User talk:Yilloslime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk

Contents

Welcome!

Hello, Yilloslime, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Check it out

You might enjoy the new political social networking site - 20DC. Just thought I'd let you know.

[edit] Various tags

Hi, the one tag is a redirect to the other. SB will not change it again unless it visits the article for soem other reason, but if you think the two tags should be distinct, it might be worth creating or asking for distinct tags. If this happens, please let me know. Thanks for keeping me abreast of the situation. Rich Farmbrough 16:17 1 June 2007 (UTC).


[edit] 3RR violation

I've noted one over at Stephen Milloy and invited the user concerned to self-revert. Now I really must get back to my Wikibreak.JQ 07:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Carson

FYI, I've posted a query for you at Talk:Rachel Carson. Please take a look when you get a chance. Thanks. Ronnotel 17:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have replied there. Thanks. Yilloslime 00:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my unintentional, but sloppy, edit.Cronos1 (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Milloy article

Hello. Given ongoing developments (or lack of development) at Talk:Steven Milloy, I'm strongly considering opening a request for comment on the conduct of User:NCdave. I find his approach, at this point, to be tendentious in the extreme, and I think that outside input might help move things beyond the impasse at which we seem to be stuck. As I realized when exploring this option, this would not be NCdave's first RfC; that would be found here, having to do with NCdave's tendentious editing on Terri Schiavo. In any case, I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject. MastCell Talk 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll be sure to weigh in if/when it happens. Can you let me know if you open the request for comment? Thanks.Yilloslime 05:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I will. In order to get started, user-conduct RfC's generally require at least a few people to verify that they've tried to resolve the issue and failed (this prevents individuals from filing frivolous RfC's over one-on-one disputes). So I will let you know. MastCell Talk 17:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
So MastCell, how 'bout that RfC?Yilloslime 23:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demanddebate.com

I like how they claim to be "concerned about the intellectual climate" and the stifling of debate, and their response is to hire planes to drown out people they don't agree with. Perhaps irony really is dead. It's definitely got the telltale fingerprints on it. As to including it in Steven Milloy, I think it's borderline. A lot of the sourcing is either primary/original synthesis (e.g. the WHOIS records) or questionable secondary (the National Review blog posting), although as the National Review is pretty well-known, it's potentially acceptable. If anyone feels strongly about it, though, it may need to be removed until a more reliable secondary source pops up. Of course, it looks like they are seeking publicity, so it may not be long. MastCell Talk 16:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's borderline, and if it gets removed I won't argue/revert as long as the reverter attempts to justify why it should be removed. As it stands now, there seems to be consensus that it should stay so.... The national review post is odd--I believe it is legit (why would Milloy's CEI collegue Iain Murray lie)--but it is odd. I almost think that Murray erred in making the post. What is he quoting from, an email from Milloy or an internal CEI document? As far as I can tell, Milloy/CEI/junkscience has not yet public owned up to demanddebate.com. I wouldn't be surprised if that National review post mysteriously disappears.
Anyways, I agree that's a little ridiculous (disingenuous) to claim to be "concerned about the intellectual climate" and then literally drown out their opponents arguments by hiring a plane to buzz the podium. And doing it anonymously no less! Yilloslime 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I also love how the site has News posts going back to December 2006, but according to whois.net, the site wasn't registered until April 07. It looks like they are trying to make it look like the sight has been around for longer than it really has been (can you say astroturf?), but I don't know enough about domain name registration to say for sure. www.archive.org hasn't indexed it yet either, leading me to believe that it's relatively new. Yilloslime 17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About DDT naming

"classical" naming should be avoided. A Guide to IUPAC Nomenclature of Organic Compounds R Panico, W H Powell and J-C Richer Blackwell Science,1993 [ISBN 0632034882] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.125.114.88 (talk • contribs)

I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy or guideline that says this. Yilloslime 02:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IARC

