User talk:Gandydancer/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

MastCell, I've meant to thank you for your thoughtful replies here, and regret waiting so long. I agree with every point you've made. But I did do some digging and found support for the contention that research is impeded and slanted due to US law. Best, petrarchan47tc 00:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Last night before I went to sleep I thought of a whole bunch of brilliant advise to give to Petrar, but right now I am so pissed about the latest turn of events at the BP article that I'm not in the mood to think of much else. If it actually does turn out that we are unable to even discuss the spill's health effects without using medical reviews--nothing from any news reports, etc., I will know for certain that Wikipedia has destroyed the town to save it. This is what happens when the touch with reality is completely lost. Gandydancer (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS is being misused, period. petrarchan47tc 18:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm being told at Medical Cannabis talk that I need MEDRS to talk about the history of the DEA's scheduling of cannabis! CNN's Sanjay Gupta laid out the history of the classification of cannabis as a dangerous drug, and showed that laws surrounding cannabis were never based on science, but actually a lack of it. In response to my sharing this information from a CNN article, I am told "please engage the WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary reviews". petrarchan47tc 22:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ya know, <sigh> ... misrepresentation is so time consuming. Petra, you may notice two sections above this a discussion between Gandydancer and myself, and I've had this page watchlisted since then. You are not being told you *have* to use MEDRS for citing history. You are being told that when we have an abundance of high-quality journal secondary reviews that cover the very same territory much better than a television commentator did, you would be best advised to use those highest quality sources. Particularly since they do a very good job of covering just what you seem to want to cover. And particularly since many of them are freely available. And also because an encyclopedia that cites a TV commentator over journal sources looks amateurish. You could write it to at TV commentator, Sanjay Gupta, and then your effort would be wasted when someone came along and rewrote the text to better sources. Who would that benefit? Collaboration (working together and using the best sources) is a far better use of your time than going off and assuming bad faith and making claims about my alleged POV all over Wikipedia which most people who have worked with me will know to be ... untrue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly stunned that you would be watching my talk page just because you thought that I was being careless on a medical article. Whatever did you expect to find? Gandydancer (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Did I say that? We had a conversation last week, and I had not unwatched your talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, but please try to be a little less prickly--I like to try to have some fun around here. Gandydancer (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

So do I :) I've rarely encountered such dramatic hostility and refusal to rationally discuss things, accompanied by smears of other editors (including moi), as I have in this particular instance. Usually I keep my head down and try not to pay attention to untrue things being said about me elsewhere (after all, it's the internet, anyone can say anything anywhere), but since it just happened that I hadn't unwatched your page after our conversation last week, these tidbits here came to my attention. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It is hard to find myself in the middle of this because I think highly of both Petra, and you, and Doc James. I don't know you, but if memory serves me correctly you were good friends with Moni3, and I worshiped the ground she walked on--which made any friend of hers a friend of mine. As for Doc James, over the years he has always been helpful and kind, and I especially appreciate the "kind" part, what with so much goddamn meanness around here. As for Petra, few people know how dedicated she has been to this place and how many hours she has put into the articles that she has worked on.

I hope that feelings haven't been so hurt that it is beyond repair. Sandy, it seems that you are not aware of how much my feelings were hurt at the cholera article. I hope that in the future you do not embarrass fellow editors by telling them to be more careful. You could say, "Did you know...", or "I wonder if we should..." or something--anything but tell them that they are being careless. I'm sure that you would not say that to one of your fellow employees. That is something one might be expected to hear from their boss if they were getting a bad review. I was surprised that you did not say you were sorry. Gandydancer (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Moni was certainly one of a kind!!! And I worry that Doc James is going to burn out if he keeps working as hard as he does. I am sorry your feelings were hurt at cholera, and will take your advice on board. As to Petra, well, considering she has some blather about "peace" on her user page, I have rarely worked with such a mean-spirited person in here. Perhaps she can be convinced to adjust her approach (and take less cue from Viriditas, who has been hostile as well). Seriously, folks AGF works; we're not all enemies in here. Petra might also try to learn some better sourcing practices, as almost all of her work requires correction because of poor sourcing. We just want accurate information on one of the top websites about medical conditions. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Why?

[1] Rcsprinter (state) @ 00:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Opps--so sorry. I reverted my edit. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy, healthy

Christ Mass to you, Gandy. Your support has meant the world to me this year. You are a dear, and everyone knows it. You're the most NPOV editor I've come across, truthfully, and nothing better could be said about someone here. petrarchan47tc 07:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

17 hugs for you. petrarchan47tc 00:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

And, you might like this and this petrarchan47tc 02:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Gandy! You figured out how to re-size the images! Now I know where to go for tech help! I made them a wee bit larger, see what you think. petrarchan47tc 21:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Darold Treffert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MIND (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Justice Pauley

In the US, the title "Justice" is only used for judges who hold seats on the supreme courts of individual states or who are one of the nine judges who comprise the Supreme Court of the United States. The title "Judge" is used for other judges, such as Judge Pauley. [2] Dezastru (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget my favorite --- Judge Judy. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the spam removed

Please read WP:REFSPAM before re-adding someone's reference spam, as you did with this edit. A single-purpose account whose only edits to Wikipedia have been to insert references by an author whose name matches their username is spam, which is inappropriate and should be removed per WP:SPAM. If it is a legitimately useful reference that truly improves the article in some way, that should be discussed on the talk page and then reinserted into the article. However, citation spamming should not be included in an article just because it matches the article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yodeling may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:AutryBlueYodel5.ogg|thumb|left|Autry, Blue Yodel 5]
• The Secret History of Yodeling Around the World'' by Bart Plantenga, New York: Routledge, 2004), ISBN 0-415-93990-9 – from [[Switzerland]] to the [[avant-garde]], an exhaustive survey of the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duluth, Minnesota, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sault Ste. Marie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren

Hi. I don't want to edit war, but I don't understand why you're deleting the 1/32nd stuff on Elizabeth Warren. It's in the cited sources, and we can use other ones as well. The 1/32nd issue is important to help people understand what her heritage is. Steeletrap (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC) The 1/32nd isn't the main issue, however. Some people with very limited NA ancestry grew up on reservations or among a tribe, owing to past discrimination and segregation stemming from the one-drop rule rule. Her problem is that she has no connection to any NA tribe or community, and that all her ancestors were classified as white (genealogical evidence of heritage is required for tribal registration). Thus, she's not Native American according to the federal definitions, which require "tribal affiliation or community attachment." She misrepresented herself, perhaps inadvertently, as Harvard was asking the question for reporting purposes (to the federal government). She also stood to benefit from her misrepresentation, as Native Americans receive affirmative action in education and hiring. (It's possible, of course, that she would've gotten the job anyway.) It's possible that she made the error in good faith, but that would at the very least be an example of gross irresponsibility. Steeletrap (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the note. I'm aware of everything you say here because it has been discussed to the point that I can hardly stand to go over it again and again at the article talk page. All of this and more have been brought up and what was in the article before your edit was the result of compromise. While your desired edits may seem reasonable, I can think of many more that would be reasonable as well. We simply cannot have a huge section of her bio dedicated to what was, in the end, a minor bump in her (successful) run for senate. I would have hoped that with time this section would have grown smaller rather than larger--I am not at all happy with the copy that I added, and I would hope to return to the long-standing compromise version. Gandydancer (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. It probably got more RS coverage than any issue of the campaign, and was the first question asked in the debates. That she won in spite of it doesn't mean it wasn't a big issue. I think it deserves a sub-section, but even if you don't, there is no reason why we shouldn't be more specific about the facts in the paragraph we have. Steeletrap (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you've (perhaps inadvertently) hit on the answer in your comment: the Cherokee heritage question was a major talking point during the campaign. Extended coverage belongs at United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, not in Warren's biography, because the issue had no previous or ongoing coverage outside the context of one specific political campaign. MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT In that case you will need to find a qualified person that states that she is or is not 1/32 Native American, or a statement by her saying "[she] states that she is 1/32nd Native American through a great-great-great grandmother", (per your edit). I have only seen her to state that family lore says that they are both Delaware and Cherokee. Gandydancer (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I'll do that later tonight. I'm also going to provide an RS regarding the federal definition of Native American, which she clearly put on her job application. (she hasn't even denied this.) If you look at Harvard's current law faculty, all the profs are from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, UChicago, Columbia, G-Town, and other elite schools. Rutgers is the lowest ranked school (per the U.S. News and World Report law school rankings, surveys of lawyers, employment outcomes at top firms and in academia) ever to have graduated an HLS professor. Warren was also billed by Harvard as the only female "racial minority" Professor; they wouldn't do this if Warren had only (casually) defined herself as NA at cocktail parties; they must have had official documentation.

It's true that the guy who hired her said it made no difference. But if he said it did make a difference, he'd be admitting that Harvard acquiesced to fraud, as (again) she doesn't meet the federal definition of Native American, and racial categories on job applications are used for reporting purposes to the federal government. Steeletrap (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You have ignored MastCell's advice and even added a Controversy section. I reverted to a long-stable version. This discussion should continue at the article talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it should. Maybe a sub-section is excessive, but this issue merits much more than one paragraph. It drew more RS attention than most of the stuff covered extensively on the page. Steeletrap (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to revert, you need to at least try to engage me on the talk page, with reasons for your revert. Steeletrap (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Where/when was the consensus for your version? (diffs, please) I don't see a clear consensus in favor of your favored version. Argumentative fatigue does not equate to consensus. I do see a lot of straw-man arguments being used on that talk page to exonerate Warren, such as the claim that Warren is not accepted as Native American because of her complexion. The problem isn't that she's saying she's multiracial while 'looking white' -- you don't see Mariah Carey or Jason Kidd have their integrity questioned for identifying as both black and white because of their parents ancestry. The problem is that she says she's multiracial and is not.

I am far from anti-Warren. I agree with her politics and would've voted for her over Brown (though I do believe in affirmative action, and oppose lying and misrepresentation). However, I am also an anthropologist who knows race is classified under federal law. Unlike other racial categories, documented ancestry (which she lacks) is not sufficient to be NA; you need to be registered with a tribe or immersed in the community. I can guarantee that this (official/federal) definition is what's used on applications to work or study at Harvard, because that stuff is used for reporting purposes (as you saw in the HLS "affirmative action" report that cited an NA female Professor (Warren)).

A school would never -- indeed cannot -- put someone down as Native American on documents sent to the federal government simply because she once mentioned, in a cocktail party or whatever, that she part NA. Formal (written) self-identification on an official form is required to document someone as being a member of race x or y (there are high profile cases of black conservatives who oppose affirmative action and refused to identify their race on applications; should a school admit or hire such an individual, it cannot classify them as black in 'diversity reports' to the feds after realizing that she is black.) Warren must have conveyed that information to them them on an employment application, which she knew or should have known would be used for federal reporting/affirmative action purposes.

The evidence against the idea that she received affirmative action (the statement from a guy who hired her that said it was solely on the merits and not her race) is pathetic; do you think that Harvard Law School would ever say that a (non-fake) racial minority, who was eligible for affirmative action, was hired or admitted because of her/his race? Also, they have an incentive to cover up their own false filing of a "underrepresented minority female professor" to the EEOC. Steeletrap (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap, I think you and the two other editors here (Gandydancer and MastCell) are talking past each other. As I understand it, Gandydancer is essentially echoing WP:BALASPS, which says that article content should be covered in rough proportionality with its notability. This means that you don't only have to convince editors that the information is notable, but also that it's more notable than other subjects in the article that get less real estate. In MastCell's comment I hear WP:RECENTISM, which is a school of thought saying we should take the long view (say, ten years) when determining notability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

GA improvements at 2012 Delhi gang rape

Perhaps the new section should be called "Legacy", as there is more to it than some analysis made one year later. The section thus named can hold more material, including new laws proposed or passed, and comparisons made in the future.

I really want to see this article go to GA, and I'm glad that you guys are jumping in to expand it. Again, ping me when it's ready for GAN3. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bink. Please feel free to offer suggestions. I do not consider myself a very good editor--in fact, this is about the last thing I ever thought I'd ever be doing. In college I breezed thorough any kind of science but I almost felt ill when it came to any writing project. Gandydancer (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you have an energetic colleague at the article, so that makes it easier. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Who is that? Gandydancer (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thanks a lot for the barnstar buddy, although you are far more deserving than me for the amount of work you have done. Keep editing, keep inspiring. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because I wrote most of the copy does not mean that I didn't need someone to bear with me as it came together and give occasional encouragement. BTW Rsrikanth, I like being your buddy and I hope you'd say the same if you knew that I'm a gurl. (I don't usually tell people that--only people that I trust.) Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As one of the main people working on getting more female editors from India, you being a girl just makes this place a better place. :) --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with getting more women to edit here... I doubt that most women have time to edit--I have time only because I'm retired. I used to try to talk my friends into becoming editors but never got even one woman to give it a try. I don't try to recruit anymore because this place has changed so much that I don't believe that a new woman with my general outlook - and the one I share with my friends - could stand it around here. Sometimes I can hardly stand it myself and just steer clear of a lot of topics I'm interested in. That said, for the most part I enjoy editing and I "love" Wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's good to have you here! --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to discuss on the article Talk page?

