Archives
2007 2008 2009 so far

Contents 1 To expand on solution for the Autism article: "disorder of neural development". 2 Thanks 3 Alpine Chough 4 Hay rake 5 Alt text needed for navbox 6 Essential 7 Fix needed 8 thanks 9 Thanks for the note 10 Today 11 PubMed 12 Mediation 13 James Joyce 14 Upper Pine Bottom State Park 15 pictures for Cologne War 16 ctr-click 17 Chiropractic is Quackery 18 Controversial 19 Template:Citation/core/sandbox 20 Changes 21 Sly and The Family Stone 22 ISO8601 dates 23 Alt text check needed 24 Journal papers 25 Amador Valley High School 26 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Singapore/archive2 alt text 27 Attachment theory 28 Admins' noticeboard 29 Medical genetics of Jews 30 IPA templates 31 Vaccine controversy 32 Oopsie 33 GA class medicine articles 34 Barnstar 35 Talkback

[edit] To expand on solution for the Autism article: "disorder of neural development".

Hi Eubuildes,
I have an idea. Why don't you use neurodevelopmental disorder and then use a footnote describing what it means, saying something like: "is a type of neurological disorder that impairs neural development. Because of this, the cells in the brain are perplexed, and therefore, causes autistic people to process the milieu slower than neurotypical people." or something like that. Let me know what you think. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 19:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but leads should be short and should be easy to understand, and readers shouldn't have to look at footnotes to figure out what the text means. This is an encyclopedia designed for the general reader: it's not a research monograph designed for specialists. Let's put it this way: far more people know what "autism" is than what a "neurodevelopmental disorder" is, so any attempt to describe autism by saying that it's a neurodevelopmental disorder simply doesn't help that much. Eubulides (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, should I remove "stimming" and "stereotypic movements" that I made to the lead. Also, the other two disorders aren't only: PDD-NOS and Aspeger's syndrome, they're the most common though. There are four more, Childhood disintegrative disorder and Rett's syndrome. So I clarified that part in the lead. ATC ^{. Talk} 20:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please undo most of those changes. They have several problems:

• Reliable sources do not say that autism is characterized by self-stimulation. The idea that stereotypy is self-stimulation is a popular notion that is not well-supported.
• The lead doesn't need to introduce off-putting jargon like "stereotypic movements" when we have a perfectly reasonable introductory phrase "restricted and repetitive behavior" that is far more easily understood by the general reader. As per WP:LEAD, the lead should be kept short and should focus on the topic (autism) rather than on explaining medical jargon when that is not necessary.
• The replacement of "two other" with "two most common" was justified in the edit summary by "t is not the "only" two other spectrum disorders. the other two are: Rett's syndrome and Childhood Disintergrative Disorder". This is incorrect. The term "autism spectrum disorder" is not formally defined by the ICD or DSM, but it commonly is limited to autism, Asperger's, and PDD-NOS. Rett's and CDD are pervasive developmental disorders but not ASDs. This topic is discussed further (with reliable sources) in Autism #Classification.
• It might be OK to replace "lacks delays in cognitive development and language," with the simpler "is milder than autism", but both phrases shouldn't be in the lead: this is supposed to be about autism, not about Asperger's.

Eubulides (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, there was a new study that as of October the increase rates of Autism, changed from 1 in 150 children to 1 in 91 children. Barrack Obama and the US government call it a "health crises". Here is a link to one of the articles I found: [1]. Something useful to add to the autism article. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Other primary studies have also reported figures in the 1:100 range, but we can't report just this primary study at the expense of consensus reviews (see WP:MEDRS and WP:PSTS and WP:RECENTISM for why). We can wait until a reliable review comes out on the topic; it shouldn't take too long. Eubulides (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I saw some numbers say 1 in 100 and some that said 1 in 91, and 1 in 58 boys are more common to be diagnosed with it than girls. I guess we'll have to wait until its mentioned in a scientific journal. My personal opinion, which is not scientifically proven yet, that the increase of Autism has to do with the mercury in the vaccines, also because many success stories have shown about gluten-free/casein diet therapy, e.g. autism activist Jenny McCarthy's son. Although, it can be a very biased theory. ATC ^{. Talk} 23:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Should I revert the edit for now? Also, I'm confused; if there is a problem with the length of the lead section then how did it meet the criteria for FAC? ATC ^{. Talk} 00:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the alt work at "Ode on a Grecian Urn". I had prep work to fix it up for Mrathel but never got around to it. His listing of it and the instant oppose before I even had a chance to put up such things (as I've been busy today :) ) were starting to get a little annoying. I am already up 2 hours longer than what I should be. Night, and thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alpine Chough

