User talk:Levine2112/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] Spring Cleaning (part deux)

Now that we are officially in Spring, I figured why not create a new archive and clear out my current talk page. Out with the old and in with the new! -- Levine2112 discuss 18:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

NOW it's Spring:) -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In case you aren't watching...

I want to thank you for stopping by my talk page and posting to me. I responded to you on my talk page in case you are interested. --Crohnie 17:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "or contain elements of quackery"

I like it. I brought it up with User_talk:Shot_info#Is_it_just_quackery.3F --Ronz 17:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certification exam

While looking through the Barrett talk archives I found that you've been trying to include this point for over a year now 17:58, 8 February 2006. Hasn't this gone on long enough? --Ronz 01:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

After discussion, the fact that Barrett is not board certified had been in the article for the larger portion of that year. For some time it was in a portion of the article known as Credentials. Then later when it was deemed not to be criticism but just a biographical fact, it was moved to the biographical section of the article where it remained until a few weeks ago. I feel it should be reinstated; or I need to be convinced otherwise. So far, I haven't seen a policy prohibiting this information if you believe the sources which I provided to be reliable enough to establish notability. I believe they do just that. One thing is for certain, the RfC or arbitration will help all of us understand policy beter. I am looking forward to it. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem, just wanted you to know. I'm not holding my breath on the RfC, but maybe the recent summarizing will make it more approachable. The mediation cabal might take a while, but they're extremely helpful from what I've seen. --Ronz 03:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, I just wanted to know if you read these two links

I posted on S.B. talk page some time ago two links about certification back when he was active. Here are the two links [1] & [2] Please read them and let me know what you think of the information. Thanks, --Crohnie 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have looked these over and while I think thaey are fine studies, we cannot apply them to the Barrett article because it would consititute a WP:OR violation. Basically, we know "A" to be true (that Barrett failed one part of the exam); we know "B" to be true (the results of these two studies); however, now we are trying to put "A" and "B" together to come up with an original point and that is where the trouble lay. That being said, I think both of these pieces of research have their place on the ABMS article on Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted you to know I haven't forgotten you or this conversation. I came down with the flu and had my doctor intervene with some antibiotics for secondary infections I have do to my immune system being compromised by my Crohn's, so not feeling too peachy yet but I did want to respond to your above comments.
The links I provided for you, and the other editors, was not so we could add the information to the Barrett article. The links are to show that back in the years when Dr. Barrett was a practicing physician, board certification was not the norm for most dr's back then. If you look again at the article, which also keep in mind is a collection of data dating back eight years; you will see that passing the second part of the exam was not common, more than half failed parts of the exams. So what I take from this bit of information about Wikipedia policies is that Barrett not being board certified back then was the norm for most in his field of practice.
Also take note, that with the reading I am doing, which takes me a long time to understand and absorb the information, my personal opinion is that board certification didn't become important for dr's until the late 1990"s (I haven't read the links for a bit so my date could be off a little). But that being said, from what I have learned thus far it would seem that the lack of certification is not notable enough to put into the article at least until some reliable secondary sources are shown. The links you have shown reads to me almost as if Mr. Bolin was on the shoulder of those who wrote the articles. The court papers is good for a first source but the secondary sources as mentioned above and even the Wiki comment by Dr. Barrett is not in my opinion good sources. The reason I state that even what Dr. Barrett said does not count towards notability is because on the net in any kind of forum people can say what they want people to believe. If someone else wrote something about this like a big newspaper or magazine company that has no contact with the players of this, then I think that would fit into the policies that I have read so far. I don't know anything about your secondary sources. I have never visited there or communicated with any of the above references. I never heard of most of them except the short time I have been on Wikipedia. So basically in a nut shell, I find no problem with adding what I suggested to the group of editors being added to the article, I really do not, at this time, find that this whole conversation that is being debated over and over again is notable and worth all the time and energy spent to get it into the article. I hope you understand what I am trying to say to you here so you understand what I am learning and how I am applying it to use. I am having these talks with editors to learn and let others understand what I am think and why so that I can learn to be a good editor. Thanks,--Crohnie 16:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
First let me commend you on your excellent research and willingness to gropw and learn as a Wikipedian. My Wiki time is short today, so forgive my brevity. The general stats on board certification cannot be added to the Barrett article without violating WP:OR. If there was a source stating this stat in relation to Barrett, then, yes, perhaps we could add it. Also note, however, that this stat isn't very telling, as Barrett could have re-taken the board certification exam at any point in his ~30 year carreer. I don't hold it against him that he didn't elect to, but we have verifiable information that Barrett did take the trest once and failed. It is notable to state that he isn't board certified because of what he is notable for - a commenter and advisor on health. For anyone dispensing medical advice to the masses, I would think that their credentials and lack thereof are entirely notable. I am sure that given your condition you can appreciate this. Don't you want to know all of the pertinent credentials about a doctor who is telling you to reject certain treatments but accept others? Now it would be one thing if we were to state that he wasn't board certified and the only source we had was that his name doesn't appear on the list of board certified doctors at the ABMS website. However, given that we have Barrett stating it, his lawyers stating it in at least two lawsuits, several critics, several articles from widely read publications unrelated to these lawsuits, and a couple of research papers written by doctors and researchers unrelated to these lawsuit -- I really don't see how anyone can argue not having at least your compromise implemented in the article. I appreciate your efforts and please keep me posted on any other information your research unearths. Thanks and happy editing! -- Levine2112 discuss 17:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'll refactor if you like