Why do you insist on edit warring without discussing the edits at issue on the article Talk page? The only thing I have seen you address on that Talk page is my edits to the Talk page, declaring that my detailed explanations and defences there constitute "tendentious editing" by virtue of their length alone, mixed in with your opinions about me as an editor without any reference to my article edits. Please show me the policy which instead of inviting people to address disputes on article Talk pages, warns them to not participate too much. Do you have anything at all to say about edits to the ARTICLE? Even your edit summaries say nothing about the material you are reverting. I've encountered my share of edit warriors on Wikipedia over my many years here, but it is quite unusual to encounter someone whose effort to defend the SUBSTANCE they are reverting doesn't even rise to the level of token. If you ever made any comment that indicated that you even read what you are reverting, please feel free to point it out. I come here in order to extend another invitation to discuss whatever your problem is.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duluth, Minnesota, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Webster, Wisconsin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2012 Delhi gang rape

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2012 Delhi gang rape you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Binksternet -- Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Mass surveillance

WikiProject Mass Surveillance Dear, Gandydancer. We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Mass surveillance, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to the privacy and global surveillance. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. -- HectorMoffet (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"...I'd rather have all of my fingernails pulled out..."

I find it extremely heart-warming (but not all that surprising) when I discover how you feel about "the most dangerous and dirtiest Wikipedia editor I've come across". Have a great year editing, ```Buster Seven Talk 16:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Buster. While there certainly are a group of editors that I believe must get their information from Fox News and the like, I am grateful for the ones that I would consider part of my circle of friends in real life. People like you. Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Not helpful

This wasn't constructive. Please refrain from such personal attacks in the future. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to think about why it is that some editors have problems dealing with you. Reading the following at ANI tells me that I am not alone when I become irritated with your frequent hypocritical comments.

"DrFleischman once declared his exasperation about another editor's behavior which he described as "Every edit, every source is contested" only to himself engage in very similar behavior "No, we don't have to go with what the news sources think is relevant. We are not a newspaper." on another article, followed by rants on the talk pages of editors who raised an eyebrow [3] followed by ultimatums to another [4]. Wnt casting vague aspersions of COI with which DrFleischman then easily self-identifies for point-scoring purposes is surely not the best way to deal with his behavior, but then WP:BEAR, WP:SPADE, and WP:HYPOCRISY applies too. As another sampling point, DrFleischman immediately chided another editor for expressing his exasperation with him [5] while freely dispensing his own snotty "advice" like "Hurry along, now.","Just please try to keep your punches above the belt" and "stop with the sighs and groans" to those trying to discuss matters with him. If other editors posted a warning to his talk page every time he says something disrespectful toward them, then DrFleischman's talk page would be miles long. But I guess playing the hurt WP:DIVA works well enough around here. Unfortunately, I've seen this tactic successfully used on ANI before. Phrasing the personal attacks in the snotty imperative seems to bypass the civility filter of most admins. DrFleischman's continued insistence on an apology or block of Wnt well after Wnt removed the questionable allusion [6] (this ANI report was filed after DrFleischman declared his impatient dissatisfaction with that solution [7][8]) is just another example of the general WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude exhibited by DrFleischman. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)"

Did you notice this history?

[9]. Very contentious. Alatari (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did. I remain very dissatisfied with her article. Wikipedia readers are not aware that the political slant of our articles is often dictated by just a few editors. One fine day in the future I will attempt to revert and see what happens, but I don't expect much of any luck--it is my impression that the progressives are falling behind while those who watch Fox News for their news are gaining ground. Gandydancer (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2012 Delhi gang rape

The article 2012 Delhi gang rape you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Binksternet -- Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

2012 Delhi gang rape GA

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Congratulations for teaming with Rsrikanth05 to promote 2012 Delhi gang rape to Good Article status. It is a terrible topic—important learning for India and the whole world. Your work lays the foundation for lasting social benefit derived from individual tragedy. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Your fearless truth-telling is sort of a 'wildcard' in the wild mix Wikipedia has to offer. Thank you for again standing by my side. You always show up at just the right time to say just the right thing. Priceless and rare you are. So glad you exist. petrarchan47tc 00:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Condolences

For your recent loss. My prayers are with you. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh no. Mine are too now, I am so sorry to hear this. My heart hugs you all ways, Gandy. petrarchan47tc 00:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much to both of you. I've started a note a few times and end up deleting it. Her passing was not terribly difficult because she (and I) had several years to prepare for it. Plus, we both believe that this present life is only part of a soul's existence, though exactly what happens next we are not sure!  :) Gandydancer (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	You deserve this. The way you brought up that article during the GA review. The way you copy edited it, added sources, formatted it, all of it. Thank you, for being such an awesome and if I may say so; 'kickass' edit partner. I had given up on the GA, but you convinced me to do what little I did with dedication. Thanks a lot. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"That sort of behavior sucks"

May I remind you that it took Petrarchan a full week to respond to me? I happened to be on a cruise ship last week meaning I could not then immediately respond to the comment of hers that she took a week to get around to. I'm sorry if my taking a vacation offended you. Now may I suggest addressing content issues instead of this sort of thing?--Brian Dell (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This sort of behaviour sucks ass. Though you were asked three times, you refused to cite the exact text sourced to the article you were complaining about. Finally tonight, 20+ days after the initial complaint, I discovered there was nothing whatsoever sourced to the Masnick piece. Nothing. This type of time-wasting is only going to be tolerated for so long... petrarchan47tc 09:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There's being deliberately obtuse and then there is being so deliberately obtuse that you demand that I read your mind and explain to you just what you thought including that Masnick blogpost was supposed to accomplish when that "Masnick piece" was first introduced to the article BY YOU. "Finally tonight" you stop edit warring (apparently as a consequence to my badgering @Binksternet enough to given an opinion on this on the Talk page instead of Binksternet just reflexively reverting back to your preferred version which includes this) and now you say there was never ever anything "whatsoever sourced to" this blogpost anyway! Why did you add it in the first place, never mind edit warring to add it back for more than month, if including this was, as you now say, pointless from the very beginning? How much of my time, your time, Binksternet's time, and Wikipedia's time in general could have been saved had you just let it go the first time I removed the use of that blogpost from the article?--Brian Dell (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Subverting research

Hi Gandy, i hope you're well. Thought of you today... this (transcript) might make a great contribution to your list of COI in research. Or something. Anyway, it's important since Wikipedia doesn't really take nuances like what's contained in this report into account when we hold as unquestioningly reliable and neutral MEDRS and other official stamps-of-approval. petrarchan47tc 09:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Petrar, Thanks but I watch (or record) Democracy Now every day. I've been working on his article and plan to add more re this recent disclosure as time permits. Come on over--the more the merrier... One thing that stuck in my mind was his statement re universities are being taken over by corporations, something I pretty much knew already. ...and people question whether or not the same thing is happening to Wikipedia! (Gandy crosses her eyes). BTW, I have a list of COI in research. Here it is: COI in research: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Gandydancer (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gandy, I don't know how this happened, except that things have been quite crazy lately... I missed this response from you, and the sweet compliment you left under Hector's comment at my talk page. Thank you so much for those words. Wow. This MEDRS thing is increasingly upsetting, but I have OD'ed on upsetting things for the moment. I do like the idea of joining you (Oh! you canvasser, you!) at a peaceful article. Meanwhile, BP has become very lucky indeed, as a few uncomfortable details about their oil spill are being erased, tagged, questioned, and rewritten across multiple articles. Not haphazardly either, all very focused on damage to health of workers and environment. I am pretty sure this is exactly what is at issue in their trial right now. Same ole. I'll leave you with a hug... not sure how much I'll be around, but just know I'm always going to be supporting you and grateful we met. petrarchan47tc 09:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Saguache, Colorado (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Thresher, Alpine and Old Spanish Trail

Saguache Crescent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Masthead

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Saguache Crescent DYK

Take a look at the comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Saguache Crescent and see what you think. I'm pretty quick at fixing up references but I'm busy for another day working a disputed biography. The too-close paraphrasing needs to be addressed. :(

Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you, long overdue

Returning the favor and flavor, much appreciated. El duderino (abides) 04:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Saguache Crescent

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for being open-minded and giving me a second look. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but I still find you very unpleasant to work with. When an editor arrives on the scene when Bink, Petrar and I were dealing with an editor that I find very difficult (and "exhausting") and says:

This "you are exhausting" talk is destructive, non constructive, and is contrary to the spirit of the project. Anyone who is too "exhausted" to address the good-faith concerns of their fellow editors ought to take a good long wikibreak, and consider focusing their efforts on less controversial subjects. That goes for all of you. Yes, including you, Petrarchan. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Just who in the hell do you think you are anyway? Is this the way you speak with your friends or fellow employees? If you do, I can tell you that there is plenty of eye-rolling going on behind your back.

That said, I actually do believe that you are not aware of the way you come across and do not intend to be so difficult. And I believe that you are sincere when you say that you wish this could be worked out for the good of both the article and Wikipedia.

I'm so sorry that I got involved in this at all. I thought long and hard before I spoke out on Bink's page because I think so highly of both Petrar and Bink and did want it to seem that I did not support them. But to your credit, I felt that you were the sort that was mature and honest enough to discuss and hopefully come together. Gandydancer (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

My comment about "you are exhausting" was intended to stem the increasing tide of incivility on that talk page. It obviously backfired, and I regret that. If my comment came off as somehow snide or patronizing, I apologize. Sincerely. I don't know what you mean when you say "just who the hell do you think you are," I'm just another independent editor trying to edit peacefully and hope that others do the same. Regardless, I don't expect you (or any other editor, for the matter) to think highly of me. Peaceful coexistence is enough. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, OK then. Bink, Petrar and I need help from a Wikipedia expert, Dr. Fleischman, about how to conduct ourselves on talk pages? (I have to admit that I can't help but chuckle at this because I have worked with groups that work on communication. Most of us are surprised when we receive feedback about how we come across--but some more than others...} Gandydancer (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I never suggested I was an expert, but yes, we could all use a little constructive feedback now and then. In my personal experience, sometimes the best insights come from the most unexpected places. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, constructive feedback is fine, but you don't seem to know the difference in feedback and acting in a very irritating manner. Petrar and I both said that Bdell was frustrating us by writing article-length posts that he expected us to read and respond to. We said he was exhausting.

I note that you are now having the same experience. You say to him:

"Seriously, is your goal to convince me of something or keep arguing longer and longer, more and more vehemently until I cry uncle? Your comment doesn't appear intended to achieve the former. Your argument has gotten absurdly complex, to the point where my simple brain can no longer understand it, let alone respond to it. Please write, in four sentences or less, what you want and why."

You won't see Petrar, Bink or me step in to reprimand you here because there is nothing wrong with your post in the same way there was nothing wrong with ours. That's why I find you so irritating. You go around as though some editors need your parental help and instructions on how to behave with an I'm OK, you suck attitude. Gandydancer (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but that sounds like a reprimand to me. Along with the multiple "who do you think you are" comments. Truce? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Btw, you and Petrarchan are probably in stitches over my recent interactions with Brian Dell at Talk:Edward Snowden, ad you have a right to be. Now that Brian's putting me through the ringer I certainly understand your frustration and "exhaustion." Then again while you may have been fully justified in feeling the way you did, IMO that didn't justify you expressing it to Brian, which was inflammatory and uncivil, even if honest. In any case, my reason for bringing this up isn't to justify my involvement; rather, just the opposite. If I had been actively participating in that discussion (rather than passively observing) I would have better appreciated what you and Petrarchan had been dealing with and I probably would have kept my mouth shut. So, in hindsight, I'm sorry for that indiscretion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcoming

See my talk page. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Buster. Gandydancer (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Happy 8th of March

Hi Gandydancer, Happy International Womens Day! Your contribs have really inspired me a lot and I hope we can jointly edit some other article in the future. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So good to hear from you! Any special article that you may be interested in? Gandydancer (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to get Rajani Pandit to a DYK on the 8th, but got a bout of flu and fell severely behind. We could work on a few women related DYKs. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Must one finish within a specified time limit or can one use the date on which they feel that the article is ready? It's a great article for DYK, though it still needs a little work. Gandydancer (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(watching) "finished" is not the question, but it has to be nominated within 5 days from creation which passed. You could now do one of the following: 1) expand 5 times (seems tough), 2) nominate and claim flu, 3) write a connected article and mention her in the hook, - such articles get a lot of attention even if not bold. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, I read all the refs and I'd say that he has gleaned about everything there is that could go in her article. We'll see what he thinks... Gandydancer (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, I took all that into consideration. It was a new article. I expanded it to the min. limit of 1500chars on the first day before I fell ill. I popped up again on the fourth day, checked with DYKchecker and it said four days ago. With around 10mb left on my Internet plan, I nominated it before heading back to the hospital. Looks like it'll be live a few hours. Gandydancer, thank you so much for all your help. :) P.S: As for expansion, don't worry, my first DYK and my most recent one were expanded to ~5000 chars. A bit difficult, but humanely possible. :) -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

All looks fine, thank you for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for all the help you two! It means a lot. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

to answer your question on my talk: when I named 3 possibilities I was under the (wrong) impression that it was to late for a timely nomination. In such a case, one possibility would be to say "I nominate this late because I had the flu." I - as a reviewer - would accept it ;) - You can always expand an article 5* - if you can. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

ps: I listed her here, - feel free to add more women you know, created or featured in March, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I came online, put in a nom and went back. :) Anyway, thanks for adding it to the list. Any ideas on other articles that could be created? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of ideas. I recently went over lists in German to add red links to the list of female dancers, then filled some. (Ideally, they should first be created, then added to that list.) Look for red links in areas that interest you. Women are preferred this month ;) I have five stubs of (female) opera singers on my user page that I want to expand later, but you could do it now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Will get to it. Right after I finish my current [not women related] article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I recently did a DYK article and I thought I'd never do that again!, but as it turned out it was fun after all, and I'm ready to do it again. In my Yodeling article I mention a woman, Beulah Henderson, who performed in vaudeville. Although she was a black woman, she had to wear blackface for her performances--that's how it was back then (and there is the perfect hook line!). Rsrikanth, perhaps you could help me? Gandydancer (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Gladly. Will do so shortly. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Waves at TPS