This article recently passed FA, although I'm confused as to how it passes on the quality of the Alternative text. All of the images, with the exception of the first, have inadequate alt-text; those detailing the bird just use "alpine chough" without describing the bird itself and the others, which show habitats, are un-descriptive. I don't believe the first image can be argued to compensate either. What's your opinion on this? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The alt text for that article is minimalist, and I think it would improve the article to expand it somewhat. WP:ALT #Context says "If the same person or object appears in many images of an article, later images' alt text can assume that the reader has already read the first image's alt text and caption.", and that principle is being used in the article (perhaps over-used), the idea being that the visually impaired reader shouldn't have to read N nearly-identical descriptions of what alpine choughs look like, but instead should be told what's new in each image. Eubulides (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought that might be the angle it was being taken at. My only concern, as you point out, is that the principle is being over-used. I shall take up the issue on the discussion page of the article and/or on the talk page of the article's primary contributor; thank you for explaining the policy. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hay rake

I uploaded a picture called hay rake to wikimedia commons not realizing it was the ame name as the low es one i put on the article hay rake a long time ago; will the new one replace the old one automatically eventually? Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

THEN; THEN; I went to the wikipedia file page for the low res one and went to upload new version and on hte article it's STILL the old one. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please copy all the info in the file page from File:Hay rake.jpg (including old version) to commons:File:Hay rake.jpg, and then request that File:Hay rake.jpg be deleted. If you don't know how to do that, please just wait; I marked File:Hay rake.jpg with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} and somebody will get around to doing that. In the future, to avoid this problem, please just upload to Commons. Eubulides (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; here's maybe an even better picture:

[edit] Alt text needed for navbox

Template:CourtsEnglandWales. I think it would be better to have you, the alt text expert, write it, as the picture is rather intricate. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That image doesn't seem to convey any useful info that is not already present elsewhere in the template, so I marked it with "|link=|alt=" as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. If you really want alt text for it, you can steal some from the lead of Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. Eubulides (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's fine as is. Thanks again, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Essential

Was this another of your essential edits? Or are you trying to wp:own this page and other documentation pages of templates? Debresser (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As my edit summary says, I reverted what appeared to be a test edit: that edit caused the documentation page to in some sense disagree with itself, as the page uses 30em in its example of how to go multicolumn. Of the last 50 edits to that documentation page, you've made five and I've made three, so it's surprising to see the accusations of ownership in the previous comment. Now, to turn the question around, is this thread essential? Eubulides (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is essentially flawed: the number of edits has nothing to do with it. Owning is not allowing other people's edits on pages, which is what I have seen you do twice now. This thread is very necessary, to make sure you are aware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Now that you are, I am content. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fix needed

Eubulides, you did something once that fixed the table of contents/heading at WT:FAC; could you do the same at WT:FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

WT:FAR had a different problem. I fixed the problem I saw: does the fix work for you? Eubulides (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does: thanks so much! Maybe someday I'll learn these things. Maybe not :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Eubulides—ta for barnstar: kind of you. Tony (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the note

I appreciate the note on Reliable Sources. I will read through it. The asperger's page is one that is pretty important yet is presently in a sort of mess. Besides grotesque grammar the article paints those with asperger's as pathetic sociopaths. I'm a psychologist and I absolutely hate this article. Anyone reading it would be stuck with worse than a lack of knowledge; they would have distorted knowledge. Gingermint (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Today

Smile! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PubMed

Eudubides, why is PubMed no longer showing the "Review" tab? How can I determine if an article is a review without having full text? And do we need to rewrite Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches to cover this change in PubMed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(allow me to butt in). I think the new PubMed is trying too hard but probably constrained by accessibility requirements that keep the interface clunky. The search results still show the word "Review" as part of the summary. When looking at an abstract page, if there is a "[+] Publication Types" section at the bottom (like PMID 19535814), then expand this and it will show Review if it is one and something else otherwise (like PMID 19490051). If there is no Publication Types section then I suspect this means PubMed hasn't classified it (like PMID 19793510). If you create an account with PubMed, you can set various preferences. One of these is called "Abstract Supplemental Data" which if set to Open will expand the "[+] Publication Types" section all the time. Another preference you may find useful is to colour highlight the search terms in the results. Colin°^Talk 15:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Colin: that helps. Now I'm concerned that we need to rewrite the Dispatch, since it explained how to locate reviews. Arrrrrgh ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can just update the "Searching PubMed" in the Dispatch? I'm unsure to what extent we should alter such an old article, but I can't see the harm in doing so in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done that, mostly the NCBI had just moved stuff about in the interface. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