Curious about your thoughts on my summary of the controversy over the 1998 WHO/IARC study at the suddenly-very-active passive smoking page. MastCell Talk 20:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have limited computer time in front the computer today and this weekend, but I will try to look at this stuff as soon as I can. It might take a day or two though. I'll let you know. Yilloslime 02:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I just read the Lancet study (thanks for the link by the way). I think your summary in passive smoking page is right on. Yilloslime 18:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Matt Drudge. As a member of the Wikipedia community, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information of living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article must include proper sources. Thank you. The source cited is an obscure newspaper, and is derogatory, violating WP:BLP#Sources. Crockspot 00:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I also reverted your revert of my edit to Think tank. SourceWatch is a wiki, and like Wikipedia, is not considered a reliable source for article content. SourceWatch may be allowed in some circumstances as an external link, but never for sourcing article content. It is interesting that you made two reverts of recent edits in my history, to articles which seem out of the way of your normal editing pattern. Are you trying to make some sort of point, or are you just Blowing Smoke? - Crockspot 00:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • One more thing, this source is a blog, also known as a self-published source. Self-published sources may only be used in articles about themselves, per WP:V. There are three other more reliable sources supporting the claim anyway, so its loss doesn't affect the article in any way. - Crockspot 00:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The New York Press is most certainly not obscure, and has a comparable circulation to the Washington Times. The article is critical of Drudge, but no more derogatory than a WSJ editorial criticizing the Clintons. Or any liberal, for that matter.
I'm anticipating an argument from some quarters that since NY Press is a weekly and Wash Times is a daily, that the circulation numbers aren't comparable. In that case, please note the New York Press has a much higher circulation than the Weekly Standard. --Eleemosynary 03:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Eleemosynary that the New York Press is anything but "an obscure newspaper" and that article in question is no more "derogatory" than sources used in other biographies. The source meets all the requirements of WP:V and WP:BLP and therefore is fair game.
As for sourcewatch--last I knew there was no consensus about whether sourcewatch was not acceptable. I have looked for discussion on this and haven't found it--can you point me in the right direction? It seems to me that quoting an opinion from from Sourcewatch, with proper attribution in the article (i.e. "Sourecewatch argues...") ought to be acceptable, especially outside the context of WP:BLP. On the other hand, using sourcewatch as a source for facts and only attributing it them in references, is a different beast entirely. Anyways, I'm not interested in reopening any settled debates: if Sourcewatch specifically has been ruled out by consensus then I can live that, but if you're are simply applying a broader decision or policy, then I think there is some room for debate. (I'm not sure that I have the energy for it.)
Anyways' you seem to be wrong about the New York Press at least. Yilloslime 16:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm short of time at the moment, and a lot of the policy and guideline pages have had their content shuffled around, but here is a recent template deletion discussion that illustrates some of the problems with SourceWatch as a reliable source. Beyond issues of bias, the main reason that open wikis are not allowed as reliable sources is that one can never guarantee what is going to appear on the screen at any given random time, when the source page is loaded. It could be good info, or it could be "POOP". That is the main reason that Wikipedia is not allowed to source itself, and the principle holds for all wikis. As to the Drudge issue, I think that the arguments presented on Talk:George Soros in opposition to including well-sourced criticism from Bill O'Reilly apply here, and Eleemosynary was a strong opponent of including that information in the Soros article. The O'Reilly criticism is nowhere near as harsh and derogatory as the piece I removed from Drudge. O'Reilly is certainly more notable (as is his opinion) than the NYPress author. I really would like to see a consistent treatment of sources in all articles, and I try to apply that wherever I edit, but I already have about a thousand articles on my watchlist, so I can't fix everything. (PS. I am not opposed to all criticism in Matt Drudge, I am only opposed to this particular criticism. I also think there is an undue weight problem, since there is only one link under "Praise", and two under "Criticism", one that calls him a "nasty little faggot". Sourced notable criticism is fine, but this one is only there to bash Drudge, and to insert the "gay allegation" that has so far been kept out of the article by consensus.) - Crockspot 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's cut through it, shall we? There's been a long campaign to keep anything critical of Drudge off the page, and the NYPress article is not principally about Drudge's sexuality, it's about Drudge's attacks on Brock. And articles critical of Drudge haven't been kept off the page by "consensus," they've been kept off by policy shopping, ("It violates WP:RS! Oh wait... it doesn't? Well then... it violates WP:BLP! Oh wait... it doesn't? Well then... it violates "undue weight"! Oh, wait... ad infinitum). Well, we now have a reliable source, from a noted author, which does not violate BLP. An editor has tried to claim NYPress is "obscure." Wrong. He's made the claim that Signorile or Brock are irrelevant because he hasn't heard of them. Also wrong. If an editor is worried about "undue weight," he can insert another complimentary article under "Praise." But the constant policy shopping is tiresome. --Eleemosynary 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict, responding to original wording above) It's a nice dodge to attack another editor with a charge of "policy shopping", but it doesn't explain your about turn on the principle of the argument. Why are you fighting for the inclusion of an attack article that labels the subject a "nasty faggot", while you vehemently oppose any criticism in Soros? You haven't explained that bit of apparent hypocrisy. And fyi, you should have learned by now that if you are going to make a broad-brush accusation regarding me, you had better have some diffs backing up your assertion. Policy shopping is not even a guideline, it is an essay written by one user who made up the concept, and it is a very flawed concept which discounts the very foundation of western discourse, namely the Socratic method. I have already told that user that his essay will lead to user's citing it when they cannot beat someone on the merits of the arguments, and here we are. There has been long-standing consensus developed on Talk:Matt Drudge that the gay allegations are not verifiable enough, nor notable enough, to be in the article. But here it is being slipped in under the guise of "legitimate criticism". You appear to have flip-flopped. I challenge you to find the same inconsistency in my arguments anywhere I have edited this year. I also challenge you to find anything that can be characterized as "policy shopping" as well. Until you do, any further use of that term by you relating to me will be regarded as a personal attack, and handled appropriately. - Crockspot 19:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize that I was stepping into hornet's net when I made that edit on the Matt Drudge page. If you two have a history of warring, that's unfortunate, and I would prefer to not be involved. My only point is that justification for removal of the link was spurious. The link clearly meets WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:V. I would also point out that nothing in WP:WIEGHT says that there needs to be equal numbers of links or equal amounts of words given to the positive and negative aspects of a subject. Yilloslime 20:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I hear you, this discussion should be taking place elsewhere. I will copy most of this thread to Talk:Matt Drudge. - Crockspot 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Some more info has come to light re Drudge's homosexuality on the Talk page. Would you mind stopping by and taking a look? It basically concerns Brock's published accounts of his relationship with Drudge in Blinded by the Right, which the Signorile article references. --Eleemosynary 00:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please refrain from making unwarranted changes.

The section for Sanjay Gupta was debated at length and it was decided by all sides that the section on the Moore controversy was too long. Please refrain from making unwarranted changes in the future. --Rotten 00:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I checked the Talk page and didn't see anything, but admittedly, it was a just a quick scan--I must have missed it. Yilloslime 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFM:Passive Smoking

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Passive smoking, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. [MickeyKlein]

I did initially think that User:71.72.217.102 might be a straw sock of yours, but I don't really think that anymore. Bbut that IP does appear to be a sock of someone's, and it appears you believe so too. Hunting sockpuppets is an inexact science at best. Even WP:CHECK has its limitations - Crockspot 19:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I just replied to your post over at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Passive_smoking. I am happy that you have no longer think I'm a sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer, though I deeply resent the accusation, and definitely do not appreciate your behaviour--discussing the matter with other users (then deleting the discussion), rather than being up front about it and coming to me directly, or at least posting the accusation on a page I have a history of editing. As I noted over at the RfM, you seem to have a history of this... FYI 71.72.217.102 is Chido6d, though i don't think Chido is sockpuppetting, I think he/she just forgets to log in. As I previously noted on Talk:Passive Smoking, 71.204.186.153 and 69.181.208.181 are MickeyKlein, and again I think he/she just forgets to log in. Now its certianly possible that there may be some real sockpuppetry happening, too, but I don't think so--I haven't seen anything suspicious.Yilloslime 19:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