I've already struck out my statment. I'll happily remove it if you like. If you don't like what I've replaced it with, I can do more of the same. It just seems to me that after over a year of arguing discussions about this, you should have a concise and well-formed argument for your position. --Ronz 00:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been a year of arguing. Sure there was prior discussion, but for the majority of last year the relevant, notable and verified fact that Barrett is not Board Certified was included in the article. I appreciate that you have struck out your hostile comments. Now please try and keep things more civil from here on out. Remember, this is a discussion; not an argument. Thanks and happy editing! -- Levine2112 discuss 00:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean argument and arguing to imply conflict, but just to describe lines of reasoning. --Ronz 01:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Be specific, and I will refactor. --Ronz 17:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Stating (and restating) that I have dropped the discussion and ignored policy is regarded as hostile. I feel that I have been (regretably) the most verbose of any editor in this discussion. I have tried to examine each policy which you and the others have presented, but be aware that I have been presented with a lot. If there is a particular policy which you think I haven't discussed which you dem to be applicable, please bring it to my attention rather than telling me that I am blanketly ignoring all of the policies of Wikipedia. Thanks! -- Levine2112 discuss 18:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I've refactored it slightly. I'm happy to can change the wording and tone. I can remove points that are irrelevant. I can provide diffs for what I've said, so it's not an issue of facts, just how they're presented. You're assuming bad faith. I think we'd be much better off if you had not interjected, but let robert2957 ask for clarification. --Ronz 18:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not assuming bad faith. And had I not interjected, it would have been left with you stating that we are ignoring policy; which is untrue and uncivil. Please refactor or justify. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You've already admitted it about WP:SOURCE. --Ronz 22:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
But I didn't ignore source. It is inherently dealt with in my discussions of WP:RS and WP:V. Stating that I ignored it is still untrue and uncivil. Please refactor or delete. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem able to see beyond your own assumptions of bad faith. Let me see if I can clarify since you're not going to refactor your comments obviously. --Ronz 23:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Please clarify, because I don't understand what you are referring to here. What assumption of bad faith? What comments do you want me to refactor? Please explain in detail. I honestly can't follow what you are talking about. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Refactoring done. --Ronz 23:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Lines such as: My attempts at getting you to clarify why you dismiss these policies has made little progress, but that's no reason to interrupt the discussion around robert2957's comments by saying their not at issue because they've been discussed elsewhere in other contexts are still very hostile. What attempts have you made to get me to clarify these policies? Accusing me of interupting is uncivil. I am going to disengage from you again. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want explain (or refactor) your comment, then maybe I could find a better label than "interrupt." Right now, it certainly looks like an interruption. Sorry that you don't want to take responsiblity for your behavior yet again, all the while assuming bad faith on my part. --Ronz 23:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lofstrom

