, and offer of help to him. Nicely done sir. You are a class act. — ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That was very gracious. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you :)

RFC at DRN

I've put in a RFC at the DRN. I've tried to shame it according to my off-hand recall of a formal RFC (neutral summary followed by space for opinions from all interested editors). I would suggest adding your reasoning below the line. I've also left a note on the talk page. Please consolidate all discussions of this point over there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed that to a straw poll as RFC is a different venue and should not be done on the DR/N. One or the other please.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amadscientist, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Was that directed towards WLU? Was the message basically that his RfC is nill? Charles35 (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, just that we don't make RFCs on other venues, so I made it a straw poll.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BC or BCE?

Hello Charles35! I noticed your recent edit to History of medicine... I don't personally have a preference either way, but just wanted to point out that the Manual of Style does contain guidance on this issue at WP:BCE. Regards, --Dfred (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

You have to decide what you think is the main problem. For example, if you think that the editing is not neutral, you could start a topic at WP:NPOVN. If you think the main problem is content, then you have little choice but to use the standard dispute resolution mechanisms. If you think the problem is editor-related, then you could go to WP:ANI, but be very sure that you can make your case. ANI is the most ruthless noticeboard at Wikipedia, and you will be taken to task if others believe that what you think is an editor problem is in fact a content problem. Worse still, if other editors think that you are the problem. Don't get overly frustrated, though, and violate policy yourself. It's simply not worth it. Walk away, take a breath, edit something else. You have to have perspective on these things; otherwise, you'll burn out.

I hope that helps a little.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted someone but no promises.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at User talk:Drmies#neutrality

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Drmies#neutrality. Would Breast cancer awareness benefit from the addition of Klawiter 2008? Senra (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breast cancer awareness citation changes

I put a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks to change the citation style of Breast cancer awareness as per Talk:Breast_cancer_awareness#Summary_and_action. In good faith, an editor has taken what might be considered an easy approach to this change. However, this has removed some of your and my edits from the article. I will fix mine if you fix yours? Sorry about this but, I feel, it is for the long term good. List of edits that need restoring ...

--Senra (talk) 11:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I fixed those edits. Please let me know if you see anything I missed. Charles35 (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know?

Getting an article on the main-page via the 'Did You Know project' can be rewarding. Have you considered this? For example, Uncle G (talk · contribs) suggests that there is a missing article (Joseph Colt Bloodgood) in his neutrality response during the Talk:Breast cancer awareness 2.0 discussion. Uncle G even provided a source (Mansel, Sweetland & Hughes 2009, pp. 16–20) and some example DYK hook's (see also Did You Know/Supplementary guidelines). If you consider creating the article Joseph Colt Bloodgood with a view to submitting it to DYK, consider creating it in your user-space first—so you don't inadvertently break the five-days-old rule—and do ask me for advice if you need it --Senra (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DST

hey, I'm curious if you could explain your objection to the assertion that "DST makes little practical difference" at extremely southern/northern latitudes. It could help me to find an appropriate source, and or reword it to address your problem. From my perspective the issues is that if you're in a place with let's say 22 hours of darkness in December, then moving sunrise from 12 to 11, doesn't really make any big difference to your average person, especially considering that sunset is then also moved 2 to 1... YOu've still got an overwhelmingly dark day, and no fiddling around with the clock is going to change that. At the equator the sunlight just doesn't change through the year, so changing the clock is completely useless there. Where is the problem? Peregrine981 (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I understand that this is "your perspective [on] the issue". Information on wikipedia cannot be solely based on the perspectives of editors. However, I am not a huge stickler for original research that I believe is in good faith and I usually let things slide unless I think that it might be inaccurate. In this case, I suspect that that sentence might be inaccurate. To me, the fact that you said "from my perspective" tells me that you're not 100% sure and that you aren't an expert, which makes me more reluctant to let it slide.

