User talk:Transity

---

Home	Talk	Contribs	Edit Statistics	Gallery	eMail	User Subpages

---

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Transity.

I've added the links below as handy reference for disputes that often arise concerning how to recognize pseudoscience, and how to address pseudoscientific claims in Wikipedia articles.

• Policy: What should be classified as pseudoscience and what should not
• Policy: When not to give equal validity to opposing views
• Policy: How to properly weight minority views vs. majority views
• Policy: Burden of Proof and what to do with unsourced pseudo information
• Policy: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
• Essay: Scientific Consensus
• Essay: Dealing with Dedicated Fringe Advocates

--Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user, Your recent edit in common cold was reverted, since there was no solid discussion on "Alternative treatment for common cold" on the talk page of this article as you mentioned there is, in your "edit summary". In your edit, you deleted a large section and just claimed that such treatment does not exist. Well, although I may agree with you, but I should mention that we can not just delete a section and add out self idea. The section that you deleted also had references. What you can do, is you add your statement with its citation to the previouse section but please do not delete statements from the articles without a solid discussion. I appreciate your attention Parvazbato59 (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed that you discussed it in another article here. This is the problem. One can not address an issue on another article and simply delete a section by addressing it there. But I am sure you were unaware of it. What you can do, is to do the same discussion in the talk page of common cold by opeining a new section and naming it "Alternative treatment for common cold". Then you can modify the text under that section, but still, I insist you can not delete the statements with references, eventhough they are against what we think". I know that alternative treatments maynot be scientific, but as you know, some of the medicines that we use today, come from the common "herbs". Sicnece is not perfect. Thanks Parvazbato59 (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment has been pasted to the common cold talk page where the discussion continues. --Transity (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any time the two of you feel like concentrating on the issue at hand instead of each other would be fine by me. I just collapsed the completely off-topic comments, but if you happened to feel like removing the personal attacks and other unproductive text from your remaining comments, that would be nice. Either striking the text or replacing it with a brief note to that effect might improve the mood of that page. Thank you. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to discuss content all along, I just haven't had much luck. I admit that, at times, I was unable to resist the temptation to respond in kind to the insults that started immediately upon my arrival, and for that I apologize to those stuck reading the off-topic comments. I agree completely with what you've collapsed. Indeed a lot more could be collapsed. If I have the time to do so, I will try to strike out some of my more off-topic statements that still remain. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete. There were some spots where striking things would have concealed a substantive point, so I may have left a few things that I otherwise would have removed. It also made me see that, towards the end (the last few days), my frustration was showing a lot more than it had been before. Good exercise. Also the reason I took 12 hours away from the site today. Thanks, Eldereft - I actually didn't realize this was a good - or even acceptable - thing to do. I appreciate the tip, and whether others follow suit or not, I'm glad I did it. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Ratel has erased your comment on his talk page, and stated that nothing he said on IC/PBS was off-topic. Again, I'm still glad I redacted my off-topic text. But - and I mean this in all sincerity, so please understand these aren't meant as insults, but just observations - I don't know how to deal with someone behaving like Ratel within the parameters of WP. If I sink to their level, that's clearly no good. If I ignore them, I might as well not even try to improve an article with an editor like this "camped out." And I can't spend all my time in WQAs and RfCs - that's both a waste of time, and no fun at all. Do you have any advice? --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is much better. I just left a note at the Fringe theories noticeboard that they might be interested in that discussion; hopefully now it will be easier for new editors to get up to speed. WP:TALK#Editing comments covers when and how it can be ok to muck about with the display record. Collapsing off-topic discussions can lead to trouble, but I tried to be as conservative as possible while still having some effect.

Insist that the highest quality sources be strictly followed and try to find compromise wording is unfortunately the best advice I have. Calling in other editors (via RfC or the several noticeboards) can help, especially if those who answer are more interested in the encyclopedia than the POV. This debate is also covered by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, which allows appeal to Arbitration enforcement in some fairly specific circumstances.