My apologies for editing your user page, I thought it was your talk page.--Rotten 21:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 3RR

Yilloslime, I believe you have violated WP:3RR on the Steve Milloy article [1], [2], [3], [4] please read the policy and do not break the rule in the future, thanks. --Theblog 03:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what WP:3RR says; I've read it many times. These reverts are not of the same thing, and therefore I have not violated the rule. If you think I am in violation of the rule, I invite you to report me. Otherwise, please refrain from making false accusations.Yilloslime 04:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the reverts are of the same thing or not: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." I was warning you as a courtesy. --Theblog 05:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Point duly noted. I have never seen the rule actually applied that way, but none the less, I cede the point. Thanks. Yilloslime 05:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Just self-reverted (begrudgingly.) Yilloslime 05:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
cool! --Theblog 06:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Ya. Regardless of what WP:3RR actually says, I'm still not convinced that the rule is ever applied in cases like these--I just spot checked about ~15 reports over at WP:AN3 that resulted in bans, and all of them were cases in which an editor reverted the same material. Meanwhile, it seems like editors often make 3+ unrelated reverts to the same article, without being reported or even warned. And it even kind of seems like an illogical policy that "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor [even if it is] different material each time." What if an editor dropped a POV-tag on one section, then I reverted it, then he dropped it on a different section, and then I reverted that, etc. Pretty quickly I'd be in violation of WP:3RR, meanwhile the insigating editor would have zero reverts. Futhermore, had I waited until all the tags had been dropped, then reverted in masse, that would be only one revert. So, while well intentioned, the policy doesn't seem to make any sense. But whatever: I'd rather be on the safe side, and edit warring is bad and so is wikilawyering, hence the self-revert. I'm gonna see if there's anything on Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule about this.Yilloslime

Theblog is correct; any reverts count toward the 3RR, but that is a little-understood part of the policy. Most cases do involve making the same revert over and over, but (to take a recent example), NCdave had reverted a number of different edits and thus violated the rule. The only real safeguards to the kind of gaming of the system you describe are that admins who review the report generally try to take such things into account (which is why enforcement is not automatic). MastCell Talk 18:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DLTN

Thank you for that information, YS. That account has now been blocked indefinitely for doing the same kind of thing elsewhere, and for a BLP violation. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organochoride pesticides and causes of autism

Could you please elaborate a bit further in Talk:Causes of autism#Organochloride pesticides as to (1) what's wrong with laysummary= and (2) why the two pesticides are not teratogens? In particular, why would fetal alcohol syndrome mean that ethanol is a teratogen, whereas a causal relationship between pesticides and autism would not mean that the pesticides are teratogens? Eubulides 00:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replied over there. Briefly, endosulfan and dicofol are not recognized human teratogens like, say, DES or thalidomide, therefore it's incorrect to discuss these insecticides under the subheading of "Teratogens." As for FAS--I don't know, I haven't followed that. But the word 'teratogen' is generally understood to refer to agents causing physical birth defects, and, as I recall, there are characteristic physical birth defects associated with FAS. My problem with the reference format is that it makes it look like the Cone article and the EHP report are the same thing. When referencing two different works it's costumary (at least in the scientific literature) to give everything it's own cite, and was just trying to do that here. Also I wanted to give the Cone article a proper citation (author name, date, title, etc.) Yilloslime 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political correctness

I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at political correctness. From my perspective, this article was in pretty good shape until recently, but has come under attack from a couple of determined POV-pushers, similar to problems encountered in Passive smoking and elsewhere. Of course, YMMV. JQ 08:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. FYI I have limited internet time these days... Yilloslime 19:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NCdave

I have proposed, on the community sanction noticeboard, that NCdave (talk · contribs) be banned from the Steven Milloy article and talk page for long-term disruptive and tendentious editing. As a participant on said article, I am notifying you of the thread. MastCell Talk 22:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I'll take a look. He's seems to be turning his attention to the TASSC page now too. Yilloslime 22:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yilloslime, I refrained from reporting your 3RR violation for a month, because I prefer to seek consensus rather than bludgeon other editors with the rules. But since you have joined MastCell, Raul654, etc. in trying to get me banned from contributing to the Steven Milloy article altogether, and Raul has just banned Peroxisome, it is clear that you don't care about consensus, you are out to take no prisoners. So, reluctantly, I have reported your violation on the 3RR noticeboard. I'm sorry that it came to this. NCdave 06:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. However, note that in addition to being rather stale, this has previously been dealth with: User_talk:Yilloslime#3RR & [5]. Yilloslime 06:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Yilloslime, I came here after reviewing the AN3 notice regarding your edits to Steven Milloy one month ago, and intended to remind you of the 3RR, but I see from the above that the entire issue had been dealt with long ago. Hope you guys are able to find a solution to the article. Take care -- Samir 06:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Thanks for reviewing things. Yilloslime 06:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Levett book seems not to exist

Hello Yilloslime. I'm not the one who deleted this originally, but my research does not reveal the existence of any real book by this name. EdJohnston 01:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I see. It turns out it's a dissertation, not a book, but let's discuss that more over at the talk page. Anyways, I was just assuming it was vandalism/whitewashing, since it was removed without explanation by an anonymous editor making their first (and perhaps only) edit. Yilloslime 01:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naacats

Hey - I hadn't made that connection at all - funny, really! I don't think we need to go after him through WP:COIN - his primary problem is that he is making a colossal fool out of himself. He's already said that the CDC, WHO, and the BMA are "extremist" organisations, and anyone who goes to dispute having accused an independent US government body, the largest global organisation in the world, and one of the top three medical journals globally of being unsuitable as wiki sources hasn't a leg to stand on. We should certainly mention that he's biased and pushing an agenda, but he should live or die to my mind by his suggested edits - and they're ridiculous! But we'll see... Nmg20 01:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Looks like one of the articles he created has already been speedily deleted, there's another one being considered at AfD that looks headed for deletion, and I've warned him that unless he changes his editing style over at Smokers Rights, that article will be prime candidate for deletion too. Hopefully he'll change his ways, or if not, then seeing all his work deleted will discourage him enough to leave the project. If that neither of those happen, things could get ugly. Yilloslime (t) 16:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
In order to prevent things from getting uglier, I've proposed a topic ban at WP:CSN. MastCell Talk 18:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help Me