Now, I am not an expert either. In fact, this topic confuses me quite a bit. I had some reasons for why I thought the material might be wrong, but now that I am trying to articulate them, they don't feel right. On second thought, your reasoning does make sense to me. I am going to reinstate the material for now. However, I still would like to see a source there, not because I think you're wrong, but because wikipedia needs to have sources! Additionally, it should be cited so that the next person who comes along won't have a problem with it either and will be able to check out the source that supports the material. Charles35 (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. I'm not an expert in any formal way, although I think I have a reasonable understanding of the topic from various readings of done. I'll see what I can find next week. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a couple of citations, and refined the language a bit. They aren't perfect, but I think are suitable. One discusses the problems of Alaska given their northern location and DST, which I think is good enough to extrapolate from. There are lots of sites discussing this on the internet, but not many that could really be considered "reliable" by WP standards, so I hope this satisfies you? If not, let me know and I can see what I can find, but I have no doubt that this is true. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with it. Thanks for taking that effort. Charles35 (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptogen

From memory, the Fulder book The Tao of Medicine compares Adaptogens and stimulants. However, I need to check out the book again from my local library. (I got interested in Adaptogens when I fell across the book at my library. In his book, Fulder reviews the thousand or so studies from Russia, and also describes his own London experiments using mice.) When I have reviewed the book, I will respond to your questions over at Talk:Adaptogen#fringe theory. (Should you wish to respond to this, please do so here.) HairyWombat 01:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not talk about this on the talk page so that other editors can weigh in? Don't you find it odd that all of these sources come from Soviet Russia? Doesn't that say something?

I don't necessarily object to the idea of comparing stimulants and adaptogens. But I think that creating a table with "yes" and "no" (which is very incomplete and misleading by the way) creates a false dichotomy between the two. This is totally wrong. It's not like adaptogens are "everything stimulants aren't plus more!" "Adaptogen" is just a concept. No actual real-world substances display "adaptogenic" properties. They might display one or two here and there, but they do not fully fit into this idea of an adaptogen. They share no common mechanism of action or chemical structure. There might be a bunch of studies from Soviet Russia, but none of the actual herbs have been demonstrated to effectively do anything, nevermind exhibit adaptogenic properties. Since stimulants have a very wide use in medicine (ADHD, narcolepsy, obesity), have been demonstrated to be consistently effective in every single person, have a common mechanism of action (monoamine release), share a common chemical structure (substituted amphetamines with phenethylamine core), while adaptogens' largest use is in energy drinks and homeopathy (among other pseudosciences), making a lengthy comparison of the two is downright deceitful! I wouldn't have a huge problem with a sentence or two, but a table is too much, and a whole section is also too much.

I can't (practically) prove to you that no chemicals are adaptogens because the list is potentially endless. However, if you give me an herb, I will show you why it isn't an adaptogen (ie I will give you a source). Seriously, name me one adaptogen. Charles35 (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at Talk:Adaptogen#fringe theory and Talk:Adaptogen#comparison with stimulants. Your ideas are interesting, but you really need to find references to support them. There is a short list in the article of four crude drugs that are adaptogens. HairyWombat 07:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Psychoactive drug, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antagonists (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) 11:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Glass is a liquid misconception

(Note: I'm listing this on the talk pages of all editors active at Talk:List of common misconceptions for the last two weeks).

I started an RfC on the "glass is a liquid" issue that caused the edit war leading to protection status. Your comments would be appreciated, so that we can build a consensus and avoid further edit warring. siafu (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BCA:Risks of too much awareness

Hi Charles

I hope you don't mind. If you do mind, please feel free to delete this post. I was lurking at Drmies (talk · contribs) page and came across pie chart at bca. In a sincere effort to be helpful, I took a look at this version of the Risks of too much awareness section of Breast cancer awareness and partially annotated it here with my views of the issues. If you think I should continue this analysis, please do let me know.

--Senra (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion?

Per your comments, how might I contact you outside Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs)

On the left column, click on "Toolbox" and then when the drop down opens up, click on "E-mail this user". Charles35 (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unsuccessful in my efforts in fighting the WP:CRUSH at Paul Krugman and have now been topic banned. I'll appeal the ban and see what happens. I'll be interested to see what happens when disinterested observers look at the issue.

In the interim I thought I would attempt to contribute something to WP:CRUSH with what I've learned. Would that be of interest?

If time permits, would you please have a look at Talk:Paul Krugman starting at timestamp "19:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)". I'm interested to hear what you think of my reasoning and argumentation. Deicas (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Write some paragraphs about your experience on the talk page and we'll see if there's anything we'd like to add to the essay. Charles35 (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so it seems that your main complaint is that they aren't making arguments about the content, they are only dismissing your arguments, saying things like "we have already spelled it out for you", "there is no consensus for your changes", etc. I don't think you are going to win that conversation right there. Multiple editors seem fed up with the issue and feel worn out arguing with you. I don't think that is an effective way to fight them.