Hiya! The article I mentioned in passing on the other page is Doyle Doss which if you search "Doyle Doss, Eureka, California" you'll rapidly come up with a totally different impression of the subject than a man who can glue two flower pots together or drill a hole in a motorcycle helmet in his secluded workshop outside of town. I am concerned that despite surviving my nomination for non-notable that this fellow continues to brag up to locals and children about how he's "on Wikipedia". I personally read the one NYT article as a bored writer's response to a press release. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm...[17] Gandydancer (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it should hit AfD again. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

New article and DYK

Hiya, since my prev. DYK submission is complete, I thought we could start on our next Women related article for DYK. I'm hoping the two of us could work on more than one. Hope to hear from you very soon. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not had much spare time. I did work on my article and had a good start and lost it because I was not saving it as I went along... I have started again. I'm hoping to pad the article out a little with vaudeville information. Do you know about how to get a photo? This one is out there [18] Gandydancer (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find something on Flickr? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that nothing else exists. Gandydancer (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Precious

environment dancer
Thank you for quality articles such as Yodeling and Saguache, Colorado, for taking care of articles mentioning victims of rape and oil spill, for working for the environment and bringing in your personal experience, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It is so nice of you to think of me! Your recognition means a lot to me. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No one deserves this praise more. You ARE a most awesome Wikipedian. petrarchan47tc 11:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Syngenta article

Wow, what a large Talk page! It's obvious you're very active on the wiki. Anyway, I wanted to apologize for undoing your changes on the Syngenta article--but I think the additional references are relevant. I have read several articles on Hayes, and he's made multiple claims in the past similar to those made in The New Yorker article. They all share two things in common: they're against Syngenta, and he has zero proof. (He's also made some claims against his employer, Berkeley, along the same lines and similarly has no proof.) I'd consider the fact he did this before to be sufficient reason to include the other refs, albeit with altered language in the main article. And no, I don't have a vendetta against the guy; but I have met, and like, the Syngenta scientist that he defamed in The New Yorker article. I also restored the reference to Syngenta's formal response, but could go either way on that. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello again! I don't want to drag you into the mess, but if you've kept up on the recent changes to the Syngenta article you know that there's an edit war going on. My intent in the edit war was to balance out Binksternet's statements which were, in my opinion, highly biased. (For example, twice describing Hayes' accusations then deleting references to Syngenta's response is suspect in my view.) That said, I am far less experienced on Wikipedia than you, Jytdog, or Binksternet, and I would welcome any (unbiased) response from you on what mistakes I have made. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, it can be very difficult to understand the WP sourcing policies. When I first started editing it sometimes seemed that everything that I added was deleted. Just keep at it and you will continue to learn how it works. I still have plenty of questions from time to time. Gandydancer (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

WWGD

Gandy, just wondering what you would do, if you were me? Obviously there is no peace in our future at the oil spill articles. It got crazy before the trial started up last year too. I'm completely out of energy when it comes to struggle here. So just walk away? Where are all the independent editors helping to keep these articles updated? Do they just show up to fill a void, or if everyone walks away, do the articles just become a whitewashed joke? How is that acceptable? I'm asking because I value peace these days over all else (out of necessity), and I don't see how I can be here peacefully. I'm not asking for this strife, it's coming to my doorstep. Any insights? petrarchan47tc 06:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there Petrar, well I do have some advice: Quit suggesting that some of the editors here are paid editors. If you're wrong it's slandering their name and if you're right they're certainly not going to admit it. That's about all the advice I've got other than to beg you to not leave--you're just too valuable here. As for the problems with Wikipedia, you and I are of like minds on just about everything and we see the same problems in the world so I guess that it's no surprise that WP reflects those same problems. Here's some Pema Chodron and bell hooks for you to read--I think it will help. [19] Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I love Pema. Thank you for this feedback, this is truly helpful. I see it thrown around quite a bit that I am accusing others of being paid, or of being shills. Or working for the FBI. Yet I never do. I point out that a big trial is coming up for BP - is that crossing the line? What is meant by my accusing others of being paid, besides extrapolations from these obvious connections I point out? Why has no one bothered to help wih the corexit article in 4 years until the Clean Water Act trial date is announced, and why is the 'help' all about minimizing damage to the water? If I am asked to say nothing of this, but to endure the bullshit going on (not sure if you're aware of what's been going on) - well that just doesn't make sense to me. Zero sense. I'm still at a loss for how to be here, staying in my truth, and stay sane. One thing is, and this is not directed at you, but there are is really no one out there stepping in to help, and it's a frustrating, somewhat desperate feeling. Especially when ganged up on, and especially when there is a vicious attitude on the other end. I think when folks are here too spin articles - I don't know how they're being compensated if at all and I don't comment on that aspect, ever - they can't use guidelines and have to ignore them or play dumb once a while. What I'm seeing is that when folks need to 'play' with guidelines to get their wanted version of an article, they simultaneously play with editors, causing lots of turmoil, taking them to noticeboards, leaving nasty notes, following them to other articles, finding ways to take them out. This is happening to me not because I called someone a shill or paid, because I haven't. It's happening to me for simply standing up for the truth, when that truth hurts nothing but BPs chances of getting the lower fine rather than the higher one. I can't see what else I'm doing wrong here. I'm following guidelines and adding only well sourced material. I do not know what to do when I get attacked for that. I say what I see happening, hoping that someone wil step in and make things right, I'm not well versed in the whole noticeboard thing, and don't know how to deal with the type of stuff that I'm experiencing right now. Do you really think it's worth it? Do you really believe that what I experience, I deserve? That to keep truths in a Wikipedia article one must endure what I do? The reason I have a couple people after me is because I've spoken the truth. And although I never accused the Monsanto gatekeeper of being paid, it's pretty ridiculous to imagine someone sitting around for hours every day protecting a billion$ company out of an organic passion for truth, rather than some form of compensation. If I'm not allowed to say something like this, I'm definitely in the wrong place. "Stay, help, but never state the obvious!!" That's a brain and a soul-twister. I don't dig a twisted soul, I speak out to keep mine intact. petrarchan47tc 17:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you will find my feedback harsh but I will share my truth as well. Keep in mind that you asked for my opinion and I didn't just volunteer it.

You said, "I point out that a big trial is coming up for BP - is that crossing the line?". Yes, I think that it is and IMO it is as bad if not worse than coming right out and saying xxx must work for XXX because their edits are so biased. You say, " One thing is, and this is not directed at you, but there are is really no one out there stepping in to help, and it's a frustrating, somewhat desperate feeling." If that is the case you will just need to back off and do the best you can. If you really care about accuracy in WP articles with the progressive side fairly represented, it won't do any good to get so frustrated that you quit editing all together. You say, ""Stay, help, but never state the obvious!!" I don't think that it is obvious at all. I think that it's important to keep in mind the fact that to corporate America our lives aren't worth even $1.99 to GM and corporations are eager to improve their image in any way they can at any cost (and this is only going to get worse) but you're going to have to keep your suspicions to yourself. That's what I do and I don't think that you are any more dedicated to the truth than I am. Incidentally, I am far from certain that the Monsanto articles have a paid editor. When he came to that article it was a mess--as so many of our articles are what with being put together over time with a catch as catch can method of information reporting. And in all honesty, he is very good at what he does. Some people are--they can envision a master plan and carry it out expertly. Add to that a possibility of a compulsive (not necessarily using that term is a negative way) personality determined to redo every article that has anything, no matter how loosely connected, and you could get what we've got. But that said, even without the issue of paid editing I remain convinced that it is very unhealthy for Wikipedia to have all of the Monsanto articles--Monsanto being perhaps the most controversial corporation in America-- written by the same person. And unlike accusations of paid editing, I can freely make that statement, IMO.

Petrar, I really do think that you need to spend some time reading Pema and bell until their message begins to come to you. Ask Pema your questions and she will answer you if you try hard enough. Your editing here has made a very positive impact on the information available to the readers of Wikipedia and I believe that you are a rare gem. But, to those who come into this plane with more, more is expected. You need to mature in the sense that Pema speaks of. I see your experience here as a great opportunity for growth. I hope that you realize that I wouldn't even dream of saying any of the things in this post to anyone else here. One is only completely honest, (when the honesty may be hurtful) with those that one has a great deal of respect for. Gandydancer (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I asked you because I knew you would tell me the unbiased truth, and I know you are as dedicated to it as I. Nothing you said is harsh. And thank you again for your special brand of love. As for Monsanto, I am not saying someone is being paid. We have little-to-no allowance to speak about spin-doctoring (or gate-keeping), but well-established rules against saying anything about it. It really does seem as if the community finds it more abhorrent to speak of spin doctoring than to engage in it, even when engaging in it is coupled with hostility and little understanding of WP guidelines, as we're seeing at BP articles. It seems as if everyone is asleep at the wheel, just watching from the sidelines as a 'commentary' is used to remove or discredit the one major study about Corexit. This is a big deal on many levels. As I said last month at the BP talk page, when we are looking at such a large company who is looking at such a large trial in the very near future, it seems prudent for WP to have some extra assistance just to watch that guidelines are followed and that independent editors aren't being abused or bulldozed by someone trying to question/change details related to the Clean Water Act phase of the trial. It is too much to expect us to deal with this onslaught. But if it's taboo to point out the timing/connection, and if no one is really keeping tabs on BP's trial, related science and WP articles, then I don't expect anything will be done to stop the whitewashing. If I didn't care about the facts in those articles, I wouldn't have worked on them so hard in the first place. However I am not up for fighting some jerk over it, again. That is why I am trying to call attention and get some help. But it appears the community would rather I shut up, and let the SPA's do whatever they want to 'help' with oil spill and dispersant articles. Such a strange response. petrarchan47tc 21:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

But, besides all of that, I do hear your deeper message, and I know and appreciate the energy behind your words. Thank you for pointing out that your comments are grounded in respect, and although I know this because you've been very good about expressing yourself in the past, it's still really nice to hear. I come to you when I am at a complete loss, due to my respect for your words and faith that your heart is always in a good place. petrarchan47tc 04:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll say this, Petrar, I see your almost childlike honesty as a core problem here. I believe that it is what makes you work so hard on the articles you edit and what draws others to you (and they are people of the highest of integrity) and yet it is what gets you in trouble. IMO you sometimes find it so hard to believe that anyone would believe corporate/governmental propaganda that you figure they must be getting compensated for their editing. I doubt that "the community" wants you to just shut up, but I'm willing to bet that I'm not the only one that wishes you'd quit suggesting that some editors appear to be getting compensated for their interest in certain articles.

About the Corexit problem. I left a note on the spill page re the study. I'm going to go to that page and ask if you (or anyone) would summarize what is going on there. I think that people are willing to help but the present situation can be confusing--not surprising when a legal battle is going on--and many of us have just thought for a long time that you have put so much energy into learning about Corexit that you will handle Corexit-related stuff and that article.

Keep readin' that Pema and bell! Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I died for this childlike innocence, and I'm not going to allow it to be tarnished by "reality" again. I'm not making comments about where anyone's paycheck is coming from so that's a dead issue.

As for Corexit, I can handle things unless energetic WP:SPAs come in and dedicate their days to undermining the one main study that has come out. No one needs to understand the intricacies of Corexit science to help with this - they just have to understand WP:RS rules. There is an obvious attempt to muddy the waters with lots of talking, accusations, and general meanness. We've seen this before. I have suggested we take this whole issue to a noticeboard to get help looking at the arguments presented & the science, and see what can be said. As you may remember, during the spill one of the main things we heard was "We just don't know enough" "We'll have to keep an eye on it, because we don't know the effects of Corexit". It was an experiment with the EPA's approval, sprayed by the USCG, under the direction of BP. Since then, the EPA has been very quiet about it, has not checked up on the Gulf as promised, and still has Corexit as a go-to in their spill response plan. Since there was little-to-no (admitted) science done on Corexit, this post-spill study finding the mixture to be 52x more toxic than oil alone is a big deal, and has been embraced by all - except the one BP-funded commentary. The study simply hasn't been questioned in any forum WP would recognize as RS, and although this whole argument on the talk page has been expected, and it isn't valid. There are others who have said the mixture is worse than either alone (Subra, etc) so this isn't a wild finding as the talk pagers would have you believe - they are banking on editors here being laypeople (gullible) and are using overly technical language to gain the upper hand and confuse everyone. A noticeboard is the place to sort this all out, in my opinion. petrarchan47tc 07:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