Why were you leaving a message on behalf of User:192.249.47.11? Well, I've fixed the problem, some of the automated warnings were missing the closure of div tags. Should be fine now RyanLupin (talk/contribs) 18:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for your help. I was leaving the message on behalf of me, not User:192.249.47.11. If that was inappropriate, sorry. I just didn't know how to fix that myself, but I thought it needed fixin'. Thanks again. Yilloslime (t) 18:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feinstein

You might want to weigh in on the talk page, there is a discussion about which photo to use at the top. I agree with you that the other is awful. - Crockspot 15:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Profg canvassing

Yep, that looks like canvassing to me. Apparently you and I aren't the only people who seem to think so as you can see from his talk page. JoshuaZ 17:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I assure you it's not. There were several editors I left notes for who are not generally involved in any creationism article editing. All I was doing was trying to expand the group of folks who could look at the page and help the WP project by deciding on deletion or not. Please assume good faith. But hey -- thanks for looking out for me, Yilloslime, I've never encountered you on WP before -- great to meet you! --profg Talk 19:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but when was I not assuming good faith? May I remind you to assume the assumption of good faith—as not doing so is one the characteristics of tendentious editors and also leaves one open to being called a dick. Please note I am definitely not accusing you of being either of these, only pointing out how others may perceive your penchant for reminding people of WP:AGF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilloslime (talk • contribs)
Well, that's very kind of you, and very much appreciated. And of course, I wasn't accusing you of not assuming good faith -- just kindly reminding you of the need to do so, as all of us need to be reminded from time to time. Happy editing! --profg Talk 19:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd call this borderline. Maybe I'm missing something, but I did not see a huge list of people that he notified in his history (Six or eight? Correct me if I'm wrong). The notice I received was neutral and simple, and did not influence my rationale. I voted weak delete, BTW, with the possibility of a switch to keep if a RS secondary or two appears. - Crockspot 00:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the message was neutral and non-campaign-y, my concern is that he may be votestacking, since all of the editors contacted appear to be strongly Christian or strongly conservative and thus more likely than editors of other persuations to be sympathatic to creationism. Of course, editors should vote based on the merits of the article not on their own views, and I'm not saying that Christians or conservatives are any more or less able to do this than other folks. I'm just saying that if you did want to stack the vote, you'd probably be better off canvasing admittedly Christian and conservative editors, than canvassing biologists and liberals. Yilloslime (t) 21:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silent Spring

Hi. The reason I keep deleting that paragraph is because it simply doesn't fit in a section called "Criticism." No matter what you think of Carson's book, the encyclopedia article is not the place to do a tit-for-tat argument about it. The fact is, Carson's book has been criticized (rightly or not) for leading to wide bans of DDT and consequent rises in the malaria rate. It's fine not to believe that's valid criticism, but the section called "Criticism" is not the place to have it out about that. Besides, answering a criticism with a quote from Carson's book is just inane. 71.16.238.126 20:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's not necessarily inane to answer a criticism with a quote from the book. It could actually be a good response to a criticism. My point is that a good encyclopedia article does not have a section called "Criticism" and then allow someone to come in and say "YES, BUT..." to every criticism that's listed as having been lodged against the book. That's unprofessional and very irritating to read. I don't read that section to hear some partisan editor's response to the criticisms. I read it to find out what sorts of criticisms have been made of the book throughout its history, just like the section's title advertises. Does that make sense? 71.16.238.126 20:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be against you, with myself, User:Cronos1, and User:DerHexer all opposing your changes. If you'd like to pursue this more, my advice would be to discuss you proposed changes on the talkpage rather than reverting again. Certainly Carson's stance on DDT use in malaria control is worth mentioning in article, especially in light of some of the criticisms of her and her book that are mentioned in the article and elsewhere. Whether the material is best in the Criticism section or somewhere else in the article is another matter entirely, but certainly having it there in the criticism section is preferable to not having it all, hence my revert. I can't speak for the others opposing your deletion, but I suspect they'd agree. Yilloslime (t) 00:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy

Regarding your recent "phony soldiers" edit in the Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy article: Thank you! I brought up the same concerns in the section of the article's talk page titled "False claim of widespread use of "Phony Soldiers" term by media". I also made nearly the exact same edit you did repeatedly, fully providing my reasoning in my edit summaries as well as the noted section. However, Bedford and ToddAmelio repeatedly reverted my edits without discussion or explanation of any kind, strongly indicating that their main purpose has been to skew the entire article in Limbaugh's favor. Again, thank you, and please take a look at the "Context" section on that article's talk page. The transcript provided in the article clearly shows that Limbaugh read an article about MacBeth AFTER he made his "phony soldiers" comment to the caller. However, the same two editors have insisted that Limbaugh read the article on the air, then took the call from the listeners. The transcript clearly shows this is false. This deliberate fudging of the timeline has been done to make it seem that Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment was clearly and obviously aimed at MacBeth. The transcript refutes their POV version of events. As is the norm with these two editors, they have continually refused to explain their insistence on inserting non-factual information into the article.-Hal Raglan 01:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You recently deleted this from the article:
"Within an hour of the record setting auction closing, Senator Reid addressed the issue again on the floor of the Senate stating, "I strongly believe when we can put our differences aside, even Harry Reid and Rush Limbaugh, we should do that and try to accomplish good things for the American people."
However, your edit summary states: "rm non-sequitor in Auction section about Harry Reid's poll numbers" Did you mean to delete the paragraph below?
"On October 15, 2007, The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that Majority Leader Reid's poll numbers in his home state of Nevada dropped from 46 point approval and 42 point disapproval to 32 point approval and 51 point disapproval. In the same poll, Limbaugh's numbers were slightly better at 34% approval, and 50% disapproval.[12]"
Just checking. Keep up the good work...this article has been a mess!-Hal Raglan 18:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh Snap! Thanks for catching that! THat's exactly what I meant to do! I'll fix it right now. Yilloslime (t) 18:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yikes