Hi Levine. I agree this article needs to go (unsourced + autobio). Since the anon, probably the author, has removed your prod tag, I've reinstated it with a somewhat stronger reason (feel free to expand it). The author should not remove the tag but provide sources (or ideally admit it's a hoax and stop wasting other people's time). AvB ÷ talk 16:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that it was a hoax. Interesting. Regardless, the author shouldn't be removing the AfD tag. I dropped a warning on his talk page. Thanks for the back-up. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] exclusion criteria & asymmetries

I see you deleted the section after I clarified my postion. I was in the process of adding:

I'clast used "lectured." I was trying to get him to clarify what he was referring to, and you were the only editor who had recently discussed SOAP in any detail. I've clarified it further to that effect. Perhaps you should ask I'clast to remove the term, since you find it so offensive. As for discussions about SOAP, please AGF. --Ronz 19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I found it offensive because you accused me of doing it and I had not done so. I appreciate that you struck it out. I commented out a chunk of discussion there pertaining to this. Please feel free to delete altogether. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcoming

Good job with your welcoming! anthony[cfc] 22:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 22:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome, Levine :-) --Guinevere50 23:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy editing! :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 23:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warm Welcome

First of all, Levine2112, thank you for your welcome card! As I am new to this process (and giddily so) I am trying to learn as much as I can, as quickly as I can, so that I might continue contributing, fruitfully, to this endeavor! So, without further ado and with regard to specific questions about specific articles (in this case mine) and specific editing changes both suggested (by you or others) and made (by me) - what's the best "forum" for addressing and carrying on iterative conversations about these specific issues? I'll be reading around for an answer, in the meantime. Regards, Maclenin 13:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Maclenin. Thank you for participating at Wikipedia. Well the short answer to your question is that on every article, there is a discussion page. Typically, you will find other editors there willing to anwer any questions which you might have. As for policies, there are discussion pages for those as well. However, if you ever have a specific question about Wikipedia policy or an article which you would like to ask me about, please always feel free. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 discuss 17:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Levine2112. I would, indeed, like to have you take a peek at these two articles: Excellence Group Luxury Resorts and Karen Karch. You have already commented on the former - from which I have made some (hopefully responsive) edits. The second article (as well as Excellence) has received encouraging feedback (from another). I appreciate your help. Regards, Maclenin 01:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
What I will say is that you should not be adding these entries just for marketing/advertising purposes. Wikipedia has guidelines against this. However, if you can provide reliable sources to back up information that demonstrates the notability of these companies, then they can be included. However, remember the text should be encyclopaedic; it shouldn't be a sales pitch or an advertisement. Finally, please note that you should not remove an AfD (Article for Deletion) tag from an article which you authored. If a tag is placed on the article and you wish to contest, next time please follow the directions given on the tag. Deleting it constitutes vandalism. Good luck with your editing. Cheers! -- Levine2112 discuss 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I have forgotten to thank you for welcoming me to WIKIPEDIA! I am glad to know that if i need help, u and the community will be here. P.S. u welcomed me on 5 April 2007. Politics rule 9:44pm est.- 4/16/2007.

My pleasure. Keep up the good work! -- Levine2112 discuss 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Mediation Cabal case

Good afternoon (GMT time); I have accepted a Mediation Cabal case - requested by Levine2112 - to which you are listed as a party. Mediation has commenced at the case talkpage, where you are invited to participate.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email, IRC or my talk page; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality.