From the little that I know, it is not so much that Corexit by itself is toxic, it is the effect produced when it is combined with oil that makes it more able for sea creatures to absorb/ingest it and the surfactant effect on the membrane of the creature that removes any protective "film" that may be present. Excusing the poor wording, is it something like that? BTW, there are quite a few papers on it (and I have yet to see even one that suggests that Corexit does not make oil more toxic). See here: [20] Re the BP commentary re the 52 times study, I would really need to apply myself to have an opinion and even then my lack of background. I have seen in journals a case where someone writes in a rebuttal to a study that seems reasonable until the next month when a rebuttal of the rebuttal is printed. One needs at least a basic background to have an opinion. Not that my opinion matters when it comes to the article. This Corexit article is similar to all of the pesticide and other toxic chemicals in that at the end of the day it all depends on who has the most money to spend on studies which like opinion polls can show whatever the sponsor wants them to show. And then the government uses the corporate-influenced work for their decisions. Gandydancer (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, sweet pea, I truly think it is a simple matter of WP:RS. We can't use primary sources without a secondary review, end of story. For instance, with the commentary, a review would have (hopefully) pointed out the COI, and would give an idea of due weight by reflecting to the reader how accepted the original study is, and compare that reception with that given the rebuttal. Without that secondary source, we are left doing the work ourselves, and just happened to get lucky by that drive-by editor who tipped us off about BP's hand in the matter. We aren't expected to do this level of work, and that is why we can't use primary sources. As for dispersant science, you are so right - everyone says the mixture is worse than either alone. And dispersant is not used 'alone' so its toxicity after being mixed with oil is the only relevant metric. The crude oil that 'spilled' in the gulf was actually more like tar in substance. So, we have poured/sprayed at least 2 million gallons of a de-greaser (dispersant) that is capable of breaking apart the chemical bonds of tar - imagine what that does to flesh. It goes right through skin like it's nothing. That's why people and dolphins, and who knows what else, are experiencing skin lesions:

• Ott: "It's an industrial solvent. It's a degreaser. It's chewing up boat engines off-shore. It's chewing up dive gear on-shore. Of course it's chewing up people's skin. The doctors are saying the solvents are making the oil worse."
• Orr "The fumes were choking folks along the coast. Then you add the Corexit, and communities felt their lives became a laboratory, only they were the living experiment.” Orr spoke with people who had bled from their nose, ears, breasts, even anally. “One patient had a toilet filled with blood,” she said. Others complained of cognitive damage, including what one man called getting “stuck stupid,” when he temporarily cannot move or speak, but can still hear."
• 60 Minutes "Last Sunday, 60 Minutes revealed that two chemicals, which become highly toxic when mixed with oil, have been used in Australian waters to clean up two recent oil spills. The chemicals are COREXIT 9500 and COREXIT 9527. When COREXIT 9500 is mixed with oil, toxicity to biological matter increases 52 fold. Both chemicals were used in the Gulf of Mexico after BP’s Deep Water Horizon oil spill in 2010 - the world’s worst ever offshore oil disaster. In the three years since the US disaster, tens of thousands of Americans have fallen ill and some have died. Marine life, including dolphins and turtles, continue to wash ashore on a regular basis, poisoned by the oil and COREXIT mixture.
• BP's Corexit Oil Tar Sponged Up by Human Skin The Corexit that BP used to "disperse" the oil now appears to be making it tougher for microbes to digest the oil. The toxins in this unholy mix of Corexit and crude actually penetrate wet skin faster than dry skin (photos above)—the author describes it as the equivalent of a built-in accelerant—though you'd never know it unless you happened to look under fluorescent light in the 370nm spectrum. The stuff can't be wiped off. It's absorbed into the skin.
• Shaw "BP sprayed and injected 1.8 million gallons of Corexit dispersants into the Gulf, toxic chemicals that emulsify oil to “contain” the spill and prevent it from reaching shore. However, the properties that make it an effective dispersant also enable it to move through cell walls and damage vital organs. For many species, the Corexit-oil mixture is more toxic than oil alone because its toxicity is synergistic. Corexit 9527 alone contains a solvent that ruptures blood vessels and causes internal bleeding and nervous system damage, an effect that was documented in Exxon Valdez spill responders. Banned in the United Kingdom, where BP is headquartered, Corexit dispersants have permanently undermined the health of untold numbers of Americans. By sinking the oil to the sea floor, Corexit devastated the entire Gulf ecosystem from top to bottom. A recent study demonstrated that the Corexit-oil mixture is 52 times more toxic than oil alone in marine rotifers, zooplankton at the base of the food web. Concerns persist over fish deformities (shrimp with no eyes) and declines in the fish catch."
• Cope "BP and the US government have effectively been performing the largest chemical experiment in history on a civilian population without their knowledge or consent. "
• Ott There is fresh toxic dispersant being released every day on top of the oil. This is unprecedented. It has never been done in the world before at this rate over this long of a time. Nobody has absolutely any idea what will happen. What we do know is that dispersed oil is more toxic than undispersed oil and dispersed oil plus dispersant is more toxic than undispersed oil. We know that solvents, these are industrial solvents, they totally wreak havoc on the central nervous system of vertebrates, - birds, mammals, fish. We know that 2butoxyethanol it doesn't disappear right away. It stays. It solubulizes in oil and absorbs into biological tissue and then proceeds to wreak havoc. In people it is a fetal toxin. It creates blood disorders, liver and kidney problems. It's an endocrine disrupter, reproductive problems, the list goes on and on. This stuff was unleashed into the Gulf, and I have not seen the studies being done to tack where the dispersant is, how long it's going to be around, is it being taken up by different species in the ecosystem? The materials safety data sheet says that for Corexit 9500 it has the potential to bioaccumulate which means work its way up through the food web. We are over two and a half months in and the FDA still had no test for looking for 2butoxyethanol in fish, in seafood that was supposed to be harvested and put on the market. So its really this experiment of mammoth proportions that's been conducted in the Gulf without anybody's consent except the federal government. At what point do the people say this is an assault on my body, this is an insult to my freedoms and this has to be stopped? We never reached that point where we emptied the world's warehouse of Corexit 9527 just for example.
• Ott See image number 6 - skin lesions
• (Ott) Unfinished Business: The Unspoken Link Between Dispersants and Sick Children in the Gulf of Mexico
• PHOTOS A mysterious persistent skin rash has occurred across the Gulf, coincident with BP's release of oil and chemical dispersants. petrarchan47tc 00:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sneaky, huh?

Would you like to comment on the following? [21] Geogene (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the edit summary? I already told you why I erased it - "already addressed on talk". The section was added before I saw that it was being discussed already, so I removed it and commented in the existing section in my next edit. Big Conspiracy. petrarchan47tc 04:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm only bothered by it because of the pile-on that recently happened to me on that talk page, and which you generally stayed out of. I don't appreciate your telling me to stop editing, but that's all the grief I have towards you on it--your removing it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that you can do that without comment and I can't do that without a kangaroo trial. The partisanship bothers me. If I have a "battlefield mentality", small wonder. Somebody in an ANI thread I saw was caught deleting his nasty remarks long after the fact, and an admin said that while editors don't normally do that, it should be looked at as an attempt at retraction and that it would be unfair to attack him for it. By the way, I think they were talking about banning that editor for other things, so it's not like favoritism is likely there. Geogene (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I did look at Petrar's post--didn't she remove it about four minutes later? To compare that to removing a snarky post several days later is not reasonable. That said, Geogene I can certainly understand how you might have the notion that there was nothing wrong with removing your remarks if you had seen the same thing done at an ANI thread and it was only seen as "while editors don't normally do that, it should be looked at as an attempt at retraction and that it would be unfair to attack him for it." I'd like to see the interaction as perhaps I will learn something new. Gandydancer (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not see that until after that ugly, unnecessary exchange was over. And that "quote" is actually a paraphrase. But I do think you should see it: [22] Near the bottom of that case. Geogene (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Geogene, the exchange was not unnecessary and there was no pile on or partisan editing, but things here are getting "ugly" as you continue to attempt to blame me for pointing out that WP clearly states that what you did was against what is expected of an experienced editor (as compared to a new editor as is the case of the deletion you mentioned above). It should be obvious that your frequent habit of calling other BP related article editors incompetent fools and then criticizing Petrar for being uncivil and me for being untruthful and unjust for even pointing out that you were wrong to delete several of your uncivil posts is not acceptable--and certainly so when you say, for instance on MastCell's page, that the main problem with the BP articles is a behavioral problem and that the editors are attempting to chase you away by behaving poorly. I'm not going to waste any more time on this and I will delete any further conversation about this topic. Gandydancer (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Helen Caldicott

Hi Gandydancer, I noticed that you immediately reverted my edit in the Helen Caldicott article. I know that you passionately support her cause, but that doesn't mean that other people can't improve the article. My changes made Caldicott's work more clear and are in no way derogatory to her or her work. If you don't like my wording (or think that I'm wrong) then this is something to discuss, but reverting with "not an improvement" as a reason isn't OK. Thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.48.81.44 (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I see you have again been reverted (twice) by another editor. For comparison you may want to read the Ron Paul article. However, I do agree that you were correct to point out that physician alone was not appropriate to list as her career and I was going to add "activist", but I see that another editor has done that. Gandydancer (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

A response

Please read my response here.
Best wishes,
Doc – DocRushing (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC).

Please read another message from me here.

Smiles!

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC).

Please read my note to Binksternet.

Smiles always!

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duluth, Minnesota, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fond du Lac (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Bridgegate article

Glad you see you there. The article definitely needs more eyes. Coretheapple (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm still reading it and have just got to the report's outrageous remarks about Bridget Kelly. I realize that this is a side issue, however those remarks are so blatantly sexist that it makes one wonder who in the hell, what sort of idiots, wrote the thing anyway. I'm hoping that if you agree you can come up with something? BTW, political sexism was discussed on last night's Jon Stewart program and it was one of his best shows ever. Gandydancer (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I'd encourage you to pitch in. We need more editors on that page itself, and to be frank pretty much everything I do is reverted by Wondering55, so having a different editor add on that aspect would probably have a greater chance of survivability. It received a great deal of attention at the time and you're right, it deserves more. I do suggest, as I mentioned on the talk page, that you consider breaking the "Office of Governor report" section into subsections for readability, as it is now a mass of grey. Indeed, that section and the entire article is clunky in its writing style, so whatever changes you can make in that realm would be tremendously welcome. Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sunflowers and cukes

Would you try this for me? I don't have the space. I'm so glad to hear you're back in the garden where you belong. Wear a hat! And consider giving us an updated picture. Gandy, there is hope. Remember, the Bald Eagle was near extinction from DDT, but when we found out, we put an end to it and they are back! petrarchan47tc 20:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this encouraging reminder! We read and watch a lot of the same stuff and it can get pretty depressing. Sometimes I just take a break from watching, for instance LINK TV, at all because I just can't stand any more depressing news. By nature I am an optimist, but these last few years it has been hard to keep a hopeful viewpoint.

About Rachel Carson, a few years ago I lived right on the coast and walked it every day. Sometimes I walked the coast in the very same place that she walked when she wrote her book. I watch her article and I notice that she and other earth-loving women such as Helen Caldicott (sp?) are just absolutely hated by some (I think) men that edit here. On the other hand, it is (I think) mostly men that have worked so hard to keep the [[Abortion}} article woman friendly.

Speaking of birds, our yearly blue crane is back! As I watch him I have to chuckle as he does his "Crane Walk"--that is referring to Robert Bly's use of the crane to help men to take back their male power--I have put that poorly but I'm sure you know what I mean. Incidentally, I knew Robert Bly--a good man who did a lot of good work and wrote beautiful poems. Even still, my daughters, who waitressed him in Moose Lake, Minnesota, (correctly) called him a "pompous ass". Knowing what my teen-aged daughters thought of him, since teens are sometimes more insightful than adults, helped me to learn to not put admired individuals on a pedestal.

Sooo, to circle back to cukes on sunflowers. As I'm sure you know, sunflower stalks have been used as bean poles. I've never tried cukes on them, but this year I certainly am going to give it a try. Cucumber beetles are at their peak early in the season and I have lost my entire crop to them. They go after the squash as well, but the cukes seem to be favorites. Since I grow organic and the bees are busy at work, I don't dare to use even organic pesticides. BUT, planting them later may do the trick. I will try it and let you know how it goes.

It's always good to chat with you Petrar. How are your doing and what are you up to these days? Gandydancer (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

(I'll be back later, but for now...) I expect the updated garden to look something like this ;) petrarchan47tc 22:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It pains me to say it, but because I'm being followed around by trolls, I don't feel happy to engage in personal talk on WP anymore. From recent experience, it will end up at a noticeboard in seconds flat and used to smear me. Hope you understand. Big hug, petrarchan47tc 22:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

• Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
• We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
• Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
• Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
• To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–invite}} ~~~~
• To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–welcome}} ~~~~
• You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! Diptanshu^Talk 12:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Per wp:v, once uncited material has been challenged via deletion, do not restore it unless you provide RS inline refs. Epeefleche (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

About Chinese herbology

I see your edition in this topic. Actually there is a discussion about whether Tradition Chinese Medicine is the Pseudoscience in the talk page of Traditional Chinese medicine,Acupuncture and even Chiropractic. I don't know whether these editors get the consensus. It seems the discussion is still ongoing. These discussion all focus on the a source in Nature magazine offered by user: QuackGuru. QuackGuru also put these articles in Category:Pseudoscience. I don't know what the result of the discussions will be but I suggest you check these discussion and maybe put comment when you edit the related article.