Ack ! [6] Thanks :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topics in environmental toxicology

Hey Yilloslime, I just wanted to give you major props for your work on the DDT article. I just started watching it, and in recognition of the balance between being bold and mucking up someone else's work, I didn't want to just jump in there. I do have an interest in the history of pesticides, the history and politics of the environmental movement, and the history and science of toxicology. If you ever need extra eyes on an article, feel free to bring it to my attention. Michael J Swassing 19:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the kind words. The DDT article still needs a lot of work, so if you've got suggestions for improvement, you should just jump right in! One big thing that is missing are production stats: who made/makes it, how much was produced, how it was used etc... I've compiled some of this data here User:Yilloslime/Sandbox, but i've yet to put in the article. Yilloslime (t) 20:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of that. Those stats would be useful, because off the top of my head I think I read somewhere that the half-life in the environment is about 50 years. So doing the math for the original production, it would be possible to calculate the tonnage that continues to circulate in the food web.Michael J Swassing 01:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies articles for political figures

Hi ... since you recently were involved at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton in discussion of whether political figures should have Controversies articles, and I stated that the one for Rudy Giuliani had recently been dismantled, I should say that I spoke a bit too soon — the dismantling is being contested by an editor, and that controversies article is now up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies of Rudy Giuliani. Your input welcome there if you wish. Wasted Time R 23:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. What's up with Dogru voting twice? 1st 2nd Yilloslime (t) 21:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Dogru admits s/he is voting twice, but may be hoping the admin who closes the AfD just sees the bold and not the rest. Someone needs to cross it out, but it shouldn't be me, since I'm more involved. Wasted Time R 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If no one steps in by the end of the day, I guess I'll do it (unless you think I shouldn't). Yilloslime (t) 17:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[7]] Jmegill (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I got back from my wikibreak too late to comment, I would have said merge...Yilloslime (t) 05:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Carson and that yellow slimy stuff

hey, thanks for the lengthy replies at talk:DDT. i'm going to head to snoozeville before I start typing sheer nonsense but i'll be back atcha tomrrow. --ed 03:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental advocacy

It seems the primary argument I read for or against any pesticide (or even CO2 for that matter) is that (1) our side is completely unbiased and everything we say is backed up by peer-reviewed science but (2) our opponents are biased and are just cherry-picking the studies that agree with them or otherwise politicizing the science.

I can't think of a single article for or against:

  • asbestos / asbestos abatement
  • radon
  • arsenic
  • second hand smoke
  • DDT
  • carbon dioxide

which doesn't claim the backing of the latest peer-reviewed research.

When the pot calls the kettle black, the tarring takes on two shades:

  • conservatives accuse environmentalists of ideological bias
  • environmentalists accuse conservatives of financial greed

So I think the best way to write about these topics is with an outline like this:

  1. What is the chemical
  2. The history of how it was discovered, how people used it
  3. Benefits claimed (according to papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals)
    • Like cures cancer or prevents malaria or makes crops grow
  4. Hazards claimed (according to papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals)
    • Like causes cancer or kills wildlife or raises the sea level
  5. Advocacy, who's lobbying to keep it or get rid of it?
    • Including governments, industry groups, environmental groups, think tanks of any ideological stripe, NGOs, international bodies, etc.

Is this a good general outline? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable approach, (though, the devil is always in the details, of course.) I could support using only
  • peer reviewed scientific journals
  • official EPA/WHO/IARC/UN/Health Canada/etc documents
to describe its benefits and hazards. Well actually, only is pretty strong word--Let's say that I could support giving the vast of majority of WP:WEIGHT to such sources.
I think the health effects section does this pretty well already. It could definitely be improved--its a bit long for one thing--though it has come a long way in the past year, thanks in large part to yours truly. I've tried to rely on reviews and monographs for the bulk of it, only referencing primary studies that have came out since the most recent reviews. (I think there are still some cites of older primary studies in there though...) In general, I think this is a good strategy for avoiding cherry picking. I think a similar approach could be good for the sections on environmental effects and effectiveness against malaria, but I haven't spent much time on these sections yet.Yilloslime (t) 07:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lindane Advertisement

Can you be more specific? Rick lightburn (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Basically, I though that it read like an ad—admittedly, this is a somewhat a subjective determination. But saying things like:
  • Lindane (i.e., gamma-HCH) has been available for use in the U.S. for more than 60 years, with applications in both healthcare and agriculture.
sound like marketing prose to me, while simply saying:
  • Lindane (i.e., gamma-HCH) has been used in the U.S. for more than 60 years, both in healthcare and in agriculture.
sounds more natural and less like a sales pitch. It's subtle, I know. Or this, for example:
  • The most common side effects associated with topical use of lindane medications are nonserious reactions of the skin, including burning, itching, dryness and rash.
sounds exactly like the disclaimers you hear tacked onto TV commercials for Ambien or other prescription drugs. There are other examples, but hopefully these two will give you a sense for what I mean. I just rewrote the intro, to make it less drug-specific and a little less wonky, and it now it doesn't seem so ad-y to me, so I've moved the {{ad}} tag down the page a bit, to a section I haven't had a chance to work on yet. Yilloslime (t) 17:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Also some editing tips: When you cite a reference you've already cited, you can simply use the string:<ref name=XYZ/> rather than the syntax you've been using: <ref name=XYZ> </ref>. (Note the "/" at the end.) Also, rather than using <br/><br/> to make a new paragraph, if you just make sure that there is a least one line of blank space between the two paragraphs in the editing box, you'll get two paragraphs. E.g. rather than this:

blabla bla bla<br/><br/>bla bla bal

you can just do this:

blabla bla bla

bla bla bal

and you'll get two paragraphs. But if you just do this:

blabla bla bla
bla bla bal

you won't get two seperate paragraphs. Hope this makes sense and is helpful. Yilloslime