I would suggest that you focus on their arguments themselves and try to prove them wrong (even if no one is arguing against you), but that might be equally futile. I doubt that any of them will ever be receptive of your words, no matter what you say, evidenced by the fact that you've been topic banned. Also, nobody's going to want to follow the "fill in the fact, fill in the guideline" format you've set out, so I suggest you give that up. Even though it makes a lot of sense in your head (trust me, I've been there), it doesn't seem as perfect to others (including myself) and they don't have the motivation to fill in your blanks.

Whether you are right or wrong, I think you should give this up. It's only going to bring you more unpleasantness and make others more bitter towards you, which might result in you being banned altogether or even blocked. May I ask why you care so much? If you must continue contributing to the Krugman article, maybe you should focus on passively addressing the issue (for instance, try contributing to the essay on civil POV pushing that you seem to have taken an interest in). But don't contribute to the essay and then return to the Krugman article citing the essay. That would be gaming the system. All you can hope for is that somebody someday comes along and tries to argue your points at the Krugman article, citing the changes you've made to the policies. Of course, that is extremely unlikely, but I see no better way to passively contribute to the article. Charles35 (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles35, Deicas has been indefinitely topic-banned from discussing Paul Krugman anywhere on Wikipedia. Advising Deicas to continue dealing with Krugman anywhere on Wikipedia (you wrote "If you must continue contributing to the Krugman article...") is a bad idea what will probably only result in Deicas violating the topic ban and getting blocked, right? Zad68 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I advise Deicas to not under any circumstances edit any articles dealing directly with Paul Krugman and related issues. However, Deicas has expressed a lot of interest in the essay WP:CPUSH. I see no problem with him contributing to that essay. I advise him to do so if he cannot stop editing. I think that editing that essay is obviously a better outlet than to continue editing the Krugman article, which will without a doubt result in a full ban / block. He can hope that his contributions to the WP:CPUSH essay might somehow passively result in an improvement at the Krugman page. Obviously, this is extremely unlikely, but if he cannot stop editing, then this is the most fruitful outlet IMO.

To make this absolutely clear - Deicas - do not edit the Paul Krugman article or any other article relevant to the dispute. Policy pages are of course not relevant. Charles35 (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification Charles... Zad68 18:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zad68: I thank you for demonstrating to User:Charles35, via his own talk page, the vigorous campaign of WP:CRUSH associated with the editing of the biography of "he who shall not be named". Deicas (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're angry, but keep your emotions in check. Nothing good will come of this. At the end of the day, you will still be topic banned. Don't turn it into a full ban. Charles35 (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, if you exhibit good behavior over this, and let a considerable period of time pass, you can apply to be unbanned. Charles35 (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skrillex

Please revert your change and contribute to the discussion on the talk page. A link to another Wikipedia article is not a source and cannot be used as such. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, instead of ploughing on and implementing edits that have already been reverted, please explain why you believe they are correct on the talk page. The cites you have added are incorrect, and don't even say what you claim. The first doesn't even mention "brostep". In fact it starts right off with "the American dubstep artist Skrillex". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first one wasn't supposed to be there. Could you give me a break and maybe help out? The editing process confuses me a bit and I'm trying to do it as fast as I can. Charles35 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a citation to support a change after you requested such a citation is "ploughing on"? Kids these days... Charles35 (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a section on the talk page. I hope you weigh in over there :) Charles35 (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied there. Please revert and read previous discussion about these cites. I'm trying to help you here, and it helps if everyone reaches consensus about a change. Implementing it first, despite requests not to, and then asking to discuss it, is the wrong way around. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 links that I listed also support the change. I can cite them all if you want... Charles35 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, consensus seems to be that he is fake dubstep. I mean, I am aware of WP:NOTAVOTE and that number of votes is not a substitute for discussion, but the consensus looks like its 30-1 in favor of considering him brostep. A large number of editors have weighed in on it. Charles35 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What "large number"? There's two of you. And if you are aware of Wikipedia policy you'll know that individual editor's opinions are totally irrelevant. What matter is what reliable sources say. Once you have a source as good as Billboard we can start a proper discussion. As it is, of the cites you've suggested;

The first doesn't even mention the word "brostep"
The second is actually criticising those who insist on claim he's "brostep". So the exact opposite of what you are saying.
The third is more like it, but certainly doesn't trump what Billboard says.
The fourth only mentions brostep in the headline, and not in connection to Skrillex.

So I'm mystified as to what you think they prove.