Kind regards,

anthony[review]
09:00, Thursday June 12, 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I see you have decided to go with all of the board certification stuff on Barrett than just the sentence saying he's not board certified. I was sad to read your suggestions tonight because I really do believe it's not the right thing to put in the article. But you have to do what you think is right. Have a good night. --Crohnie 00:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Crohnie, I would love for you to drop by the mediation and voice your thoughts. I really believe what I am proposing is the best thing for the article and entirely inline with Wikipedia policy. However, like the true skeptic that I am, I am always open to change my mind when presented with convincing evidence. Thus far, I have seen none. Have a good night and I hope to read your thoughts and suggestions tomorrow in the mediation forum. Cheers! -- Levine2112 discuss 00:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Levine, I just wanted to let you know that I have finally posted. I asked for help from Anthony, the mediator, with formatting my responses. He was very nice and gave me step by step instructions and a note to put on the top so that he can get it in the right location for me. I hope you are well, --Crohnie 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcomes

i am taking a guess that you are on the wikipedia "welcoming commitee". i was wondering if you need help welcoming people and giving them the tolls to help them. i have read over all the tools, and i can do a good job. please respond, by my talk page.Politics rule 10:25pm EST.- 4/20/2007

[edit] Circles again

Since I've answered your question multiple times, how about saving yourself some embarrassment by removing your question, and reading through my past responses in the mediation discussion? --Ronz 22:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin responded, so it's going to be more difficult now. --Ronz 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Please answer mny question there. Be precise and quote and source direclty from WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
How about you read the many responses that have already been given to your question, summarize them, and explain why you disagree?
While you're asking others to be specific, why not be specific about which sources you've provided are primary, secondary, and tertiary? Why not quote directly from each of those sources the exact portion that supports your viewpoint? --Ronz 23:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
All I see are people saying that the sources are not acceptable, but no one can specifically tell me why. Sure, they will say it violates WP:NPOV or WP:BLP, but they never say what part specifically. At the top of the proposal, you will see that I have in fact broken everything policy by policy. Instead of blanketly saying that my interpretation is wrong, why not share with me exactly why you fell this way. Please spell it out clearly rather than say we are going in circles. Keep moving forward and we won't go in circles. Be vague and we will be stuck in the quagmire caused by the grey area of policy interpretation. Thanks. I look forward to reading your posts in the mediation. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, having our original statements moved to the archive doesn't help. You also need to drop the idea that "facts" are somehow special. We don't agree on the facts.
If you cannot be specific on what you think your sources are and say, you're asking a great deal from others. My attempts to be crystal clear with you always end in you dropping the discussion. It seems the more work I put into being clear and specific with you, the less likely you are to respond. --Ronz 23:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith and detail your view of the policies. On two occassion on Talk:Stephen Barrett I have cited each source and statd exactly what they say in terms of Stephen Barrett's lack of board certification. If you like, I could copy-and-paste that from the talk page to the mediation page. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued (outdent)

  1. Where am I not assuming good faith?
  2. I'd like to know which sources you think are primary, secondary, and tertiary first. I suspect to be as surprised by your response as I was by MaxPont's [3], who confuses primary and secondary sources.
  3. I'd like to know why you think each source is reliable, especially given the previous discussions on them being not reliable.
  4. I'd like to know what you think of the many disagreements with your request for implementation that as yet have gone without comment from anyone at all. --Ronz 00:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. In stating that I alway drop the discussion. This is not true. So in not undertaking my request to spell out your policy views because you think I will just drop the subject, you are assuming bad faith.
  2. Sure. Aside from the primary sources of the court docs and Barrett's statement on Wikipedia, all of the others are secondary sources. We don't have any tertiary sources.
  3. They are published in magazines/newpapers with an editorial process and a huge readership, written by experts in their field, are from court documents, or come from Stephen Barrett himself.
  4. I think there is a lot of comment there, but no one has gone point-by-point as I have with the policies. I am asking you to now do that, as I have complied with your request here. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Sorry, I overgeneralized. As for the rest, I don't have to undertake your requests.
  2. Then you should probably state which you think are primary and which are secondary. I don't agree with you (which I think I've already made clear), and I'm not alone given what Arthur and others have already written.
  3. I think you're already making some headway with Arthur Rubin on the reliability question, so I'll wait to see where that discussion goes.
  4. Yes, the point-by-point might be good for everyone, but I think AvB has already summed it up nicely: All your arguments are wrong, and all have been previously addressed. Still, I think it's worthwile to make a point-by-point, though I probably won't have time to get to it right away. Thanks for taking the time for this discussion. I think it's been productive. --Ronz 00:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Me too. I look forward to someone going point-by-point as I have done, rather than just stating that all of my arguments are wrong. That's no way to get through a mediation. Now then, onward and upward. Let's continue in the mediation forum. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks re mediation