(t) 17:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
I imagine that you're making more changes, so we might have more dialog in the future.
(There's an actual difference between being available and being used, just as many substances are approved for use but not used. I don't know how significant this difference is, 'tho, in the Lindane case.)
(And thanks for the editing tips. Wikipedia's markup language has some relation to XML, but I've never bothered to figure it out. So I use the much less readable
convention.)
(Forgot to sign the above.)Rick lightburn (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 04:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ad Tag in Lindane article

I've removed the 'Ad' tag from the Lindane article, which I believe is due to you. See my comments there. Rick lightburn (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kelly letter to Science

I've posted about this at my blog and on Crooked Timber. Lots of fun ensues.JQ (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Yilloslime (t) 16:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anogenital Distance studies

I can only find 5 studies in which this distance was measured in human male infants, which counts as rare in my book. The authors of two of these studes discount the utility of this measure. Pustelnik (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem: you can only find 5 studies—that's original research. If there's a review or article out there that says, "to date there are only 5 published studies of anogenital distance in humans..." or something like that, then great, let's use it, otherwise it's all just WP:OR.

[edit] Yankee Doodle Coffee Shop photo

I thought you'd like to know I've uploaded a photo of the Doodle, per your request! It's not much, so feel free to overwrite it if something better comes along. — DustinGC (talk | contribs) 04:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture is great! Thanks! I don't think I could do any better, and I'm not in New Haven anyways, so...Yilloslime (t) 06:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statistical Assessment Service

I've moved your comment and my reply from my user talk page to the article talk page, so that others can participate in the discussion. DickClarkMises (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yankee Doodle Coffee Shop

Thanks for the request, but I've no time. I already owe another belated article for Danish Wikipedia. Sorry! --Nielspeterq (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the note. Yilloslime (t) 17:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last Days of Humanity

I'm thinking of criterion #5 of WP:MUSIC. It's probably a stretch to say that those record labels are "important indie labels" (I didn't look at their articles too closely) but I took it as enough to remove the speedy tag. That is quite a long album list.

In the end, I doubt it will matter too much either way. :-) Grandmasterka 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and I agree it probably won't matter in the end. Thanks. They do seem to have a lot of albums, but if you look closely most are compilations or splits, including the two on non-redlinked labels. Yilloslime (t) 03:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] junkscience.com

While I understand your essential comments on junkscience.com as "...excellent example of the use selective quoting and referencing to manufacture what appears at first glance to be a well referenced narrative that actually that runs counter to the scientific consensus on the subject..." I'm curious for more specifics.

Note: I'm not a scientist by trade, and only took a minor in Physics pursuant to an otherwise Liberal Arts degree, yet when I look at (some) of the points made in junkscience. Your scientific background - particularly in Chemistry - would seem to be useful, if I may pursue the questions with you.

I'm sensitive to the possibility that Steven Milloy has essentially perjured himself through his associations and funding; yet his own reputation cannot taint what are essential facts. If a rascal points out that 2+2=4, we might double-check the results, but it wouldn't ipso-facto make 4 the wrong answer.

In that light, I actually looked some of the assertions which he makes (through his well-documented references, but not always easy to follow) and found to a reasonable level of amateur understanding:

- the eggshell thinning results so strongly emphasized in Silent Spring seem to have been a result of diet, not DDT. It seems that the original researchers and subsequent repetitions of the experiment concur.

- The US ban on DDT - and the role of William Ruckelshaus in particular - seems hardly the result of objective study and policy resolution, whether one agrees with the result or not.

- The ban on DDT was in the US, not the world. Nevertheless, the US ban on DDT accelerated (but didn't start) the phase-out of widespread use of DDT.

- Mosquito-resistance seems to have already been an issue by 1972, but I found the literature mixed regarding why DDT use was scaled-down or phased out: I see many authors asserting that it was due to the danger of DDT in the predator chain, some saying it was due to Western pressure on 3rd world states to discontinue it, and only tertiary due to increased insect resistance to its effects. Of course, it's hard to determine which of these are even attempting to be accurate, and which are merely pro- or anti-environmentalist polemics.

- In a number of recent mass-media discussions (PBS, MPR, as well as talks on predator birds by the U of MN Raptor Center volunteers to school groups) the 'mainstream' view is that DDT was thinning eggshells and causing the deaths of raptors, therefore it was banned. Arguably, that's the one point that junkscience does seem to debunk accurately.

I look forward to your comments in reply.

Thanks! Styopa (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Styopa.
That DDT causes eggshell thinning in birds of prey and that this thinning has adversely effected their reproduction is well established and widely accepted in the scientific community. While you may find this disputed in OpEds from free market thinktanks, it isn't controversial in scientific circles, and you won't find research articles in major journals disputing it. While Milloy may be able to point to one bad study (and note that all his references are rather old), there are plenty of others which confirm that DDT/DDE does harm bird reproduction. The article DDT goes into this a little (but needs to be expanded), and so does Bald Eagle, and I've got some refs on my userpage here. Also if you search the webpages for the EPA and the Fish & Wildlife Service you'll see that the consensus is against Milloy's views. Also note that the paper Milloy cites is study in chickens--or was it pheasants?--either way it's not that relevant to the question of whether DDT or DDE harms bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and other birds of prey.
Re:Ruckelshaus banning DDT: DDT was banned in the US primarily for ecological reasons, though there was also growing concern about its effects on human health. The risks to the environment far outweighed the perceived economic benefits of continued DDT registration. (Note that DDT use was already declining by that time as insect resistance was on the rise and other insecticides had come on the market.) That Ruckelshaus someone contradicted the previous finding of the agency is dubious: All claims to this effect seem to trace back to the work of J. Gordon Edwards (entomologist and mountaineer), who published his thoughts on DDT in obscure, non-reliable journals like 21st_Century_Science_and_Technology (a publication of the LaRouche movement), and JPANDS. (See [8] and [9] for more info.) If there was any independent verification that things actually happened this way, I'd be more inclined to believe it. But, so far, I haven't seen anything.
Finally, DDT has never been banned for malaria control, but rather has been used continually for that purpose since the the 1940s. True, the WHO-led malaria eradication campaign relied mainly on DDT, and since that program ended, DDT use has dropped off. But here's the kicker: the WHO program was abandoned in 1969--3 years before the US ban, and for reasons unrelated to evil environmentalists pushing for a "ban." See DDT and the references therein for more details, as well my userpage. Finally, yes, the Stockholm Convention does ban DDT sort of--it bans only agricultural use, and this ban has made it a more effective tool in vector control. And, yes, there was the infamous Sept 2006 announcement by the WHO giving DDT "a clean bill of health." Conservatives and libertarians like to talk about this as the WHO "lifting its ban on DDT" but they are either misinformed/not paying close attention, or actively being deceptive. All the WHO did in 2006 was make a small adjustment in their policy. They had always approved of--and even recommended--that DDT be used in situtations A, B, and C, and with the Sept 06 announcement they recommended that it also be used in situation D.
Hope this clears things up. Sorry to be so long-winded. Yilloslime (t) 22:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Plague