Hi there, yes I loosely follow the CAM articles talk pages but gave up editing them a few years ago because they are controlled by a crew that makes changes impossible. The change I made was an impulse and I have neither the time nor the energy to defend it. The CAM sections of Wikipedia would look a lot different if it were not that they are for the most part written by men. Gandydancer (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I would be interested in your perspective regarding some of the edits being made on acupuncture. I had made some well referenced changes to the intro paragraph in hopes of resolving the neutral POV tag, and have seen those edits wholesale reverted without discussion. If you have a chance, I'd like to hear your perspective, because I like your work over at Chinese herbology! Klocek (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry to take so long to get back to you. I have been ill and am not up to disagreeable subjects such as any of the CAM, or as as Wikipedia (alone) calls them, alternate med/pseudoscience, articles. Given the present group that controls their content, it's a waste of time. Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Chinese herbology

Your recent editing history at Chinese herbology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Another article

Hi Gandydancer, I was wondering if you were interested in he;ping me with another article? 2014 Uttar Pradesh gang rape needs some work. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there Rsrikanth, so nice to hear from you again. I have been quite ill for a few weeks and am not up to most editing because more and more it involves so much arguing. On the other hand, with little energy to do much else, I have been at my computer a lot. The last few days I have been a little better and I'd like to work with you on that article. I will read it and see if I'm well enough to write anything. Gandydancer (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A response to a request from you

Dancer:
A couple of weeks ago, during a previous discussion about TKaM, you quoted me as having said that you had "made a fairly large number of spelling errors", and you asked me to point out some of those mistakes.
That comment of mine appears in this context:  "On 18 April 2014, while seeking support or agreement from Binksternet, Gandydancer admitted, “I don’t write very well myself”, and, commenting on one particular point, she further said, “[T]his is just a guess, but I would guess” something about composition. On 24 April 2014 she described herself as “far from a grammar expert”. Further, Dancer truly reveals in her postings on talk pages that she really does not write well, for she fairly often makes mistakes in both spelling and grammar.
When I wrote those words, I spoke of both errors in spelling and errors in grammar.  I did not isolate spelling errors, and I did not write of a "fairly large number of spelling errors".
If I've left an inaccurate impression, I'm sorry.
It has appeared to me that, on talk pages and in edit summaries at least, fairly often you make minor careless errors in grammar and composition, and you sometimes misspell words or select wrong homonyms or near-homonyms.  Your errors in spelling are less frequent than the ones in grammar.
Although I've not undertaken an extensive search of your various compositions, I have taken a quick look at your comments on several talk pages, mostly those on which you've written about my work.
During that process I saw these mistakes:

• "insure" versus "ensure";
• "incidently" versus "incidentally";
• "advise" versus "advice";
• "Neandrathals" versus "Neanderthals";
• "critcism" versus "criticism";
• "what ever" versus "whatever".
  

One or both of the last two items may have been simple typos rather than a more basic error.
If you had not made your request, I would never have mentioned this to you or sent you this list.
However, you did ask for this, and I offer it to you only in the kindest, most gentle, most constructive manner possible.
If you have a further question, please feel free to ask.
As always, smiles and best wishes,
Doc – DocRushing (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC).

I have been quite ill for several weeks and am unable to argue with you. However, there is one thing: Where on earth did I speak of Neanderthals? Gandydancer (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hope you feel better, Gandy. Don't let this get you down. In my family we say "NeanderTALLs" since my grandson discovered that they were above average height. I wouldn't worry too much about your spelling at talk pages and edit summaries...that's what other editors are for. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Dancer:

I'm sorry about your illness, and I truly hope that you'll soon feel better.

Again I emphasize that I would not have mentioned any of this if you had not asked.

However, you asked, and I answered; further, I tried hard to give my answer in a gentle and constructive way.

Smiles and best wishes,

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

Hi Dancer ( i like the new nickname! ). Sending you fuzzy slippers and iced sweet tea. And a brownie with creamy chocolate frosting. Hope you feel better soon. Love, petrarchan47tc 01:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

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

A brownie for you!

Hope you're feeling better, Gandy. Even when you're under the weather, in my unbiased, professional opinion, you still kick some serious ass around here. petrarchan47tc 04:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Like. BTW, check out Core's talk page tomorrow sometime today. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Your friendship means so much to me! I've been meaning to write a note but after the few edits that I manage to get done I'm just not up to it. Today, for the first time in weeks, I feel well enough to do some much-needed work in the garden and will hopefully spend the day out there. Buster, it was good to see you at the rape article. I worked on the Delhi 2012 rape article and, with the help of Bink, brought it up to a GA! As you can imagine, one runs into very strong opinions re rape, and especially rape in India, perhaps due to their caste system. BTW, note the request below--I glanced at the article and cringed, but maybe you guys would have a look? Best, Gandy

One of my earliest lessons as an editor was years ago at the Dalit article. It was a lesson in perseverance and patience. Articles that cross cultural and social borders always seem to have a built-in wall of mis-communication and a lack of mutual understanding. As an outside observer the caste system and its intrinsic demeaning of "lower people" is at the heart of the recent rapes in the news. ALSO, you might be interested in [23] from the most recent Signpost. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

So glad to hear you're out and about! This is the best news. You've made my day. petrarchan47tc 22:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Need your input on other page

On Rape in India, I hate to surpass 2nd revert but the user, who is complete WP:SPA is clearly misusing the source, you can read on Talk:Rape_in_India#Why I removed last edits. He refuses to discuss anyway.. OccultZone (Talk) 13:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I glanced at the article and the talk page. Without a good background I'm not ready to have an opinion. I did note that you removed information provided by Human Rights Watch calling it synth and I would not agree with you on that. If HRW was actually using synth, as you seem to think, that is up to them as experts, not up to WP editors who are not. We only report what RS says, without judgement. Though, like I said, I'm not well enough informed to offer much in the way of an opinion about the ongoing discussion. If I have time I will try to do more reading. Thanks for asking for my viewpoint. Gandydancer (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

To add, it seems you also called the HRW info undue and for all I know I might agree with you there, but without a better understanding I have no idea. Gandydancer (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Rape in India#Use of Human Rights Watch described the whole story. Sometimes our editors don't get surprised even after watching extraordinary sourcing from IPs or new accounts.. It was matter of few hours, things actually got under controlled. Usually I like to participate on the pages that are related with some recent event. But after series of quick edits it will take long to identify that who's right and who's wrong with their edits. But you can continue editing these articles, and nice work on the Badaun' case. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

AstraZeneca

Hi Gandy,

I apologize for raising this issue, but just wanted to touch base regarding your interest in the AZ article. I've obviously been in a bit of a conflict with Petranarch47 there the last few days, and was just getting ready to take it over to the Third Opinion board when you showed up. Given that you have worked closely with P in the past on some issues on which you have shared views, that you have never edited the AZ article before, and that your appearance comes on the heels of my conflict with P, I would appreciate your reassurance that there was no canvassing involved.

Again, if this concern is unfounded, please accept my apologies. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Postscript: I see from the notes above that you have been unwell. Please accept my best wishes for a rapid and full recovery, should this not already be the case. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Since you have read my talk page you can see that Petrarchan has not contacted me about the AZ article. I watch her page where you have posted a note to her and looked at the article because it falls within my range of interest. Note for example that I follow and post on several corporate articles and health-related issues. Also note that I have made quite a few edits at the GlaxoSmithCline article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Gandy, your statement on this at the AZ Talk page was quite sufficient to address my concerns. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Formerly 98 Would you care to explain why you showed up at both of the noticeboards regarding Corexit? I find it odd, especially after you made your final comments there about my personality, rather than sources (at the RS noticeboard). I wondered why you choose to target that subject when you admitted you knew nothing about it, and from what I could see, you weren't active elsewhere on the NB. I then noticed that you had a connection to jytdog. He had just been asked to help in an anti-Petra campaign, and publicly said no. You turned up shortly thereafter. It seems that your contributions at the noticeboards may have been at the request of jytdog. I cannot see any other explanation why a new editor would contribute to a noticeboard in the first place. I figured I would follow suit and be bold, and just ask.

Also, I think it has been apparent for some time that there is a large and well-connected group of editors, ever-growing, that is working in such a way that WP articles are being whitewashed or spun in favor of the pharmaceutical/medical industry. I wish I could follow this up with, "but there are many editors watching out for this, and these people will have a difficult time with this goal." Instead, WP has become the mouthpiece for monied interests. The ship has sailed, and in areas such as Monsanto, genetically modified food, anything to do with medicine, and Big Oil, to name a few, anyone wishing to spin articles in favor of these industries, whether by what they add or remove from the articles, will have a very easy time with little to no pushback, and LOTS of buddies. I envy them. This is their world. And I have just discovered that I no longer want to fight the inevitable any more. petrarchan47tc 23:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually I monitor the noticeboards as I believe these are an important part of being an editor here. Frankly, its also an opportunity to have influence on issues I care about. And I don't actually recall that Jytdog was part of that discussion, though I could be mistaken.

Are the people who disagree with you all "well connected" and "whitewashing on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry"? I suppose that's one way to look at it. But I went into this business with the goal of having an impact on the human condition. A drug I invented is in clinical trials for prostate cancer, and I played a minor role in convincing the CEO of one antiviral biotech to start a program in dengue, a neglected tropical disease that kills 25,000 children a year. I'm currently working on getting a company started to address the multi-drug resistant gram-(-) bacterial problem. I've been a foster parent and played an active role at the local family violence shelter. A homeless family lived with us for 3 months at one point.

Whether anything I do ever has an impact or not remains to be seen. But it would be a mistake to assume that everyone who disagrees with your world perspective is part of some sort of international cartel of evil-doers. Most of us are trying our best, just like you are. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Dichotimization is lazy and leads farther from the truth. I don't see "all" editors who disagree with me as some cabal. Let's get specific: you literally made up different versions of an unsourced claim about anti-depressants only being dangerous (leading to suicide) in the first few weeks, then it was months... Next at the AZ page, you used MEDRS to remove criticism about the company's practices by a reliable source, claiming that since it was not written in English, and it was a few years old, that per MEDRS it should be removed. I cannot believe you sincerely misunderstood MEDRS, which is meant to protect readers from endangering themselves with bad health info. It is not meant to protect pharmaceutical companies. And you know that. Why are you making shit up about drugs to make them seem less dangerous, and then removing information to make pharmacauetical companies seem less corrupt? It gives me shivers to think of the spin I saw from just two of your edits, and to know these are not likely isolated cases. When backed into a corner with proof of ones own wrongdoing, the most common tactic is to try and smear the accuser, as you have done in your description of me above. Realize that you have accused both Gandy and me of violating the rules by canvassing, as if I would have needed help in proving your actions to be in violation of the guidelines, which they clearly are. I would not ask Gandy to break the rules and put her own reputation on the line, and I am offended that you assumed I had. Not every one who disagrees with you has been canvassed - is this your assumption? petrarchan47tc 21:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, a few things.

First, the point is not to protect the pharmaceutical industry, but to protect patients. Misinformation about medical treatments is harmful whether it misleads people into thinking the risk benfit ratio is higher or lower than it really is. Foregoing useful treatment based on unfounded concerns harms people too.

And even the articles about companies should be accurate and balanced. Like most things, the pharmaceutical industry is a mixed bag. They've done some terrible things. On the other hand, there is a good chance that you or a member of your family is alive today because of drugs discovered, developed and manufactured by the industry you love to hate. Life is full of complexities like that.

Where did I accuse anyone of canvassing? I asked very politely and immediately accepted the response that it had not occurred. Are you really unable to see the difference between this and your very direct assertions that I've been editing in bad faith? Do you and Gandy genuinely believe it is appropriate to respond in a hostile manner when I express concern about her health, or when I invite you to work together with me to craft a posting to the third opinion board about issues we've disagreed on? This behavior seems unproductive to me.

I provided two very good sourced for the suicide timing and would be happy to defend them at the RS page if you would like to take it there. I don't think you will have much success though arguing that FDA and NICE are not reliable sources.

Life is about a lot more than being angry. Try to chill out a little. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

QuackGuru (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nancy Snyderman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward R. Murrow Award (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Gandydander (great user name BTW) - I saw what happened on Binks talk page. I have had the experience with my watchlist where I am set to click on "talk" or "contributions" on one line and my page will jump slightly and I hit rollback instead. On other occasions my mouse will scroll even though I didn't use that function. Many other editors have had something like that happen and understand what went wrong. It is a "no harm no foul" situation. You might already be aware of this but I wanted to leave a note just in case. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 23:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I assumed the same mechanism as Marnette discusses above. No sweat! Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Marnette and Bink. I'm still unsure as to what happened, though for reasons unknown my WP site does frequently jump around and go to the reply to a post page when I actually clicked on a link... In this case I don't remember even clicking Bink's diff on my watch list--I should have removed his page a long time ago because our most recent conversation was long ago finished. It was nice of you both to leave a note. Gandydancer (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Granite, Colorado may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• //www.drgw.net/info/index.php?n=Main.ICC1181 DRGW.Net : ICC 1181<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>[</blockquote>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neonicotinoid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BASE. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

In good hands

Thanks for your efforts at the 2014 Badaun gang rape article. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Pow wow

I reverted the link addition. I only provided a reversal reason of "linkspam"; which isn't really precise. The addition goes against WP:EL guideline, specifically WP:EL#Important points to remember #2.

I also didn't move the link to the External Links section, as (to me) the existing links already adequately illustrate the same material while being better informational links overall. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, from a personal perspective, I did enjoy the link. I have an appreciation of the Chippewa community (I attended college years back in Mt Pleasant), so enjoy seeing coverage of the tribe. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Missed your input over the last many months! That was too good Gandy! Mark Miller (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mark. Your good belly laugh really warmed my heart and I couldn't resist adding to the hilarity of the situation. Mark, I'm a feminist but I think that we agree that men have been hurt by the old social norms as well. I'm much more concerned about a corporate takeover of Wikipedia than that the men are pushing women aside. Which is not to say that I don't find that the male POV is not evident in our articles. All in all, this would be a different encyclopedia if 50% of the authors were women. Gandydancer (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Oil/tar sands discussion on BP Talk

Hi Gandy. I saw your recent edit to the BP article changing two instances of 'oil sands' to 'tar sands'. I don't know for sure if you saw the question I posed on the talk page, but I would like to invite you to join the conversation there. I'm hoping we can come to a consensus on how to address this topic in the article or, at a minimum, agree to change the heading of "Canadian tar sands". Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

old links

For some reason, very old links from a previous comment I left are now appearing in this section, and I'm not sure why. In any case, it's OK to ignore them, or if someone can figure out why it's doing this, I'd appreciate it. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I answered on the BP talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed [24] with the good advice of user:isaacl. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The strange thing was, was that it would drift down to each new section as it was added... Anyway, thanks for fixing it. Gandydancer (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Refs

Why the strange " and " around the refs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I did not add any refs. I only updated wording. Gandydancer (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Leap Motion page

Hey Gandydancer, my name is Alex Colgan and I’m the head writer at Leap Motion. I saw that you made some edits to the Leap Motion page a while back, and was wondering whether you'd be interested in helping to expand it.