While we're venting about PubMed, its new interface doesn't work with the latest Firefox: the query box overlays the output of the query, so that you can't see the first few lines of your query results. I am reduced to using some other browser whenever I want to use PubMed. I wish the guys at NCBI tested their stuff better for compatibility. I've filed a bug report about this with the PubMed guys but they are even slower to fix things than the Mediawiki developers are, so I'm not holding out much near-term hope. Eubulides (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

nanenanebooboo (I'm still on IE8 :) Thanks, Tim-- I'll go have a look now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hi Eubulides. I am willing to mediate this case. If you are ready to proceed, let's begin on the case talk page. Sunray (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] James Joyce

The original author isn't around, and several are working to restore it to FA status. No hurry, but would you be able to add alt text some time? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

How's that? It was a bit intimidating to write text re Joyce, so I took a bit more time than usual. Hope Joyceans won't be offended by the result. Eubulides (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the extra time on it, Eubulides; you didn't have to get there so quickly ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Upper Pine Bottom State Park

	Thanks again for your checking of alt text - Upper Pine Bottom State Park made featured article today! Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] pictures for Cologne War

I added a picture for the Cologne War. It has alt text, but do you want to make sure it is sufficient? Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Looked good to me; thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ctr-click

Yes that was odd ... must be a bug, but it the first time I've seen it, I am using wikiEd and the popups gadget. Ctrl click on a link or template in the edit window opens it in a new window, so the text must've come from thereabouts, thanks for fixing it I was trying - but couldn't myself ( ended up with half a page of ctrl-clicks! ) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 06:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chiropractic is Quackery

Chiropractic is a fraud, admit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.226.158 (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial

I'm getting tired of this IP hopping jerk who keeps attacking the chiropractic (and other) article. There is one edit, which you properly reverted, but which is a true statement. What we need is a good source to back it up and then include it. I can't think of a better descriptive word than "controversial". Its whole history has been plagued by controversy, and the controversy isn't over yet. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Citation/core/sandbox

Please do not discard the work I am currently doing in {{Citation/core/sandbox}}. Discussion is here. The changes I made have been tested and appear to be ready for merging. I was going to rework the |Place= parameter first but it appears I will be rather busy for the next week or so with an ArbCom case and will not be able to rework that parameter until afterwards. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I'm trying to fix a much smaller problem and should be out of the water soon. Eubulides (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. If you want to go ahead and merge my changes when you do an editprotected feel free (you'll probably want to link to the discussion I linked to above). I linked to the test pages in the discussion I linked above as well and if you feel like it, I could always use an extra set of eyes to look it over to make sure I didn't overlook something. I had also planned to write a summary on the talk page describing the changes before I did an editprotected request but it doesn't look like I have the time now. I usually try to make a batch of changes at once when it comes to templates transcluded across so many articles in order to lessen the impact of the changes on the job queue. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

Sorry, but you want me to discuss the reversion of a change on the talk page, when you yourself reverted my change itself, without discussing it on the talk page. You just went ahead and changed it, without any discussion. You then put a warning on my page, when the same warning applies to you. Where is your discussion? You just deleted my change without any discussion whatsover. Zanze123 (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Take the discussion to Template talk:Alternative medical systems #Orthopathy. You apparently don't understand WP:BRD. You were BOLD, Eubulides reverted, now YOU need to start a discussion about why you think the content should remain, and do it on THAT talk page. You will get responses there. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sly and The Family Stone

Thanks so much for the help there ! Elcobbola located another image. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ISO8601 dates