I appreciate your rewording with this edit [4]. Thanks! --Ronz 15:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, I have talked to you in a bit..

I just wanted to pop in and let you know I am leaving on Friday and will return late on Monday so I should be back here Tuesday or Wednesday. I am going to the Bahamas with ny husband. I hope the mediation going to email helps resolve things. You take care, --Crohnie 12:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi from India Sparrow

Hi. are you the one who posted stuff on my talk page? just wondering. India Sparrow

Yes, just a templated welcome message with some very useful links dealing with Wikipedia policies. Please feel free use it as a reference. Happy editting! -- Levine2112 discuss 23:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

We've had plenty of discussions about civility and good faith, and it should be very obvious to you by now that your interpretations of them as justificiations for your behavior are not even remotely close to my own. If you have a problem with Crohnie's comments, don't get me involved. --Ronz 18:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Ronz, I was point out your incivility too. Comments such as: I'm hoping that the annoying actions I've recently seen from some editors is coincidental rather than even more evidence of disruptive editing are generally viewed by most editors at Wikipedia as incivil. You constantly accuse me of annoying, disruptive editing and I have kindly asked you to stop this. So once again, please discontinue these kinds of comments as they are incivil. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for sounding incivil. That was not my intentions at all. Please except my apology, if you want me delete or strke out something please say what. As for the sockpuppet, it was brought up by another editor who thought that maybe the accound of the administrator had been compromised. I try to be civil at all times and if I wasn't I really am sorry. --Crohnie 18:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I struck out what looked to me that could be seen as uncivil in good faith. I hope things are ok now. I really don't want to upset you or anyone else. --Crohnie 18:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I would really like to hear from you when you get a chance so I know you are not upset with me. I really do not want you to be upset with me. Thanks, --Crohnie 20:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't take any of this personally, so no I am not upset with you. I appreciate you crossing out some of your comments. This is much more helpful than Ronz just blanketly deleting my remarks to you because I was pointing out borderline incivility (something that he/she doesn't like to see happen when the pointing is directed toward him/her). Of the comments you chose not to strike, you say that I made a remark about the external link on Hulda Clark passing BLP. I never brought up BLP; so that remark is false. I merely thought that the link was to a mostly informative site about the subject, but after reading the discussion (especially your comments and link to huldaclark.net), I was swayed to see why the link isn't suitable for WP:EL. Also, I am not getting emotional about any of this, so if that final comment of yours was directed toward me (or someone else who you are only assuming is getting emotional) then I would suggest you strike that remark as well. That's all. And I think you have grown tremendously as an editor. I've only been here for a year-and-half and I don't think that you know policy better than I do; I would say you and I isometimes interpret policy differently. (This is a comment I had made before, but you may not have read it because Ronz blanketly deleted it.) But then again, when you presented me with your thoughts on this external link issue, I did and continue to share your interpretation of policy. Anyhow, thanks for recognizing your incivility and I am sure that most of it is benign and unintentional. No hard feelings and keep up the good work. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you and I thought it was you who said that so I will go back and strike it too. I try to be civil at all times amd I don't want to cause any problems for anyone. I guess you can say I am the mellow type! :) --Crohnie 20:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I did the strike out of that section. Glad things are ok with us. --Crohnie 20:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't like me using my talk page to discuss possible disruption when I do so without mentioning specific context or editors. --Ronz 01:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the context is quite plain there, since you are discussing our arbitration which only involves a handful of editors. Regardless, please refrain from false accusations and incivility. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deleted by Ronz from his/her talk page

Ronz, when you delete my comments such as the one below, I have no way of knowing whether or not you are taking my requests for civility to heart. Please read below. All I ask is that you consider what I write and stop your incivility.