Please read what I've said on the talk page regarding your refusal to revert your change and removal of cited content. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the large number of editors that have weighed in on the issue over the course of that talk page. Many of them are IPs. There are at least 4-5 sections about brostep.

I will respond to the other stuff at the talk page. Please keep the conversation over there so that everything's in one place. Charles35 (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, MidnightRequestLine. You have new messages at PinkAmpersand's talk page.
Message added 17:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Lol I wrote way too much in response. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been very busy lately! Thanks for your response! I took a look at it, but I didn't want to give a reply until I could spend the time to thoroughly do so. Charles35 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prop

Well said. Exactly. Ceoil (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks! Prop was a good guy all things considered. Sad news though - he died on Jan. 17. The real prop, Robert F. Chew. He had a heart attack at age 52. Very, very sad. Charles35 (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reason for reversion on gh treatment

I tried to redo the reversion with an explanation and it hung last night. Sorry, but i reverted because you corrected something your comment showed you didnt understand. May i respectfully suggest you ask at the talk page before doing so. Save yourself some embarrassment or perhaps learn something. An internist endocrinologist is not an intern but an endocrinologist who takes care of adults. Few of them want to mess with the time consuming and often fruitless paperwork to get insurance coverage for deficient adult patients, which is exactly why the sentence read as it did. Next time i will try harder to leave a comment, but you should ask next time before making edits on topics you know little about. Thanks. alteripse (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I do admit that I had confused internal medicine with an intern, that has no effect on this edit. The material was not sourced, so it was fair game. I removed the material because it sounded like original research. There was no justification for specifying internist endocrinologists. Regular endocrinologists could make the same decisions. This is why I removed "internist" but left "endocrinologists" - this way it covers both. And I left a citation needed tag. If you have a source or a really good reason for specifying internist endocrinologists as opposed to just endocrinologists in general, I'd be glad to hear it and try to incorporate it into the article. Charles35 (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response but you still dont quite get it. Internist endocrinologists are "endocrinologists in general" for adults. The principal prescribers of GH in the US and Europe are pediatric endocrinologists, endocrinologists who take care of deficient children. Despite intensive marketing by the GH companies since FDA approval in the mid-1990s, many internist endocrinologists do not prescribe it for their deficient adult patients, and a smaller proportion of deficient adults than children receive GH for a combination of reasons. There is nothing wrong with tagging "citation needed" but you might play a more constructive role finding citations rather than removing uncontested uncontroversial content that was written when few articles had citations. Look at the history to see what passed for a GH article before I wrote this one. alteripse (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endocrinologists are doctors too. They work with children and adults. Don't tell me what I do and don't get unless you have a source or a really, really, really good reason. I'm not taking your word for it. Poor wikipedia practices of the past do not justify this and it is fallacious to argue that because other sentences in the article are unsourced, it makes no sense to pick out this one. That sets a poor standard.

BTW, I didn't thoughtlessly delete that word. I gave it a google search. Couldn't find anything. If you're so sure about this, WP:PROVEIT.

"Endocrinologists are doctors too." Yes, perhaps we might reach consensus. And please go ahead and go through any article you want and delete every unsourced sentence. You might start with today's featured article, which seems to have no citations at all in the entire first paragraphs. Clearly, you are making wikipedia better and I will get out of your way. alteripse (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a single word. It's not the end of the world. Charles35 (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, the entire paragraph was just deleted by someone else on the grounds of WP:MEDRS. My edit was effectively meaningless. Charles35 (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oxyfresh.com

A quick FYI. I removed your additions of oxyfresh.com as a source and the corresponding material. It is not a reliable source and is highly promotional [1]. There were also WP:V and WP:SYN problems with the material. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC) [2]. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used that source to show that that plant was used in energy drinks. Using the other sources, I wrote the other material to balance NPOV because the article, citing dubious sources from 1980s Soviet Russia and other Communist nations, was promoting the plant, claiming that it was more effective than stimulants and had a wide range of medical uses. In reality, it has never been shown to treat anything under the sun and is not used by medical professionals in any way; it's most widespread usage is in energy drinks. And in reality, stimulants are highly effective at what they do and are used to treat several medical conditions, despite their side effects.