Hi, Yilloslime! It's been a couple weeks and I haven't seen any activity on Joshua Plague. As it stands, the article says he's done some writing, singing, and cooking. There are two interviews, but I'm not convinced of the reliability. Unless you object, I'm going to either prod or afd the article? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, when I removed the PROD a couple weeks ago, I promised to dig up more info on notability, which I haven't yet done. My bad. Can you give me a day or two to see what I can find? Yilloslime (t) 20:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Also in terms of WP notability guidelines, Plague has been in several bands which "Ha[ve] released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels"' which suggest that he notable. Additionally, there is no WP guideline for Chefs that I'm aware of, but in the world of vegan cooking he is certainly an important figure.Yilloslime (t) 21:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm just not convinced. One of the more indie labels? The bands and most of the labels mentioned don't have articles. I'm fine with some more time, but I'm leaning towards AfD. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi SatyrTN. True, none of his bands currently have WP articles, but the labels that have released his stuff are none the less important indie labels, especially Kill Rock Stars which put out Mukilteo Fairies.[10], and to a lesser extent Outpunk, which put out some MF and Behead the Prophet No Lord Shall Live records. At any rate, I have neither the time nor interest in creating articles about his bands, I'm more interested in him as a chef. And to that end I've added a little more to the article on this topic in the intervening days, but now I've put in basically all the effort that I can muster. So if you think he's not notable, go ahead and AfD it. (I'd prefer AfD to PROD, to at least get a few more sets of eyes on it.)
I will say, I think Ploeg is interesting case in terms on WP:N. He's an important vegan chef, though there aren't specific notability guidelines for chefs, and even if there were, he might not meet them. He's also an important musician, though whether he meets WP:MUSIC, is also debatable. Finally, he's an important figure in the queer movement, at least as it relates to punk, though perhaps not important enough to merit inclusion on the these grounds alone, either. Taken separately, his notability in each of these areas is questionable. But I feel that if we can combine his notability in these disparate areas, and look at the sum-of-the-parts, he's a notable guy that's worthy of inclusion. Certainly more interesting and notable than some random cricketeer or fictional Manga character, but I'm not sure that there is any policy to back me up here. So AfD if you must....Yilloslime (t) 00:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, actually I realize now that there were once articles for two of Plagues bands but they were deleted. I've asked the closing admin to put the deleted pages in my userspace. If/when that happens, I will try to incorporate any relevant info into Joshua Plague. So can you hold off on deletion procedings until those band pages get userified (or my request is denied) and I get a chance to update the article? Yilloslime (t) 00:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A word of advice

Hello Yilloslime! I noticed that you frequently revert vandalism, and I would like to say thank you!
However, I noticed that sometimes you do not provide warnings on the talk pages after doing so.
If you see any vandalism, you should always leave an appropriate notice on the vandal's talk page after removing the vandalism. (a full list of talk page warnings may be found here).
Thanks for your contributions, and happy editing! J.delanoygabsadds 16:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I used to be better about warning folks, but I've gotten lazy. I'll try to do a better job now though. Yilloslime (t) 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly of interest

Thought you might find this interesting... The study in question (PMID 17065637) was pretty provocative - I remember discussing it formally with my colleagues. Of course, tobacco-industry funding doesn't automatically invalidate a study's conclusions - I think the bigger issue is that the obviously relevant conflict of interest was not directly disclosed, as the money went through an intermediary group. A reasonable conclusion would be that there was an attempt to conceal the source of the money.

I'm almost certain that NEJM would not have published the study had the tobacco-industry connection been disclosed at the time - it looks like the journal editors have said as much in the Times article. Also interesting that this researcher received American Cancer Society funds during this time - the ACS has a very strict policy of not funding researchers who accept anything resembling tobacco-industry money.

Finally, the same authors issued an unrelated conflict-of-interest disclosure just this past Monday in JAMA ([11]): they wrote a letter criticizing a study saying that CT screening was ineffective, but failed to disclose that they held 1 active and 10 pending patents related to CT screening until someone else brought it up. MastCell Talk 16:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting....Yilloslime (t) 15:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, in a way it's really too bad, because a lot of oncologists (with no tobacco-industry connection) think that some form of CT screening is going to prove useful. But it's a pretty controversial area, and this certainly won't help find the answer. MastCell Talk 17:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Joshua Plague

An editor has nominated Joshua Plague, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Plague and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erin Brockovich

sorry, but you have written to the wrong person. The vandalism has been done by an anonym user and not by me. Atually you have revertd to my version. Ciao--Massimo Macconi (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Woops Sorry! My bad. I'll strike the warning on your page! Sorry. Yilloslime (t) 18:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

[Barnstar from Ed (Edgar181) moved to User:Yilloslime]