I’m fully on board with Wikipedia’s contributions guidelines, including those related to conflict of interest. This means that I won’t make any direct edits to the page. Instead, I'd like to suggest changes and contribute references as needed, so that impartial Wikipedians can make contributions that will improve the article while maintaining NPOV ^_^

— Alex Colgan, head writer at Leap Motion, 15:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Viruses not virii

Dear Gandydancer, I noticed that you introduced the spelling virii on Ebola virus disease. In classical Latin virusis a singulare tantum. If one would create a possible plural, vira would be a probable candidate (also used in Stearn's Botanical latin). However, using the English plural 'viruses' would be considered as the best option in this case. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be so late with a reply. I fixed the article. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Your use of edit summmaries

Improve layout

This should have been labeled a "revert", not "improve layout" on Elizabeth Warren, as it reverted the improvement of the image layout that I made. Now, due to your revert, there a huge blank gap at the bottom of the section. 18:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The photo has been in that position for many months without complaints. There is no gap on my screen. Your changes made the photo appear needlessly misplaced. You might try increasing or decreasing the size of your screen display to see if that helps. I know from experience that it can change the appearance of a photo layout. Gandydancer (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is, "nobody noticed the problem, so I'm going to revert"? Seriously? The gap is on your screen, you just don't see it. The gap exists because the image is longer than the length of the content. To solve this, the image is floated above the section header line into the relevant section below, allowing the subsequent section to fill the gap. This is like the 12th time you have reverted me altogether. Basically, whenever you see my name, you revert, and it's usually for no reason. For an example of how one can float images from the previous section to avoid gaps and bunching up the layout, see how the three images below the infobox on Cebrennus rechenbergi float over the sections from above. Do these photos appear "needlessly misplaced"? No, they do not. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The photos in the article you have referenced shows photos hanging because there is not enough copy in the sections that they are placed in to contain the photo. That is not true for the Warren article - there is plenty of room. As for reverting you twelve times, I don't remember ever reverting you, let alone twelve times. Please offer a few examples. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The photos in the article you have referenced shows photos hanging because there is not enough copy in the sections that they are placed in to contain the photo. Of course, that's the point! In the same way, for similar reasons I floated the image in Elizabeth Warren over the recognition section because there was not enough copy in the section. Previously, when the photo was added below the section there was a gap of approximately ~2.5 lines, which can clearly be seen in the previous edit.[25] Please don't deny that the gap is there as I can easily take a screenshot and highlight it like this (images blanked out):

Gap between end of text and beginning of next section caused by large image placed under section heading.

You seem to be under the strange impression that images must be added below the section heading. By floating the image as I did, the ~2.5 line gap disappeared.[26] The absence of the gap can be seen in this screenshot taken from the edit you reverted:

No gap once image is floated from the above section into the next

Your revert restored the gap simply by moving the image to the left.[27] Please don't continue to deny this as the evidence is right up above and plain to see. You didn't "improve" the layout, you simply reverted me, changed the alignment of the image from right to left (which I did not change and was already in place contrary to what you claimed) and restored the gap. This is the only time you have reverted me on this article, but you have done the exact same thing on multiple articles that I've edited in the past, in each case, reverting without reason. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a "huge blank gap". Instead, the Viriditas layout reduces a one-line gap on my 1024x768 Windows XP computer running the Firefox browser, and it reduces a two-line gap on my 1600x1200 Windows 7 computer also running Firefox. These incidental gaps are not much of a concern, especially when the image layout guideline says to put images in the relevant section. Thus the image of Warren receiving recognition goes in the "Recognition" section, not above it. (I've been told that people who use screen reader software are best served by images being placed in the relevant section.) Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In the edit I made, the image appears in the relevant "Recognition" section per guidelines, but only appears in the above section in Wiki markup. So the layout change I made is consistent with the guidelines. You're not going to actually argue that the majority of the image appears in the above section, are you? You say these gaps are not much of a concern, but when we "improve layout" as Gandy claimed, we remove blank gaps, we don't add them. I find the gaps distracting and prefer a clean layout. As for screen readers, I think that argument is interesting but specious, as most of our FA and GA articles float images from section to section due to space constraints. So clearly, this concern is not enforced by anyone. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As well, the mission of reducing blank space in the article is foiled by the "Committee Assignments" section directly above; a section which has left-justified list entries leaving a much larger blank space on the right. Quibbling over the image placement seems petty by comparison. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

So other problems exist. How does that address this problem? Sure, the page should be cleaned up, but that's not going to happen with Gandy on the revert button. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The images that Viriditas shows are very helpful. If I make my screen lettering very small, still readable but smaller than I like, I can make it appear in the very way that Viriditas shows in his image of his page. On my computer I press CTRL and + or - to do that. Viriditas, try it on your computer and see what happens. Gandydancer (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Gandy, if you are not viewing your browser at the actual size or 100%, then the problem is even worse, because you are adjusting the layout based on your preferred screen view rather than the actual view. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Ebola

Thanks Gandy, i am partially sighted due to multiple sclerosis and tend to miss words at times, plus my first language is not English. i appreciate all your help. BrianGroen (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianGroen (talk • contribs) 16:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Got your name wrong . Sorry my bad Gandy

BrianGroen (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not mine.

I may not be able to submit it for ten days. Your Puppet (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your work on the 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak article. In particular, clarifying that DR Congo represents a new unrelated outbreak. Aflafla1 (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Sorry for the delay in letting you know how nice it was of you to send me good cheer, but I just saw this today. Gandydancer (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ebola is Ebola

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/25/world/africa/ebola-outbreak/,,,,,,,,, one is to be objective it would seem this source is clear in its indication of Ebola, in Congo,no one wants to report another case or country, logic however dictates it has; granted of the strains of Ebola this seems to be the Zaire EBOV , however, since one is unaware as to the exact source or sources (of reservoir) it would be wise to include it in the table .... http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/23/ebola-outbreak-blamed-on-fruit-bats-africa ,,,,,this article seems to be a common denominator (reservoir) for BOTH OUTBREAKS. I will not get into an edit war, however I ask you to appeal to reason and look at the "big" picture of what is going on at about the same latitude on the African continent. I myself have experience as a Molecular Biologist in research, but beyond that logic always has the final say. I don't have the time to shape this article,I submit you use logic and objectivity.good luck......--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)'

There is a Congo section. Talk page editors have agreed to not include this unrelated outbreak in the West Africa article update section. Gandydancer (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

unrelated?,,,,,http://elifesciences.org/content/early/2014/09/05/elife.04395... .and ...http://www.voanews.com/content/ebola-animal-maqp-8sept14/2442512.html,,,,,, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ebola Senegal

Hi Gandy i think this should go on the subsequent spread. ledt me know if you dis agree.. still your call

On 29 August the Senegalese,Health minister, Awa Marie Coll Seck, announced the first case of Ebola in the country. The patient arrived from the neighbouring country Guinea, where the virus was first reported. The case has been confirmed in Senegal. BrianGroen (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Page moves and redirects

Hello! When you moved 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak to West Africa Ebola virus epidemic, the former's 18 redirects became double redirects. Your second move (from West Africa Ebola virus epidemic to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa) made them triple redirects and made 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak (which was linked from Main Page) a double redirect. (The same moves also resulted in four triple redirects and one double redirect in the Talk namespace.)

I updated the Main Page link and repaired all of the double/triple redirects. In the future, please fix any broken redirects arising through page moves that you perform. Thanks! —David Levy 16:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I replied at the article talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments on CCD article

Hi Gandydancer. Earlier you made some comments towards me essentially being uncivil or disruptive (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colony_collapse_disorder&diff=624614645&oldid=624612344). Prior to my edits, no edits had yet occurred. Per WP:BRD, it's relatively par the course for someone to make an edit at that point in time, especially when someone has just posted about an area needing attention rather than the typical conflicting edits discussion that goes on talk pages. Plus, the discussion was open to edits at that point in time, and most of the content you reverted was already looking prime for deletion with the issues the other editor brought up. Nothing was particularly under contest then (although it is now, so we're not making additional edits yet). If you didn't agree with the content being removed then, all you would have needed to do was simply revert the edits and post on the talk page why the content should be kept. There's no need to be prickly about it in the process. This should have been a series of rather mundane edits or talk page points, and there was no reason to go beyond addressing article content, but those comments only ended up escalating the aggravation on the page even if well intentioned. In the future, remember to keep the focus on discussing content. Not doing so tends to get people in trouble by thinking and often insinuating any number of incorrect things about an editor's actions, so it's much simpler just to stick to content and keep things simple and straightforward at times when commenting about other editors is unneeded. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You posted on the article talk page about this again. I'll remind you that this against the talk pageguidelines. I'm copying your response here, so it would be best to strike that part of your comment from the article page:

Re your note on my talk page, you state that "it's relatively par the course for someone to make an edit at that point in time". Right in the middle of a discussion re the issues that a new editor brought up? You say "Nothing was under contest then", as your rationale that it was OK to just go right ahead and delete everything that was under discussion? I really just cannot see that you would come to my talk page to give me instructions on WP guidelines because I made an edit note stating, "There is an ongoing discussion - please try to be more [aware] that we work best when we [work] with others." Your quick delete was rude and unacceptable. Gandydancer (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

To further explain my first comment here, your comment "There is an ongoing discussion - please try to be more [aware] that we work best when we [work] with others" is essentially an accusation of bad faith (i.e., that I wasn't trying to work with folks on the talk page). It's extremely difficult to see any reason to make your suggest unless good faith was no longer assumed. You jumped the gun on your comment as I pointed out in my original post of the section. That is a behavioral issue that usually can shut down (or make very difficult) most talk page discussions. I'm just pointing that out in the hopes you are mindful of that in the future.

As for my actual edits, I essentially removed three pieces of content. One was the pending legislation we're discussing. That was never mentioned on the talk page yet. The next was the bee die-off content, which apparent from GeeBee's first comment that the content didn't have a place in the article (and you later agreed it should go even though you reverted that portion of the edit before later saying you thought it was fine). That one is borderline disruptive editing and is really challenging my ability to assume good faith with you. The last content was Bachman's discontinued use of neonics. GeeBee brought up another company that did the same. Bringing that up further pushed my concerns about notability/indiscriminate info on that content enough to delete it and mention it on the talk page. Mentioning it on the talk page was indicating I was willing to talk about the edit as well. I made the first bold edit of WP:BRD, and anyone was welcome to revert me and discuss it further. When someone first points out a general issue on the talk page that can potentially be remedied with a single edit, another editor typically goes ahead and makes an edit that appears to be likely solution, uses it as a proposed edit, and discussion continues if someone reverts or wants to work on it further. You don't enter into BRD unless that edit is reverted, so it's extremely common and normal to go ahead and make an edit in a situation like this because there was no discussion where edits would be on hold yet and no apparent controversy (yet). There was nothing intended against the collaborative discussion spirit of Wikipedia with my edit, and I took additional care to bring it up at the talk page in case anyone wanted to talk about it further. It would be extremely difficult to draw any disrespect out of that unless we're not talking about good faith anymore from you in my view, which is why it's becoming increasingly difficult (though not yet impossible) to assume good faith on my part.

I prefer avoid walls of text, but I for one am getting tired of the drama that seems to occur when we're editing the same pages when much simpler discussions should have occurred to get to a final edit. Because of that I want to make it very clear where I'm coming from and what I'm doing in my edits and my discussion here. I speak of good faith a lot, because when I encounter editors I've been in previous disputes with that appear primarily focused on editing and not POV, etc. type behavior, I prefer to give a very wide berth in my assuming good faith (yourself included). I always try to ask myself if I'm giving a person a clean slate if I had a previous argument with them. Do you ask yourself the same? When you do that, all you need to do is continue on working on content through discussion without needing to imply how that should be done when some time has passed and a new set of edits occurs.

So in short, if you have an issue with one of my edits, just revert and discuss. :) Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I certainly plan to reply but am swamped with work both here and in my real life. I will respond just as soon as I can find the time. Gandydancer (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus - General article vs. epidemic article

Hi Gandy, I appreciate the work you've been doing related to ebola virus. I see you're making updates today. Could I ask you to please be judicious regarding what material you put into/leave in Ebola virus disease vs. Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. The former has been filling up of late with information related more specifically to the outbreak that gained traction in the news in the past few months--things like containment efforts and economic effects. Very much appreciated! Zad68 14:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and that is my plan. I can see where you may have become a little "nervous" :) in that I included the economic problems, but I did include that (for now) because of the wide agreement that it is such a vital issue right now. When I am done it will most likely be shorter (perhaps much shorter) than it now is. Please feel free to continue to offer feedback. Gandydancer (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for your work! Zad68 15:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Acetotyce (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Patrick Sawyer

In July 2014 American Patrick Oliver Sawyer was attributed with taking the Ebola virus to Nigeria. Some press reports indicate he was a "Liberian Finance Minister" headed to an important ECOWAS conference. Instead, it appears he worked part time in the finance department of ECOWAS and was heading to Nigeria to seek superior medical attention. E mail of Patrick Sawyer, Worldpress, August 2014

Sawyer's primary job was with a mining concern. In early July, he arrived with bloodied clothing and his pregnant sister, at St. Joseph Catholic Hospital in Monrovia. Sawyers sister's name was Miss Princess Christina Nyennetue, and she died from the virus. While at the hospital, Sawyer failed to heed staff directions. Sawyer was told she died from Ebola. Several staff members died shortly an offices of ArcelorMittal. He was directed to go home and remain in confinement for 21 days.

