Forgottenfaces (talk | contribs) →DDNOS: new section |
→DDNOS: Ask SandyGeorgia or WAID, both of whom are so awesome they deserve to rule the Earth. |
||
Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
Hi WLU. I am working on the [[dissociative disorder not otherwise specified]] article. I see that some articles quote the entire DSM criteria in the article for mental illnesses - but have seen on the DID page that that is copyright infringement. Is this correct? It seems hard to describe the diagnosis in depth without quoting it directly. I can read around and look for examples, but DDNOS isn't like DID where there are only a few set presentations and you can name the defining features easily (amnesia and alters). Let me know the best route, thanks. [[User:Forgottenfaces|Forgotten Faces]] ([[User talk:Forgottenfaces|talk]]) 15:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
Hi WLU. I am working on the [[dissociative disorder not otherwise specified]] article. I see that some articles quote the entire DSM criteria in the article for mental illnesses - but have seen on the DID page that that is copyright infringement. Is this correct? It seems hard to describe the diagnosis in depth without quoting it directly. I can read around and look for examples, but DDNOS isn't like DID where there are only a few set presentations and you can name the defining features easily (amnesia and alters). Let me know the best route, thanks. [[User:Forgottenfaces|Forgotten Faces]] ([[User talk:Forgottenfaces|talk]]) 15:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:You may want to just roll that page into [[dissociation]], particularly if it's going to be short, with a redirect to the specific section. |
|||
:I hate copyright questions. I'll point you to [[WP:COPYRIGHT]] and suggest using brief quotes and summaries. Copyright is not on the ideas expressed, only the specific expression of the idea (i.e. the exact words). If you're still curious or can't see any way to do this, I would suggest asking one of two editors: [[User:SandyGeorgia]] (who is incredibly friendly and helpful and deserves to be the [[User:Jimbo Wales|boss of wikipedia]]) or [[User:WhatamIdoing]] who is much closer to my own behaviour in tolerance of fools vis-a-vis relative weight (but far, far more expert than I and also deserving to be the boss of wikipedia). SG will bend over backwards to help and probably provide a blizzard of incredibly helpful suggestions and edits for the page itself, WAID will probably give you a scrupulously correct answer but may not respond with the same depth. |
|||
:Sandy or WAID, if you're page-stalking, I want you to know that if I were forced into a Sophie's Choice over which one of you to save from falling into the volcano, I'd throw myself in instead. FSM bless ya both. [[User:WLU|WLU]] <small>[[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:</small>[[WP:SIMPLE|<sup><span style='color:#FFA500'>simple</span></sup>]]/[[WP:POL|<sub><span style='color:#008080'>complex</span></sub>]] 15:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:56, 31 January 2012
Please note that I usually don't do e-mail; if it's about wikipedia use my talk page. |
If I judge it requires discretion, I'll contact you. This is tremendously one-sided. I assure you, I feel terrible about it. Really I do. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Pottinger's cats
The Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines say it is "common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject..". I'd have deleted Pottinger's cats's rant on Talk:Megavitamin therapy but you and NoInformation have responded so I'm asking if you would mind if I deleted it along with your responses. I believe this editor is simply using our talk pages as a free web page to post his personal beliefs. Colin°Talk 08:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Responses from me were out of courtesy more than anything. Occasionally someone comes here with an agenda but can learn to settle in to the way we do things, I'm not sure if this is one of those cases. Considering ample warning that talk pages are not for rants or general discussion, and the subsequent ignoring of this advice, I'm not opposed to removal. However, archiving might be an alternative, at the very least to demonstrate to others who may share similar agendas that there is a right and a wrong way of changing things. Noformation Talk 09:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- PC's contributions are worthless conspiracy mongering, and should probably be dealt with on his/her talk page. I have no issue with the whole section being deleted, including my responses.
- Noformation, when have you ever seen an agenda-driven editor learn from someone else's mistakes?
WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've no problem with editors being courteous. Encourage it even. But the article-talk page discussions don't seem to be either changing the editor's mind nor stemming the flow of nonsense. I think retaining the material, even archived, is just free publishing. Colin°Talk 16:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW I don't think archiving will help anyone. WP:DENY seems to apply for civil POV-pushers too. Particularly those who keep insisting that the article is wrong without understanding any of the sources or policies that indicate how intellectually bankrupt CAM is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in mind we're NOT dealing with a newbie. This might need more content, so keep your eyes open. An SPI might be appropriate. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm pretty consumed on the DID page right now, if something extremely relevant requiring a comment comes up, I would appreciate a head's-up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in mind we're NOT dealing with a newbie. This might need more content, so keep your eyes open. An SPI might be appropriate. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW I don't think archiving will help anyone. WP:DENY seems to apply for civil POV-pushers too. Particularly those who keep insisting that the article is wrong without understanding any of the sources or policies that indicate how intellectually bankrupt CAM is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've no problem with editors being courteous. Encourage it even. But the article-talk page discussions don't seem to be either changing the editor's mind nor stemming the flow of nonsense. I think retaining the material, even archived, is just free publishing. Colin°Talk 16:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Dissociative identity disorder discussion
Have no fear. I wouldn't get near it with a ten foot pole. I don't care who's right. From the very little I saw of it, it looked like one of those melee combats in the video game Fate where thirty enemies attack you at once and you die of confusion. I think it might be a good idea to call in arbitration if you haven't.
I had no idea that a consensus of editors could be involved in developing an article. Isn't that a kind of POV? --Bluejay Young (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Arbitration is waaaaaaaayyyy too early. It's a very last step in dispute resolution, ARBCOM wouldn't even consider it at this point. That's part of the reason why this is pissing me off - disputes should be source-based, not opinion based. The process is always 1) find source 2) decide if source is reliable 3) decide on weight 4) decide on summary 5) integrate sources with the page. Notice that there is no step "decide if source agrees with your own feelings on the subject".
- That's...not quite what consensus is. Consensus arrives when multiple editors decide on a specific version of the page that is agreed to represent the status of the relevant scholarly or expert community. A more nuanced reading of WP:NPOV would probably be beneficial (which sounds reeeeeeally condescending, but NPOV is probably the most difficult of our core content policies to grasp, as well as being the hardest to achieve). It again goes back to sources - the appropriate weight given to the page is not determined by editors. The ideal situation would have all editors read all material on the subject and magically decide how much weight to give each position based on how much weight it's given in the sources. That's not possible, so instead we "measure" weight by adding sources essentially on the basis of number; if there are six review articles on one side and three on the other, the former gets the most text. Other considerations like reliability and authority of the publication venue also come into play - Oxford University Press gets more weight than Prometheus Books.
- Consensus arrives when editors, with a common understanding of the policies and guidelines, agree that the number of sources used and their summary and detail within the page fairly represents the scholarly consensus. In practice, so long as everyone agrees to the ground rules it actually happens pretty quickly. For instance, on DID, I object to the iatrogenic material being removed from both body and lead. I don't object to it being portrayed as a minority opinion, but it must be present. I don't have any personal feelings on the matter, I don't know if DID is iatrogenically- or abuse-induced, I just know that in the sources it's not agreed that there is a single cause. Compare HIV/AIDS - in 1980 barely anything was known. A couple years later there were disputes over what caused it - virus, bacteria, drugs abuse, allergy to semen or blood? A few more years and it was settled - most people agreed it was viral in origin, though there were dissenters. A decade later and the dissenters are either convinced - or denialists, and moved out of the page. Right now DID is in the "disputes" stage therefore each hypothetical etiology should be discussed.
- In practice, if I can keep finding reliable sources to integrate into the page, I keep adding them. If other editors can't find "competing" sources, mine de facto becomes more heavily weighted. If the only sources the "other side" finds are low-quality or scarce, then again de facto that indicates more weight should go to "my" side.
- A good page, after a lengthy dispute, will result in multiple groups of editors who are willing to defend even edits they disagree with, or revert edits they agree with, if they are giving too much weight to one side. The problem here is the "other side" isn't working from the same set of rules that I am - Tom thinks he gets to decide what's on the page based on what he personally believes. You don't get to ignore sources and policies that way. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for explaining what consensus is! And I think instead of arbitration I should have said mediation. --Bluejay Young (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hello WLU. I don't like to argue. Will you be nice please and let all those on the DID page work on it. I think at heart you are a good person that just does not know hold to let hold of something you feel belongs to you, but please - just this once - try. :) ~ty (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've never prevented others from editing the page - only pointed out when those edits are not in line with the P&G. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is not true Sir. You only allow the edits that agree with your pov. You reverted ALL Tom Cloyds edits and cite reasons that you feel justify this, but no one else is agreeing with that except your sidekick Dreamguy, who agrees with all you have been doing there. ~ty (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Bull. Shit. Your comment is pure confirmation bias. I know what I'm doing, I edit quickly and I justify my edits - as well as my reverts. I admit my mistakes. I correct them. I try to help other editors when I see points worth keeping or making. I had a recent fruitful discussion, and spent a considerable amount of time trying to resolve an issue with Forgotten Faces, despite disageeing with him/her personally. It was calm, civil, and resulted in an obvious improvement to the page and removal of a misrepresentation of a source. I've added numerous potential sources to the talk page, including several that I personally disagree with, and added numerous reliable sources, including an expansion of the overly-brief treatment section.