Thanks! Yilloslime (t) 22:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Multicolumn reflist

Just following up on the multicolumn issue, would you be interested in logging the issue with Apple's bug reporter? Wikipedia's bugzilla says the problem is not on their end. superlusertc 2008 April 11, 21:28 (UTC)

Sure, but pardon my ignorance--how do I do that? Is there a link you can point me too? Yilloslime (t) 22:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Must have missed this. Apples bug reporter: [12]. If you could send me a link to the bug after you file, I'd appreciate it. superlusertc 2008 April 18, 07:34 (UTC)

[edit] bpa tag

In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. Please self-revert. RDM2008 (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I can quote policy too. From the intro: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies .... Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort" Emphasis is my own. Yilloslime (t) 22:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That was done on the talk page. WP:TAGGING was complied with. RDM2008 (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Finally. Was that so hard? I should note that WP:TAGGING is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline, and that it also says "any editor who sees the tag but does not see any problem with the article and who does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page should feel free to remove the tag and note on the talk page that they are doing so," which is exactly what I've been saying this whole time.Yilloslime (t) 04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't be so condescending with your "Was that so hard?" I haven't said anything I didn't say in my first comment, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bisphenol_A&diff=prev&oldid=206190296 when I first added the tag and you removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RDM2008 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
That's hardly an accurate characterization of your first talk page comment. Also, when you said that "i've given cites and they've been ignored" which cites were you referring to? www.factsonplastic.com? Yilloslime (t) 04:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [13] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm lazy, so I multiple choiced it. Yilloslime (t) 20:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are you watching my talk page?...

...Please participate in an experiment by signing this thread.

This is just for fun and because I am curious. The idea is to see how many people are watching my talk page, and who they are. So, if you are watching this page, and are so inclined, please sign below. Feel free to leave a comment if the mood strikes you.

  1. Yilloslime (t) 22:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Probably no surprise... MastCell Talk 23:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, this has been a disappointing failure... Yilloslime (t) 05:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ouch. I won't take that personally. :) MastCell Talk 22:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That was directed at me, not you. Yilloslime (t) 22:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free conference call

Just to let you know I've deprodded Free conference call and flagged it for speedy deletion under G11 - blatant advertising. Thought you'd appreciate me letting you know. Hope this helps, Gazimoff WriteRead 11:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Yilloslime (t) 15:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy

Hey - you're probably already aware of this, but it was recently profiled in the Atlantic Monthly. Apparently there's currently an effort underway to sue a collection of energy and oil companies for conspiracy on the basis of their efforts to mislead the public about the risks of global warming, taking a page from the playbook used against the tobacco industry ([14]). As someone interested in the overlap between tobacco- and oil-company research efforts and tactics, I thought you might be interested. MastCell Talk 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks i'll check it out. Yilloslime (t) 01:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Syngenta

You are correct it is FAR from perfect and I'm not sure why adding information from the website ( a reference ) is inappropriate. Can you explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfdavis1971 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding info from their website is not necessarily inappropriate, but adding multiple paragraphs from their website (even in quotes and properly attributed and referenced) is inappropriate. Take a look at the articles on Bayer, Dow Chemical Company, or better yet, Microsoft which is a featured article. Some of these have little snippets of text from official company PR, but none of them have large swathes of text lifted directly from the company's website or press releases. There are a lot of reasons for this, which you can start to get sense for by reading through the pages linked at WP:5P. More specifically, wikipedia articles should generally be based on "rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", i.e. secondary or tertiary sources, rather primary sources, which is what the website is—see especially WP:SOURCE (where the above quote comes from) & WP:PSTS. Yilloslime (t) 16:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, btw, you might not have seen it, but I left a message here: User_talk:65.190.134.26. Yilloslime (t) 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:deadlinks

I do note that the link to Airlinerslist.com once pointed to some german site which dosent work, and I am quite curious as to why the link was amended this way. Nonetheless, I have restored the correct link, and also corrected the link for Airfleets.net (the airline-specific search no longer worked). Thank you for acknowledging the experience you faced thou, and I will not pursue this matter further.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McGuffey Readers

I think the text may be originally from a source that is in the public domain: I have commented at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 May 31/Articles. --Snigbrook (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Perchlorate edit

Thanks for undoing my bungled first attempt at editing the perchlorate health effects page. I will spend more time going through the tutorial later and navigate properly. To answer your question, the persistence of perchlorate in the skin is counter to the claim that perchlorate is not retained in the body. In 2002 the proposed perchlorate reference dose was pushed to 1 ppb by concerns about what perchlorate does in the skin. Thyroid concerns only brought it to 3 ppb.

Medicinal doses of perchlorate, iodide, and bromide all produce rashes in the skin (haloderma), perhaps through producing allergic reactions to haptens formed by the salts binding to proteins like albumin. My concern is that perchlorate may be lodging in oxyanion holes in defensins, impairing that vital component of the innate immune system.

I'm waiting to sign up on wikipedia using my real name.

Larry Ladd

http;//www.perchlorate.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.184.70 (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Larry. Welcome to wikipedia. Taking a closer look at it, I think the formatting problem with your edit is that it had a <ref> at the end of the citation, instead of a </ref>. But in terms of content, I think the perchlorate article is better off without any mention of the study you were trying to reference, at least for now. The problem is that without proper context, mentioning that study adds nothing to the article. There are dozens of animal studies on the effects of perchlorates, several human studies (both intentional dosing studies and epidemiological studies), and various reviews and government sponsored risk assessments, so singling out this particular study, and highlighting it in the article doesn't make a lot of sense. In writing these articles, we must to use primary sources carefully if at all, without giving undue weight to any particular point of view, all the while avoiding drawing or own conclusions about what the such sources mean. Anyways, we seem to have the cart before the horse here. The article says that the recommended max drinking water concentration is 25ppb, not 3 or 1 ppb as you state above, so you might want to start by fixing that. Yilloslime (t) 22:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talkback

Hello, Yilloslime. You have new messages at Wimvandorst's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.