Sawyer booked an E-ticket and claimed to be going to an important conference. He did not book via the local offices of ECOWAS nor inform the ammbasador from ECOWAS, who was already set go. He also did not inform the Ambassador of his sister's death. The Liberian official that approved Sawyers departure is quoted as saying the request by ECOWAS to allow Sawyer to leave Liberia was unprecidented.

Sawyer managed to make contact with at least 59 people. Of these, he succesfully infected 44, and 17 of them later died.Front Page Africa, author Rodney D. Sieh, July 31, 2014

At JF Kennedy Hospital in Nigeria, Sawyer denied being near an Ebola case and told officials to test for malaria and HIV. Officials tested him and found he was suffering from Ebola. He became unruly.

Hospital staff, according to one report, were still receiving requests, after they knew it was Ebola, to release Sawyer from the hospital so he could attend the conference.

Sawyer died on July 25, 2014. He was cremated at the hospital. His mother, Georgia Nah, demanded to see his ashes.

Sawyer's wife was in Minnesota. >AllAfrica Kudos SPbmaise (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps best to discuss on the article talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Undo" on Ebola outbreak page

I think you were being unreasonable when you undid my revisions. Did you even take a look at what I did before undoing my revisions? I made two changes. 1) There were TYPOS in the subheadings I fixed. By undoing them, you put back typos in the article! 2) The second set of changes were going in the same direction as being discussed on the Talk page, which you referred me too. Not sure why you undid my changes and not BrianGroen's... I would be grateful if you could lay out how the changes I was making were NOT in line with what was being discussed. F Camp (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I see that we have further discussed this issue on the talk page and seemed to have come to an agreement. Thank you so much for being so easy to get along with and I will try extra hard to do the same. Gandydancer (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gandydancer. You're doing a great job on the article, and I'm very grateful for that-and I'm sure many of the page's readers are, too! I was quite disappointed when my edits were reverted back so quickly, especially considering the efforts I felt I made to make the changes in a way that would both improve the article and respect the outcome of our previous discussion regarding the ordering of organisations. That being said, I think that the overall outcome of this discussion has been positive, so thank you for your time. I look forward to collaborating again! F Camp (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

And I certainly do look forward to collaborating with you as well! I will try to explain my quick reverts: Brian suggested some reorganization on the talk page and had just gone ahead with his plans when you stepped in (probably unaware that the article was in a process of change) and made some edits to the changes that Brian had made before we had time to give feedback to his/her edits. Since you had neither make comments on the talk page re his/her proposal nor first discussed your edits, I felt that it was best to revert your changes and asked you to first discuss them (unfortunately I missed your first edit that resulted in leaving out the organizations info). But I agree that the overall outcome has been very positive and I look forward to any further input that you may have. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I just undid your latest there. It appears to be a direct copy paste of an MSF press release. Please rewrite it in your own words to avoid a copyvio. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the talk page would have been a better place to mention it than on my talk page as I didn't write it. Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ebola

Hi Gandy, thanks for all your help input and support on this page BrianGroen (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Brian, thank you so much as well. You really are just the darn nicest guy! I think that we are doing a good job with the article, but I am so surprised that the article has not drawn more editors. I've worked on several epidemic articles in the past and to find only two major editors is somewhat of a mystery for me. I first worked on the Ebola disease article and had to do a lot of reading for that, but it did give me a good background so that I felt comfortable working with Ebola. Plus, I have a medical background which made it much easier to understand/remember what I had read. Even still, it's a huge amount of time to keep up with the article and continue to read the new developments, as I know you know quite well! Plus, the talk page...in my experience talk pages can take as much if not more time than actual article editing.

I note that you have MS - one of my best friends does as well, so I am familiar with the disease. But I must say, other than the visual problems you sure seem to be doing very well. I have chronic Lyme disease and knowing that mental problems may develop is quite frightening to me. Every time I make a typo I cannot help myself from thinking "is this how it starts?..." Gandydancer (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Say Brian, BTW, the sources listed below are a result of an edit by SPbmaine (above) Do you know how to remove them or will s/he need to do that? Gandydancer (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gandy Gandydancer for the kind word... MS and Lyme have very similar symptoms.. So yes i do understand what you are are experiencing as well. Ill break the links below for you quickly.BrianGroen (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

To break a reference just delete the ref before and after that is in brackets..BrianGroen (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have responded to your comment on my reorganization of the "Responses" section of Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa in the Talk page for that article. Corker1 (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Gandy -- I just saw your latest edit to the Ebola article. I like the first and the third of the three edits, but I don't think the word "both" needs to be added there. I think it is clear enough without it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I was just writing a Thank you note on your page as you were writing this. Corinne, please do not hesitate for one minute to improve my writing! In the future please go right ahead and "fix" anything I write, and there is no need to ever ask first. As I just said on your talk page, it is so good to have you at the article. Gandydancer (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again, and thanks for the confidence in my judgment. I already saw the comments you placed on my talk page. I wonder if you could comment on the last issue at User talk:Rothorpe#Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. Before I move that participial phrase, I need to know what was actually the intended meaning. CorinneSD (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please just do as you think best. I just write what seems to sound OK because I have little understanding of proper grammar. I'm just so glad to have you at the article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, reading my recent posts to you, I don't want to give the impression that I'm a total failure! I am a retired successful medical professional; its just that writing has always been my most difficult task. Everybody else in my family, mom, dad, and two sisters, were quite accomplished writers. Gandydancer (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

So that we don't clutter up Brian's talk page, continuing this exchange on my talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I realized upon looking at this again that this was your talk page. I was jumping around on so many different pages that I got mixed up. CorinneSD (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

HI Gandy i have ask for a new semi protect edit... IP are stuffing up article again. Kind Regards BrianBrianGroen (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I was looking at your last few edits. There's one sentence that is a little unclear, but I'm not sure what to do about it. It says, "At the on-going event, in July the Nigerian government..." It's the juxtaposition of "at the on-going event" and "in July" that doesn't sound quite right. Can you explain what you meant so that I can help smooth it out? CorinneSD (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was actually trying to make the previous wording clear - the dates were weird and the second donation ref called the event "ongoing". At any rate, now I just made the whole thing less clear as to the dates, who really cares anyway? Please keep those fixes coming! I see you changed my "however" to "but". Perfect! Isn't it funny how two words, really quite similar in meaning, can make such a big difference? BTW, you asked somewhere else about refs, I use Provelt. Brian can help you more with refs, and I'd bet that he or someone needs to improve mine from time to time. Gandydancer (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Campbell

Prompted by the link you provided on my talk page to the Joseph Campbell article, earlier today I read some of the article and made a few copy-edits. (Thank you for the link!) Just now I see a set of edits in which an editor removed several sentences in different parts of the article with an edit summary saying the material is uncited. Normally, I would agree that unsourced material should be removed. However, it seems to me that some or all of the statements that were removed could easily be sourced. For example, the statement about the donation of Campbell papers to the Pacifica graduate program. The link to that program is at the bottom of the page. I'm wondering if you want to take a look at each statement that was removed and decide whether it is something that adds to the article and is worth looking for the references (or adding a "citation needed" tag), or whether you agree that it should simply be removed. CorinneSD (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, here is some background on that article. From memory, editor David Kudlow has a Campbell website and used to keep the article in good shape. Then he just disappeared for some time. An editor named Mmick added most of the Monolith section and I did a great deal of copy edit for him/her because his/her writing abilities were extremely poor - it was not until much later that I discovered that s/he was Greek and English was not his/her first language (groan). There has been an ongoing attempt to make it appear that Campbell is anti-Semitic due to an exchange at some point - I feel that I know Campbell well enough (he's been one of my hero figures for many years) that I did not believe it for one minute. I researched it at that point (a few years ago) and it is not possible to come to an RS conclusion. In my WP experience there is a very strong Jewish effort to portray Jews in the best light possible. (And also Campbell in the worst.) If that makes me anti-Semitic, so be it. Then the latest editor came along wanting refs for every goddamn (if you speak French, as I do) unsourced statement in the article. I have seen this tactic used many times and I don't know what to do about it. Two editors working together could certainly improve this article but one alone, working by herself, will probably not have much luck. I would be more that happy to work with you to improve the article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

ADD: I have not even had the time to read the article as it now stands, but will as soon as time permits. Time is very short right now and I am spending more here than I should. Gandydancer (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting. I didn't realize there was such a background to this article. I've got time, so if there is anything in particular you would like me to research on-line, let me know. I have access to Questia. I've never added material to an article or formulated a reference, though, so would need your help with that. I will also read the article all the way through, maybe tomorrow. I should also add that my computer has been giving me problems, so if you don't hear from me for a while, that's the reason. CorinneSD (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

HI Gandy, thank you for your co-edit on the Ebola page. It was fun working with you. I will unfortunatlty not contribute to wiki any more so all the best for the future. Kind Greetings Brian41.13.88.2 (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Come back, Brian! :( Snd0 (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