- But please, feel free to keep blaming everything on me. Keep claiming that I do nothing but worsen the page and obstruct on the talk page. Do your best to ensure I'm the villain of your piece and diagnose me with pathologies that justify my black cloak and moustache. I don't care. My goal is to improve the page by finding, summarizing and integrating reliable sources. I'm fucking good at it. I enjoy doing it. And I'm going to keep doing it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for keeping the swearing on your own talk page. I really do appreciate that! ~ty (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why don't you do us both a favour. Suggest, or make, a sourced change to the DID article. Then ask me what I think of it. Not because I own the page, simply because I am an experienced editor and might have something interesting to say. Your claims against me are largely diff-free and address very few specifics regarding the edits I've made to main space. Consider this a trust and consensus building exercise. I'm happy to do the reverse, if you would like me to justify any specific action I take on the page, I will happily do so with reference to policies and guidelines, admitting when it's simply a matter of taste or personal judgement when it's not. To date our actual editing together has been almost nothing, it's solely been talk page postings. This would change that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- In many ways I think we both understand DID the same way. If you are not really a "false memory type" then perhaps we can teach each other some things and come to an agreement. I really don't want to present an extreme POV, I just want people to see the facts about dissociative identity disorder and not a bunch of false memory politics.~ty (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why don't you do us both a favour. Suggest, or make, a sourced change to the DID article. Then ask me what I think of it. Not because I own the page, simply because I am an experienced editor and might have something interesting to say. Your claims against me are largely diff-free and address very few specifics regarding the edits I've made to main space. Consider this a trust and consensus building exercise. I'm happy to do the reverse, if you would like me to justify any specific action I take on the page, I will happily do so with reference to policies and guidelines, admitting when it's simply a matter of taste or personal judgement when it's not. To date our actual editing together has been almost nothing, it's solely been talk page postings. This would change that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for keeping the swearing on your own talk page. I really do appreciate that! ~ty (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is not true Sir. You only allow the edits that agree with your pov. You reverted ALL Tom Cloyds edits and cite reasons that you feel justify this, but no one else is agreeing with that except your sidekick Dreamguy, who agrees with all you have been doing there. ~ty (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've never prevented others from editing the page - only pointed out when those edits are not in line with the P&G. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hello WLU. I don't like to argue. Will you be nice please and let all those on the DID page work on it. I think at heart you are a good person that just does not know hold to let hold of something you feel belongs to you, but please - just this once - try. :) ~ty (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't give a shit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Do I detect anger again? I do care. DID is important to me. ~ty (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Shirley Ardell Mason, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free Press (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) 12:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Needed your assistance
Hi,WLU,I need your assistance relating article Muhammad Iqbal,please take a look at article and its talk page,it seems to me that edtitor Omer123hussain's editings are not justifing the rules of wikipedia?.I try to explain to him in edit summary,but he is experienced as he claims to be,while he do not want to understand what the meaning of knighthood is, and repeadedly placing the templete cn and asking source for holiday in Pakistan,while link itself is source.Now I see everywhere templetes cn are decorated.He also does not going to accept reliable sources.In this stage for me is very terrible and difficult to expand and improve the article.You know the rules,please access and assess the edits and work.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like the problem with the knighthood is the whole "Sir Muhammad", though it's implied by the knighthood, it's also peacocky and looks odd. I would in fact support removing it.
- Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source; you can't link to another wikipedia page and say "that's the source". You need to go to the linked page itself and pull the reference from there. In fact, the Public holidays in Pakistan page doesn't have any sources and the single external link doesn't appear to include his birthday. I can't see any problem with Omer123's edits. He has tagged sources that appear unreliable (they're websites of unknown reliability). In many cases the websites are redundant to obviously reliable sources like books.