However, I do not object to your changes because you simply removed the entire section. I have always been against that section and I would have rather seen it gone than have it stay, even with the material I added. Thanks. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Both articles need a lot of work. I've asked for help at WP:FTN for Adaptogen first, which is by far the worse of the two. --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Socks, need to tread carefully

Hi, just wanted to warn you that although I'm sure your intentions are good, it is dangerous to throw around accusations that editors may be running sock puppets. It is considered a serious offence to accuse someone of that activity without very serious proof, and I've recently witnessed a quite horrible situation where an admin lost their temper over such an allegation that was made entirely innocently. The fact that two IP addresses were used on Eleutherococcus senticosus could easily have resulted from one person who hasn't made a signon (which is perfectly permitted) who has restarted their computer and been allocated a different dynamic IP address. Anyway, I (and User:Hamamelis) entirely agree with you, and I've no idea where that anon gets the idea from that the herb is mentioned in the article! Perhaps they'll eventually explain themselves. Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. I agree the situation is quite odd. Take a look at that page's edit history. You'll see that this person has been trying to add this info for several months now and I've been trying to prevent it. At one point, I put in a RFPP, but that only lasted a week and the IP came back. I don't get why the IP cares so much, and it has all the signs of a personal experience IMO. But anyway, the reason I said that is not because of the multiple IPs, but because I think he/she has a watch list. My watch list apparently failed me when the IP added the info (for the nth time) on march 4. I only realized a few days ago. The IP reverted me very soon after. Unless the IP manually checks this page 10 times per day, he/she must have a watch list. I can't think of any other way to do that. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know whether an anonymous IP can set up a watch list. It seems odd for someone to be doing that with a sock, two computers side-by-side? I looked around a bit to see if the person might be referring to one of the other documents cited on the page rather than the one repeatedly referred to, but I can't see any such information there either. I guess that we and perhaps others now have that page on our watch lists and will be waiting to see what happens! Wikipedia is amusing in some bizarre ways. Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted a PP request. Now to see if it will be granted. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I wrote out a very thorough one with several links to diffs late the other night and somehow it didn't go through so I just gave up on it for the time being. Thanks again. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, Being an editor apart of the Game of Thrones series, can you please come and join the discussion over on Talk:List of Game of Thrones characters re Gendry and his place on the characters that would be great. MisterShiney ✉ 15:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia doesn't have any "moderators". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright what are they called? Admins? I think it was clear what I meant. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if he's an admin or not. Per policy, WP:ADMINs are just "a part of the community like other editors, with no special powers or privileges when acting as editors." WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out that he's an admin, and they don't appoint people to be admins if they're poor editors. Whatever though, let's call it even. I don't really care about that page much anymore, but I don't want to see it go back to where it was. I hope you understand that the page should have a balanced point of view. I usually side with the progressives, but that page went a little too far. For the sake of the other editors, let's not restart the useless, endless arguments. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "deadmaus, deadmau5". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 03:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I did *not* edit anyone's comments; if anything, by reverting me, you deleted my comment (in addition to the hat). [3]. My edits are within the realm of things editors are allowed to do - admins don't have special permission to hat conversations that are distracting, anyone can do so. As you can see, your change has already been reverted by another editor. Hatting a conversation does not edit comments, it just closes them off since a vote tally in such a confusing RM is bound to lead to more confusion, as you yourself identified. Please just consider your goal - which is to rename to Deadmau5. The tally is only confusing things towards that goal, so I'd encourage you to let the hat stand. A tally can be useful, but only rarely, and the closing admin will perform their own tally; in any case, it's not a vote, so numbers don't really matter that much - it's strength of argument based on policy. If you really want to do a tally, do so on your own page for example, and point people to it - but the nature of these things is quite confusing especially in an RM like this, and sticking the tally in the middle of a dynamic conversation that is going in 20 direction is likely to only lead to more confusion. Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been told to never touch other people's comments. Yes, you did not edit the content, and I did not mean to suggest that you did, but you hid them. Sure, it may be technically legal, but I do not think it is polite or wise to do because it is counterproductive to keeping everybody civil and cooperative. I'm not gonna start a whole thing about it though. I'll let it stand, but as I said, I would rather see you leave a comment yourself warning editors not to be distracted by the tally and pointing out its flaws than censoring it all together. I looked the other way the first few times you did it and when you reverted talk page comments (reverting article edits is one thing, but talk page comments?), but I think you're too quick to take things like that into your own hands, since you're not an admin. Anyway, I'm not angry or anything, and I hope I don't come across that way but I probably will considering the heated nature of this debate. Thank you though for your efforts and for being involved in the whole Deadmau5 issue. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly acceptable to completely revert a talk page comment that is fully off-topic. People do it all the time. In that one case I reverted, you were making a statement that had nothing to do with the trademark policy, and everything to do with what should be done about the Deadmau5 move and so on. I don't think a hat is censoring; it is simply removing distracting material from a conversation, and you should feel free to do the same if you're in a similar situation. If someone reverts you, well, then you normally don't fight it; I wasn't going to re-revert you, but if another editor steps in and says "that was a good idea", then you should drop the stick. I don't think I reverted many talk page comments, I only remember reverting 1. I really hope you will learn a lesson from this, however - the RM is an absolute mess, and you have people who are ON YOUR SIDE !voting oppose, because they just want their Deadmau5 back. It would have been much better to work carefully behind the scenes, try to edit the policy to allow exceptions in cases like this one, put together a good case, and then move the article back. There's no time limit, and move wars like this can drag on for years - but you're better off with a solid victory than something else. As it is, I have no idea who will close that mess, but they may find "no consensus", which would be the worst of all worlds for you. So, again, take this as a learning experience. It is just one letter, and by being too eager, you may have killed your chances. But maybe not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did drop the stick, so I'm not sure why you are still acting as if I haven't. And I think this current RM could not be more successful in fact, given the circumstances. I really didn't intend for this to happen, but there could not have been a quicker way to move this page's title back to Deadmau5 than by starting an RM for Zimmerman. Yes, it is a dubious bureaucratic loophole, but we've had several dubious bureaucratic loopholes work against us in this debate. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the AT policy and the naming conventions that covers article titles not the MOS