He's back! Brian, I left a note on your talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Gandydancer. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

```Buster Seven Talk 18:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thought this discussion might interest you

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Deepwater Horizon fire--Mark Miller (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC) That nom was withdrawn and a new nomination made to a corrected image.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It is here.

just giving you a heads up. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa - Senegal

Hi Gandydancer, I see you reverted my move of Senegal from "countries with former local transmission" to "countries with an initial case or cases". I thought this made logical sense as (a) there has been, as far as we know, no onward transmission and (b) it can't be described as "former" yet as the 42-day case-free period hasn't passed. So I thought it was similar to the USA which has a single imported case at the moment. (I also don't think Nigeria should be in the "former" category yet, either.) Anyway I am not sure I understand your rationale for reverting my change so I have started a discussion on the Talk page. Saxmund (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll reply on that talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Dogs and Ebola

Hi, just wanted ask for your help if you see anything on Dogs and Ebola. The French study seems like its a valid topic so please add material on this if you come across some decent sources. Thanks and good luck. Starstr (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will reply at the article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola splits

Hi Gandy, sorry to see your frustration on the Talk page. Rather than reporting the headline news - which is where all the bad gas seems to be happening - I'm focussing on the things which might stop the outbreak; experimental treatments, international response. Loads to do - the vaccine trials have progressed, there are half a dozen UN agencies not yet mentioned, no mention of IMC, ICRC, COAL, OCHA, Africare. I promise not to revert your edits! - Cheers, Bob Robertpedley (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Copy and pasting

One of your edits appear to be copy and pasted from another source. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please send permission for release under a CC BY SA license to permissions-en@wikimedia.org per WP:CONSENT. (at Ebola virus epidemic) LeadSongDog come howl! 21:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed this comment [28] as in the wrong spot. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

(I have no idea why you should remove my comment - I have returned it) :I've been editing Wikipedia for about eight years so you don't need suggest that I don't understand what paraphrasing means. But it would help if you would point out exactly where I did not paraphrase as I've made a lot of edits to that article. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Gandydancer (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference

HI Gandy i only removed reference were the news source are not available anymore or two reference to same detail.. Not to worry. Found 7 yesterday with a page 404 error.. articles archived or removed.. Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa - Outlook

As you've probably seen, I've been making some minor edits to the article. The second sentence in the section Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Outlook is:

"The three countries which are affected, Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia, are among the poorest in the world, with extremely low levels of literacy, few hospitals or doctors, poor physical infrastructure, and poorly functioning government institutions."

I wonder whether the word "most" should be added before "affected". Are Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia the only countries in West Africa that are affected by the epidemic or are they the countries that are most affected by the epidemic? CorinneSD (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think "most" Gandydancer (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa - Responses

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the section Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Responses is the following:

"In September, the United Nations Security Council declared the Ebola virus outbreak in West Africa a "threat to international peace and security" and unanimously adopted a resolution urging UN member states to provide more resources to fight the outbreak; the WHO stated that the cost for combating the epidemic will be a minimum of $1 billion."

I'd like you to look at the first part of this sentence, specifically:

...the United Nations Security Council declared the Ebola virus outbreak in West Africa a "threat to international peace and security".

Normally, the article ("a") would accompany the noun at the beginning of the quoted phrase. I looked at the source; it's a BBC article. In that article, I twice saw it written as above. However, that was taken from another source, whether written or oral I don't know, from the UN Security Council. I can't imagine that in the original source the phrase was not "a threat to international peace and security". It looks so awkward as ....a "threat to..." that I wonder whether:

(a) the article "a" could be placed inside the quotation marks even though it's not that way in the BBC article, or, if not,

(b) the source could be changed to the original source where (I'll wager), it says, "a threat to...". I'm not very good at searching out publications, in this case the UN, but perhaps you could.

What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I would not be at all concerned to include an "a" in the quotes. Or, don't they sometimes put a word like this: They said it is "[a] threat to..."? Gandydancer (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it looks a little awkward, and if "a" is in the original, it doesn't need to be in brackets. Shall I go ahead and just move "a" to inside the quotes? CorinneSD (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, IMO that would be fine. Would this WP guideline be applicable here? " If there is a significant error in the original statement, use [sic] or the template [sic] to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia. However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is textually important." Gandydancer (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Corinne asked me to comment here. If it was 'a significant threat' or some such, that would explain it. Rothorpe (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Corinne, I have to admit that I'm just totally lost when it comes to your question that I have not answered. Could you please ask me again? Gandydancer (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you realize there are two questions. The one posed here, in the section, I feel has not been really answered. I asked Rothorpe for his opinion, but I don't think he understood my question, either. (See User talk:Rothorpe#Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa - Responses.) The other question is regarding the name of a center (centre) in a reference -- #244, I think, in the article. When you put your cursor over the number, you can see it. It starts "Nishiura, Chowell" and ends "Eropian Centre for Research". I wondered whether "Eropian" is really the name of the centre or is a typo. That's all. CorinneSD (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

When I hold my cursor over #244 in the stats section I get wording related to the "WHO Responce roadmap...", nothing about "Nishiura, Chowell" and ends "Eropian Centre for Research". Gandydancer (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. The numbers have shifted since I wrote my initial comment. It's now Reference #241. You can see it in the list of references at Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#References as well as at the reference number in the text of the article. CorinneSD (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa - Lead

I'm writing to ask you about the edit at 18:45 19 October 2014 to the third paragraph in the lead. There were two changes:

1) From "Affected countries" to "Worst affected countries". If the latter stands, at least the article "The" should be added before it. I wonder whether this sentence doesn't apply to all affected countries, not just the worst affected. Witness just the problems that have occurred in the U.S. If this sentence is to apply only to the worst affected countries in West Africa, shouldn't it say that?

2) The second change was from "the region's" to "the countries'", perhaps in an effort to connect it with the previous sentence. However, this is from a source, so the word needs to reflect the source. I'm not good at checking the source; I thought I'd just mention this and let you decide. CorinneSD (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that one is interesting. The editor that did that change is a Nigerian. They have, not really surprisingly, been concerned about the negative publicity that has been generated by being seen as lepers due to the breakout in their country. They have a great deal of anger at even the US, since their first case was an American/Nigerian that most likely lied by saying that he had not been exposed to Ebola when he rec'd an OK to enter the country. Incidentally, just yesterday I noted that the US hysteria has caused one university to refuse to admit any Nigerians for fear of Ebola. I made some changes - what do you think?

Say Corinne, could you do the Congo outbreak? I mostly wrote it and would like to see it in good shape. Gandydancer (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Separate outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? I just looked at it. I had gone over that section yesterday. It's fine now. CorinneSD (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean the split: 2014 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak Gandydancer (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I'll look at that. You haven't responded to the question I posed in the middle of the section Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Projections of future cases. I even pinged you! CorinneSD (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I made a few edits to 2014 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak. CorinneSD (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Re your question, I can't figure out where I need to respond. Please ask me again. Gandydancer (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You could have responded in the section just above this or at the section on Rothorpe's talk page to which I gave you a link. It's not that important. I'll just go ahead and move "a" to inside the quotation marks. If you or someone else thinks it's wrong, it can be reverted or changed. CorinneSD (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC's

Hi Gandydancer, SW3 5DL noted me about the xth RFC on merging. Does it make sense that I post my opinions too? I hesitate to do this. It appears that there are editors who have unlimited quantity of time to invest in discussions that do not end. When I think about this MdM discussion.

I was very happy when you started to edit the Guinea article, and upset when I saw how you where attaked.

I spend in the moment more time on the openIDEO platform from the grand challenge for development. I added the external link "Fighting Ebola: A Grand Challenge for Development" and then started to take a closer look onto this.

I will proceed updating the graph and to give input, when I have something. And again thank you very much for your support.

With kind regards, Malanoqa (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Malanoqa, always good to hear from you. I just took a glance at your page and was surprised to see that my last edit did not show. I had replied to your "what does re mean" etc. but for reasons unknown it was not there. My computer did jam up at around that time, so I guess that that was it. I remember that I mentioned that I was so happy about your introduction of protection suits because shortly after you put it in the article we had that big scandal here in the US re (regarding) our two nurses that came down with Ebola, most likely because they were not properly trained and were not wearing proper protective suits. So I was glad that the article had the info where MSF illustrated proper clothing technique, especially so since here in the US we think that we are the best at everything (though not me :) ). About the graphs, I have no interest in them and never even look at them to speak of. Re the never-ending controversy, I am just sick of it. If those editors had followed WP guidelines and discussed BEFORE going off on their own starting new articles it could have all been avoided. I think that the RfC is closed, if not I'd just stay clear of it. I responded only because I was so closely involved in it. I note that the split articles seem to be improving. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer, thanks for the answer. So I will ignore this RfC.

Regarding the clothing, I like the way you in the US react on errors. I would say you are best in correcting errors, and that worth even more than doing everything right from the beginning.

It is fine when you ignore the graphs I can live with that. But I start to ask myself whether the picture the graphs transfer is still true. So before we transfer a wrong message, "the epidemic is over", we might better remove them.

Best, Malanoqa (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa - References

I just checked with another editor because I had seen all sorts of versions of the name of the newspaper:

• The New York Times
• The New York Times
• New York Times

and was told that we should use the name of the newspaper, and this editor supplied a link to the actual newspaper. I was pretty sure that The New York Times should have the article "the" italicized. I just changed one instance in the body of the article Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. However, the other instances are in the references, and when I tried to change it I couldn't access the list of references. Can you tell me how to do that? Also, if you want to, you can make the edits yourself, but I'd still like to know how to access the list of references so that I can edit (ie., fix spelling, capitalization, punctuation) in the future. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I just learned that myself when I fixed the "European" issue, where I FINALLY figured out what you meant. It's easy: 1) click [edit source] at top of the section and you will see the article with the refs (you'll need to scroll way down to the bottom) 2) fix it in the ref and that's it! Re NYT, I have no idea and have often wondered about that myself. Corinne, I appreciate it when you follow through with these little things. I am just swamped with the other editing I do here. So much of my time is wasted, I mean spent, in my watch list "watching". Now an editor has returned a long US addition to the article, ignoring a more recent decision to delete it so I will need to bring it up on the talk page again. Just one little note or article change can take a long time. For instance I just finished reading a very long WHO childbirth report so that I could give my feedback on a woman's page issue. I've been wanting to do a small section re all the orphans left after so many deaths in the EVD article...but no time yet. Always good to hear from you. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you,,,,for being You

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		message Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your kind act, however I find it difficult on this article to find someone more deserving than you Gandydancer, to give without self-interest, is a rare human quality. Logic dictates the future will hold many awards for you ,yet you already have something only God can give.. Humanity. thank you truly--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ozzie, that's nice of you to say. Actually I get much more than I give as I am retired and this is a great way to keep my mind alert and to still feel that I am doing some sort of needed activity. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa

I don't understand the latest edits to the article by Jamie Tubers. The earlier ones change "several West African nations" to "certain West African countries". In your opinion, is that an improvement? To me, it isn't.

The latest edit removes "limited" from the section heading "Countries with limited local transmission", so now it reads, "Countries with local transmission". Local transmission of the ebola virus is happening in all the affected West African countries, so with that new heading, there's no need for a separate section! I would put "limited" back in, wouldn't you? CorinneSD (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Limited is per the WHO so we are soundly correct with that one. I'll revert several and see what happens. Gandydancer (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Delirious. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you want to keep this?

It seems odd, right? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

So sorry and I feel terribly embarrassed about that edit! I acted carelessly and thought that I was the one that was deleting the SPAM. Gandydancer (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Over-precision in CFR

Hi: could you take a look at my comment on Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa#Case_fatality_rate, and please reply to me there about it? -- The Anome (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciated comments that explained that rounded numbers were better than exact numbers in the case of WP CFRs. Gandydancer (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Re LePage article

Given your comment, I was wondering what your opinion was about my proposed revision to the section under discussion here. Comments of any sort welcome. Thanks 331dot (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there and good to hear from you. Right now I am spending most of my time at the Ebola article and am behind several edits that I feel I need to make right now...and a few other articles, as well. I did read your proposal and certainly based on past edits you have made I most likely agree with the proposal (and I am long familiar with the opposing editor as well). But of course I feel "duty bound" to again read everything all over again before I make a comment. I seem to have a one-track mind (though every time I say that I remember years ago putting an Astrological chart up in the coffee room that said of my astrological sign (Aries), "You have a one track mind - with very little traffic" :) ) and it is hard for me to keep a great deal of info at hand on any given article I edit on. So...a lot of time to refresh my mind... In the mean time I remain just stunned by the amount of stupidity in the world such killing the Spanish nurse's dog in Spain or putting the US nurse in a tent outside of the hospital in the US. So of course, this same level of competency can be expected to be found with WP editors. Gandydancer (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi 331dot, I've had time to read the talk page and I think that you should put the draft in the article. Thanks for all the good work that you do! Gandydancer (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support; I don't have time to right now, but I will keep this in mind. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources and popular press

These should not be used such as in this edit here [29]

Why do we want to turn Wikipedia into a parrot of the popular press? They typically over state stuff and we use them so do we. You have added "numbers substantially understate the magnitude". We are talking 10-20 thousand cases in 10 months.

How many people have died from HIV/AIDS or tuberculosis or diarrhea in this time period? Each one of these killed many fold more, likely greater than 10 fold more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyway where does WHO (url to a World Health Organization page) does it say three times greater? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No more G.D. lectures please? My mother taught me about all the poor people in Africa when I didn't eat my oatmeal, and that was many, many years ago. As for my edit, I note that you have used, for instance, the BBC to make a medical point, and thus you should not get all concerned that I'm turning the article into a popular press parrot. If one can add 2 + 2, the understated cases per each of the three most heavily involved countries that were stated in the article (using WHO numbers), yes the WHO has stated a x3 understatement of the numbers. I grow very weary when anyone outside of a select circle of "authorities" is seen as unable to have the sense to make reasonable edits to medical articles. Gandydancer (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Contagious. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Red links

Please read WP:REDLINK. Are you really suggesting that, while we have articles on individual burger bars and fictional characters -- indeed, on individual Pokemon -- that we should not have articles on the health ministries of two African countries? -- The Anome (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, and reply there, please. -- The Anome (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

virology/ebola west africa

I think your correct, the cytokine storm is probably best left for later,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad that there are no hurt feelings Ozzie10aaaa. I've been posting on medical articles for quite a few years so I've sort of gotten to know the ropes. (BTW, my stuff gets deleted all the time, so I'm used to it. :)) Hope all is well with you and yours. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

All The Best

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. to Gandydancer Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ozzie10aaaa. It is good to work with you. Gandydancer (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness to Gandy from BrianGroen (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks BrianGroen. Gandydancer (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness to Gandydancer from ```Buster Seven Talk 08:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Buster Seven. I miss you! I miss our other friend as well. She made a HUGE difference in the quality of our articles during the time she was here and I wish she'd return. With love and respect, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Granite, Colorado, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Twin Lakes. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Tamir Rice

The lede is fixed. Let's see if it gets reverted. Thanks, == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

ebola/west africa

would you entertain the possibility of [30] being added to show some drawbacks of CFR in the "statistical measures" section? (btw its already in the talk page). thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe...I'm not sure... As you may have noticed, I do no posting on the sections that discuss numbers. But that does not mean that I'm totally disinterested... Early on I noted that the WHO has given, what seems to me, to be a totally inaccurate number for the CFR for past outbreaks - so much so that I actually posted a question re their what I thought to be a very low number at our WP ask questions site. And, since that time I have been just totally stunned at their apparent lack of knowledge and guidance re the current epidemic. Their most recent estimate of 76% seems about right to me. One does need to take into consideration that the Zaire species is the most dangerous one, but even still their past CFR is only 50% - much too low. What this does is to make the current strain of the Zaire species seem to be more deadly, when it is my best guess that it is not - it is just about right compared to past outbreaks caused by this particular species. Gandydancer (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

ok, we'll wait--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Republican

Is now a separate sentence for which you should give cites. Placed in the other sentence, it is WP:SYNTH if it is not found in those sources. As it is not found in the current sources, it must be a separate claim. Collect (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Do not shout at Gandydancer as you did in this edit. She is entitled to more respect. Edit warring is upsetting enough without being shouted at. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Buster. The article formerly read, Warren, a former Republican, has been described as a leading figure among American progressives.[4][5]. Even after I added a ref to the "a former Republican" wording he has removed it calling it synth. Perhaps he is correct, but it seems odd to me. What do you think? I'll ask Binksternet who has worked on the article as well. (here's the orig article where she made the statement: [31] Gandydancer (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

She said she was a former Republican in an ABC interview with George Stephanopoulos, back before the mid-terms. Just find that interview and change the source/ref to reflect the facts. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Warren being a former Republican is surely a separate fact placed in the prose with the inline citation should not interfere with or become synthesis as it merely references a claim within the broader claim.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I worked to bring this to a GA, so I well-remember the fact, and it's easy to document. What I don't get is how it can be called synth in the way it is written up. I'd like to leave it as is rather than tack another sentence at the end of the para, the way Collect would like to have it. Gandydancer (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Whoops!

Sorry for the revert at Midwife yesterday! I got thrown by the IP edit and when I checked to see when the sentence was inserted into the article, I somehow managed to completely misread it. I now see you were correcting a typo. Cheers, and best wishes for the holidays, Basie (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4