Please stop repeatedly and falsely accusing me of being disruptive. Please also refrain from saying that I have a bias against Stephen Barrett. I do not. I share the opinion of many editors and admins that his sites -- such as Quackwatch -- do not meet WP:RS. Please note that I have attested that I have or had no dealings with Barrett off of Wikipedia. Before coming to Wikipedia in fact, I never heard of him or Quackwatch or any of his sites. I am not a healthcare practitioner -- alternative or mainstream. I don't work in that industry at all. I am not a hired advocate for alternative medicine or against mainstream medicine. I don't maintain a blog nor do I participate in other people's blog in matters concerning Stephen Barrett or Quackwatch. For that matter, I do not participate in any related new groups, discussion forums, newsletters, web rings, etc. IOW, apart from Wikipedia, I have nothing to do with Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, or alternative/mainstream medicine. Can you attest to same? If so, then we can start to fairly discuss our personal biases. Until then, I welcome your constructive comments to articles, but please refrain from your unfounded accusations of disruption, incivility and/or bias. Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with advanced editing...

I was hoping to enlist your help with the renaming or titling of an article... Do you know much about the "move" feature?
The issue at hand is that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Young_(naturopath) isn't appropriately named for two reasons. first off, he acquired his ND degree at clayton college, which as we know is a diploma mill. secondly, there are plenty of people on wikipedia who don't have their title next to their name. for disambiguation purposes I understand we need something, but maybe "doctor" is better considering he has a PhD... Trying to minimize the damage this school does to my profession... What do you think? --Travisthurston 00:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think we should look at the policy for disambiguation and at how this is generally handled. I believe the distiguishing characteristic should be something that shows the subject's field of notability. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Robert Youngs notable enough to have an entry in Wikipedia. Robert M. Young (academic), for instance, also has a PhD and as a psychotherapist, is a doctor. I think the goal of disambiguation is to best aid the Wikipedia user during a search -- making sure that the user finds the appropriate article. The question is: what is the best way to distinguish Robert Young the naturopath (forgive me) so that the user who lands on the Robert Young disambiguation page will be able to easily pick him out from the others. It seems that this Robert Young is most notable for. Would dietician be a correct term to describe what he does? I'm not sure. I honestly don't much about him. Anyhow, if and when you do figure out a better disambiguation term, the "Move" link is pretty easy to use. Let me know if I can help in any way. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Fat Boy

I didn't understand why you tagged this talk page for speedy deletion. diff. I thought it was a mistake but wanted to confirm before reverting. - TwoOars (T | C) 18:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The creating editor has been adding nonsense throughout Wikipedia. This seemed like another attempt. If I am mistaken, please disregard. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, it has already been deleted, so you were right after all. :) Sorry. I just hadn't seen the deletion of the talk page of a legitimate article. Thought it would be sufficient to blank the page or something. - TwoOars (T | C) 18:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the follow up. That editor has a strange sense of humor. Check out his other edits. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, strange indeed. From this edit it looks like he was a previously blocked user. And any idea how he managed to get this automated summary?- TwoOars (T | C) 18:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Accordingly, user:Zzuuzz has blocked that editor indefinitely. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My star

Thank you! delldot talk 04:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar. I am giving you one as well for being nice. NHRHS2010 Talk 23:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. Glad to receive a barnstar from you and have me give you a barnstar as well. NHRHS2010 Talk 23:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)