Please see my comment at Talk:Deadmau5 Circa 1998–2002#Note to any editors trying to bring the word "Deadmaus" to this article's title -- PBS (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deadmaus

Please also note that this is a pretty extreme example of personalizing a discussion: "(editor) just cut this article in half! (as a section heading)

Dear (editor),"

That is what we have user talk pages for and that is where a "Dear editor" comment belongs, not on the article talk page. However, it is appropriate to have a section heading that says something like "Article length" and follow it with, "Is it really appropriate to cut the article length in half", directing the discussion to the topic, and not personalizing the discussion. The WP:FOC policy directs us to focus on content, not on contributors. If we need to focus on the contributor, the places to do that are their talk page and all of the flavors of WP:AN. Thanks, and best wishes. Apteva (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sorry. You know this isn't even a dispute or anything. There is no conflict. I was just trying to call his attention. It's not a huge deal. But I won't do that next time. There are a lot of rules around here.... MidnightRequestLine (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you there! Way, way too many. That one though is just there to keep the discussion on topic and not get into any name calling. It is a fundamental principle of all forms of decision making (other than dictatorial), so I guess I could have said all forms of collaborative decision making. Apteva (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for letting me know! MidnightRequestLine (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you were trying to move it back...

Then the deadmau5 redirect page must be deleted. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 19:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do we do that? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'll need an admin to do that. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 20:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The admins are very unresponsive. I was just going to make a de facto move because it seems like everyone is wondering why an admin hasn't done anything yet. I figured why not just do it ourselves you know? Especially because I doubt anyone will contest the move if I were to just do it. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend to wait the seven days RMs take, if nothing extraordinary happens, it will be moved back to the "5" style even before. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I noticed you participated in the Deadmau5/Deadmaus RM and I was wondering if you were willing to leave your two cents here at Talk:Tech Nine#Requested move 2 to overturn another horrible move based on a name no reliable sources refer to the subject as. I am just trying to get consensus to move it back to Tech N9ne in the same manner Deadmau5 was moved back per WP:COMMONNAME. If you have the chance I would appreciate it. STATic message me! 16:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eleutherococcus senticosus

You might be interested in a request for advice from an admin that I posted at User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Eleutherococcus_senticosus. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, you can violate WP:3RR in cases of blatant and malevolent vandalism. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you so confident (some of the malevolent vandals like to cite 3RR, and I've even seen them backed up by admins). Oh well, on with the battle ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be reverting too but my watchlist thing seems to be really spotty. I didn't get an email about that page being edited. Do you know why that might be? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I get an email message that says no more messages will be sent until I log in again. I think it must mean go back to my constantly logged-in browser and take some action, but I don't even know if that message is consistent. I can only guess whether comparing updates would count as sufficient action. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MidnightRequestLine. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MidnightRequestLine. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, MidnightRequestLine. 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)[reply]