I noticed a few of your edits reverting date format changes dates. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement whatsoever for dates within cites to be in the ISO 8601 format. The only requirement, per WP:MOSNUM, is that date formats are consistent within the body and within the refs section. That being the case, I have unified the dates in some articles in accordance with same, as I did here. In that particular case, the date format of the references section was mixture of dmy, mdy, and ISO. They have now been brought into line with the main body of the article. Thanks for your attention. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RETAIN is the operating principle that I was using; it's a good principle. My own relatively small set of changes were not intended to undo Rich_Farmbrough (talk · contribs)'s rewriting of over 1,000 articles in the space of a few hours: I was more trying to get a feeling for how bad the problem was (it was pretty bad). I hope that that attempt at massively changing existing article style doesn't set a precedent. Eubulides (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I notice that you did not simply revert. I would agree with you to the degree that WP:RETAIN should be a guiding principle. However, 8601 is not a default format per WP:MOSNUM, and when there is clearly a mish-mash of date formats and no uniformity, the first default of alignment must be to the date format of the rest of the article, if there is one. If that is indeterminate, then I think that's where WP:RETAIN cuts in, because I certainly don't see how anyone could imagine it to mean leave the mish-mash of dates untouched. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Citations need not, and typically should not, use the same date formats as the rest of the article. It's standard for citations to use more-compact notation than the rest of the article, not only in dates, but also in author names, journal names, etc. There is no need to use the same exact notation in both areas, and there are good arguments for using more-compact notations in citations. Eubulides (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. You are correct that there is no need to use the same exact notation in both areas, and the wording of WP:MOSNUM implicitly allows the use you described. However, if you are insisting that the refs section 'must' be in 8601, then I think you need to bring the issue up there, as it's not something we can decide in caucus on your talk page. Cheers, Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not insisting that all references sections must use YYYY-MM-DD, and I think that any such requirement would be inappropriate. However, it's also inappropriate to automatically change hundreds of articles away from the YYYY-MM-DD format, without discussion or consensus, which is the action that started this thread. Eubulides (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure glad to hear that. When there is a mix of date formats in an article's refs section, I would have no qualms in aligning date formats to those of the body of the article, per consistency in WP:MOSNUM already mentioned above. In those circumstances, I would not expect to have to seek consensus to make the necessary changes because the change would have been mandated by a style guideline. What I would also point out to you is that the preponderance of 8601 dates in the refs section was due to auto-formatting requirements within the {{citation}} template. That function having now been disabled, you now see the ISO dates as input, instead of dmy or mdy, in accordance with your preferences.

I'm aware of the history. I urge you not to go through articles replacing all dates in references with some format other than YYYY-MM-DD simply because you find a single date somewhere in the article in some other format. Using YYYY-MM-DD in references, and some other format in the body, is a very common and accepted style. I realize that you strongly dislike the YYYY-MM-DD format, but please bear in mind that other editors like it, and please don't look for gratuitous opportunities to replace it with a format you like better. Eubulides (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alt text check needed

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Arsenal F.C./archive1. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, can you comment on the alt text issue I raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dan Povenmire/archive1? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Journal papers

I'm at UConn Health Center, Academic Research Library, and will also be here tomorrow (Wednesday) and Friday. If anyone needs any research papers, now's the time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Amador Valley High School

Hello Eubulides! Amador Valley High School is up for FA review again - I was wondering if you would be interested in revisiting the article and perhaps leaving your comments. Thank you! - Deltawk (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Singapore/archive2 alt text

Well, the geniuses who made this infobox is pretty much making it hard to have an alt text placed. I will try something out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What you did works. I also added the tags you mentioned to the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Attachment theory

I wrote some alt text for the age stages template as you suggested but it doesn't seem to show up.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well if it works for you I expect it will work for anyone who knows how to use it then. Thanks! Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Admins' noticeboard

Hello, Eubulides. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Medical genetics of Jews

I can't work out why the Harvard citation template isn't working. Any ideas? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

{{Cite book}} etc. don't support Harvard cites by default; one must add |ref=harv. This is because adding |ref=harv by default broke too many pages (invalid HTML). I fixed it. Eubulides (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] IPA templates

Hi,

I reverted your fix to IPA-hu. There was a typo somewhere & the coding was displayed on the pages it was transcluded to. The other IPA templates I checked look fine. kwami (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vaccine controversy

I've asked some questions in a new section titled "New approach." Would you be able to respond? Sunray (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oopsie

I missed that one![2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GA class medicine articles

(cc'd to Colin, Fvasconcellos and Eubulides)

Per User talk:Geometry guy#GA class medicine articles, I've started User:SandyGeorgia/GA class medicine articles. The goal is not a complete GA reassessment, rather to give Geometry guy a list of the worst offenders per WP:MEDRS (and I'm also noting the GA date and other issues as I go). If you'd like to help, feel free to edit the page. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		for showing the utmost patience and endurance when upholding policy. Colin°Talk 22:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If there were a barnstar of superhuman patience, I would definitely tack that on here. MastCell ^Talk 22:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talkback