- My suggestion to you would be removing the sources and accompanying tags where they aren't needed (i.e. if you've got 3 sources and 2 are tagged as unreliable, delete the tags and the 2 unreliable sources) and in an ideal case replace them with reliable sources. You might try searching Google Books, as there do appear to be several discussing him, i.e. [1], [2]. I would suggest looking into common alternative spellings that may be used. You may also use non-English sources, so try searching using whatever search engines use arabic scripts - but I wouuld restrict your sources in this case to unquestionably reliable ones like scholarly books. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok,and thanks very much to assisting me,and please watch and correct me where I am wrong,so that article can be expanded and improved.Justice007 (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Let me know when you've finished your edits and I'll provide comments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
ISSTD
Hi WLU. I believe I am almost done with the text for the ISSTD article. Can you let me know if anything I messed up anything or am including anything I shouldn't or just basic errors like that? I'm still trying to find sources for more about the 90s repressed/false memory stuff, if I can't I'm just going to remove that for now. Thanks again for all of your help. Forgotten Faces (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh one other thing, there's one reference that I use in three places that references different page numbers. I wrote notes on the article page itself, can you show me how to get it to show different page numbers or just change it yourself and I'll see how you did it? Thanks! It's reference 5 (right now) Chu, JA (2011). Rebuilding Shattered Lives. Forgotten Faces (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've done some basic fixes. I'd say you can leave the note that they were involved in the recovered/repressed memories controversy without including details, no need to take it out.
- Regards the Chu reference, I fixed it in two steps. Hacking actually has the same problem if you'd like to take a crack at it. You move the full reference to the "References" section and use the following code:
<ref name = authorpage>[[#Author|Author]], 20XX, p. [book link ##].</ref>
==References==
- <cite id = Author>{{cite book}}
- Obviously fill out the information and cite book template properly. It's a bit complicated so I actually check an example I set up years ago at satanic ritual abuse to make sure I code it right. Have a go and I'll check to see what's wrong if it goes pear-shaped (or let me know you'd rather I do it and I'll fix it for you). To get the right google books page number, the unique book identifier is everything in front of the first &pg=P part. To link to a specific page number, use &pg=PA## if it's the main section, &pg=PR## if it's the introduction or whatever (i.e. book numbering is Roman rather than numerals, page xii becomes &pg=PR11 while page 23 is still &pg=PA23). You don't need the stuff after the page number, it'll automatically redirect to the appropriate link. I like to include it because it's slightly neater. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, the article looks better. I'll try my luck at the citations later today when I have more time and finish up the info on presidents, and then we're basically done I think. Am I missing anything else besides adding it to categories and such? :) Forgotten Faces (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Meh, it doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to be notable enough to avoid deletion. If you want to polish it, add the infobox I mentioned on your talk page and see if you can find an appropriate footer template. May not be one though. A stub notice wouldn't be bad either - good luck with that, stubs are a pain in the ass.
- I hate categories, you're getting no help from me there. I'd suggest stealing them from articles on similar topics (i.e. dissociation on one hand, medical/scholarly organizations on the other) and let someone else sort them out. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I went through like half an hour of trying to understand what I was doing only to find the other pages in the Hacking reference were artifacts from previous edits... so I read it more in depth and made a new reference in the article in a different place. I was already almost done and wanted to see if I could do it/get feedback from you... so it ended up making the article better in another way, too. I'm pretty stubborn I guess. I think I did it correctly but let me know. Thanks. Forgotten Faces (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- You've used <ref name = Hacking/> three times, once to refer to page 113 and twice to refer to page 52 - but only the first one shows up. You don't need a ref name template for 113 (it's only used once, you only need ref name when you re-use a reference) and you can either leave 52 as <ref name = Hacking> or change it to <ref name = Hacking52> to be more specific. Remember, the "real" ref name tag needs to be <ref name = refname>Actual citation information</ref> while all subsequent references are just <ref name = refname/> with the forward slash to close the tag. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I went through like half an hour of trying to understand what I was doing only to find the other pages in the Hacking reference were artifacts from previous edits... so I read it more in depth and made a new reference in the article in a different place. I was already almost done and wanted to see if I could do it/get feedback from you... so it ended up making the article better in another way, too. I'm pretty stubborn I guess. I think I did it correctly but let me know. Thanks. Forgotten Faces (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, the article looks better. I'll try my luck at the citations later today when I have more time and finish up the info on presidents, and then we're basically done I think. Am I missing anything else besides adding it to categories and such? :) Forgotten Faces (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously fill out the information and cite book template properly. It's a bit complicated so I actually check an example I set up years ago at satanic ritual abuse to make sure I code it right. Have a go and I'll check to see what's wrong if it goes pear-shaped (or let me know you'd rather I do it and I'll fix it for you). To get the right google books page number, the unique book identifier is everything in front of the first &pg=P part. To link to a specific page number, use &pg=PA## if it's the main section, &pg=PR## if it's the introduction or whatever (i.e. book numbering is Roman rather than numerals, page xii becomes &pg=PR11 while page 23 is still &pg=PA23). You don't need the stuff after the page number, it'll automatically redirect to the appropriate link. I like to include it because it's slightly neater. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I don't know how I didn't see that before I replied, oops. Anyway, I think I've fixed everything, thanks for your patience, let me know. :) Forgotten Faces (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, if everything is working correctly I am going to submit it if you think it's good enough for now. Forgotten Faces (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I say go for it, you'll get some more feedback too. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! Just submitted it. Forgotten Faces (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Lemme know if you need any further help, that page or others. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's been quite a learning experience. I appreciate your help, and I will definitely let you know if I have more questions. Thanks. Forgotten Faces (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Lemme know if you need any further help, that page or others. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! Just submitted it. Forgotten Faces (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I say go for it, you'll get some more feedback too. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Article Sodium hyaluronate
Hello Sir. I am the main author of the article Sodium hyaluronate. Last year 2011 You noted successfully that: "(cur | prev) 14:27, 4 July 2011 WLU (talk | contribs) (24,777 bytes) (reads like it was written by someone who spoke English as a second language. Fixes)". Really it is thouth!!! I am Greek, and English is my 2nd language. Please if you have the time, correct my English in this article. Best regards. Dr. Harry Gouvas, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Greece Harrygouvas (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I very much doubt I will have time to address much beyond technical fixes and specific questions. If you have any, I'll do my best to address them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Tavris, w/o a "t" at the end.
With this edit, you misspelled the last name of Social Psychologist WP:Carol Tavris by adding a "t" to the end of her last name. The WP:Link does not work now as originally intended. In the same paragraph, you twice correctly spelled the last name of Carol Tavris. I assume good faith and that, at your convenience, you will correct the small mistake you introduced with your edit, so interested readers at the Rind et al. controversy can conveniently link to Carol Tavris. --Radvo (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
adoptmeadoptmeadoptme!
please adopt me!--ethen bowen 00:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethen12 (talk • contribs)
- Sure, what kind of help were you looking for? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- i'm looking for help with my two articles that i'm writing. the links are below.
- --ethen bowen 01:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Both appear to be inappropriate for wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a how to manual; if this topic interests you, I would suggest WikiHow. The second is redundant to computer. If you find the current article to be written at too high a level, you might consider Simple English Wikipedia.
- When linking to pages on wikipedia, you just need to use two sets of square brackets [[like this]] which renders like this in most cases (it's red because it's not a real page, it turns blue when an actual page exists). You appear to have tried using a redirect. Redirects help ensure we have only one page per topic, and we don't duplicate pages based on alternative spellings, different names and the like (for instance, Equus zebra, the species name, redirects to Mountain Zebra, the wikipedia name). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
ANI
There is an ANI discussion going on about Ethan12, and you are invited to take part. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 04:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
DDNOS
Hi WLU. I am working on the dissociative disorder not otherwise specified article. I see that some articles quote the entire DSM criteria in the article for mental illnesses - but have seen on the DID page that that is copyright infringement. Is this correct? It seems hard to describe the diagnosis in depth without quoting it directly. I can read around and look for examples, but DDNOS isn't like DID where there are only a few set presentations and you can name the defining features easily (amnesia and alters). Let me know the best route, thanks. Forgotten Faces (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- You may want to just roll that page into dissociation, particularly if it's going to be short, with a redirect to the specific section.
- I hate copyright questions. I'll point you to WP:COPYRIGHT and suggest using brief quotes and summaries. Copyright is not on the ideas expressed, only the specific expression of the idea (i.e. the exact words). If you're still curious or can't see any way to do this, I would suggest asking one of two editors: User:SandyGeorgia (who is incredibly friendly and helpful and deserves to be the boss of wikipedia) or User:WhatamIdoing who is much closer to my own behaviour in tolerance of fools vis-a-vis relative weight (but far, far more expert than I and also deserving to be the boss of wikipedia). SG will bend over backwards to help and probably provide a blizzard of incredibly helpful suggestions and edits for the page itself, WAID will probably give you a scrupulously correct answer but may not respond with the same depth.
- Sandy or WAID, if you're page-stalking, I want you to know that if I were forced into a Sophie's Choice over which one of you to save from falling into the volcano, I'd throw myself in instead. FSM bless ya both. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)