Also, sorry for the high level of snarkiness in my opening comment; I had just finished reading that talkpage. Hopefully we all can be a little calmer and more rational from here on in. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Eldereft. And don't worry - the snarkiness was appropriate given what you'd just waded through. Hopefully we'll get a few extra eyes on the IC debate, get it settled, and move forward. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Transity - I placed a "final" note on the WQA regarding Ratel, explaining my intention to look into filing an RfC concerning him. I know you've expressed that you don't wish to spend all your time on WQAs and RfCs, but as far as I can see, one user alone can't pursue an RfC against another user. I'm reluctant to ask (or include, unasked) Collect in these proceedings, as his presence seems to distract from the issue of Ratel's behavior; I, myself, may be "poison" to the proceedings at this point, as you are the only user I've thus far encountered who shares my opinion of the ridiculous WP:SPA accusations. I'm also admittedly new here, and despite my aptitude for research (which, as we all know, clearly indicates that I am a sockpuppet), I wouldn't mind a more experienced user or two taking the helm on this. If you agree that Ratel's behavior, his refusal to cooperate in the WQA, and his continued behavior (as evidenced in your further dealings on the IC discussion) require the attention of others, perhaps one or the other of us might be able to find additional users to assist in the filing of the RfC. Feel free to reply here or on my Talk page regarding this issue. (And good luck on the IC Talk page - I'm not sure what more I can do to help matters there, unfortunately.) Scramblecase (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scramblecase - I've looked through policies to see what is appropriate with regard to this kind of discussion, and I have to say I'm uncertain what's okay and what is not. I have expressed (on the WQA) my observations about Ratel's behavior as well as my interest in a possible RfC, so I believe your comment above to that effect is appropriate. I don't think it's appropriate, though, to try to find other users who might join in on an RfC, as that might constitute a violation of WP:CANVAS. I don't think you meant to suggest anything improper, I just think the policies concerning this are a little vague, especially when it comes to a process like RfC:User where three or more people are required to start the process.

I think we should each decide, on our own, if we feel that proceeding with an RfC is the right way to go. If you decide to do so, I am asking that you please post a friendly notice here letting me know that you have moved forward (as I am an interested party, and as I have expressed interest in that path myself). If you like, if I decide to move forward, I can let you know as well. I also believe it is acceptable to alert other users who have previously debated the subject at hand - in this case, Ratel's behavior. I would look at the WQA to get an idea of who those users might be, as well as possibly the diffs provided in those comments as they might lead to other interested parties who have debated his behavior in a forum other than our recent WQA (again, I think this is an acceptable approach). As a note, I feel that any notification of an RfC should be a general notification to all interested parties, and not just one directed at those who hold opinions similar to your or my own.

So again, please do let me know if you move forward with an RfC, and I will do the same for you (as part of a larger notice to all interested parties). --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arcayne has some good advice here. You don't have to solve a problem like Ratel; just succinctly document your efforts and move on. It's okay to leave a mess for another editor else to deal with. Really. Flowanda | Talk 02:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Flowanda. I think I'll give it a go, and try to get back to editing content and actually enjoying myself here. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news. I've been able to restore everyone's points - except yours. You see, my scripts make a list of the most linked-to disambigs at the beginning of each month. Originally, one of the disambigs was LAPD (disambiguation). On May 8, R&B moved that page to LAPD (perfectly good move on his part, BTW) and that confused my scripts to the point they no longer could figure out who fixed what. I can't think of a way to bring those points back.

If it's any consolation, I've had the theme to the Rockford Files stuck in my head all day :) --JaGa^talk 21:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The fixes are still made - I just don't have a tally for those changes. Not a big deal at all. In a dynamic environment, things like this are bound to happen. Glad to hear you've got the Rockford Files theme song playing in your head - sorry to confess that's why I picked that example! Cheers. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the HealthyED brand to be included in Wikipedia. It has high street retail distribution and is both clinically test and proven. The sale of the raw herb is government controlled and it is processed into pill form under strict UK manufacturing standards. The product helps men overcome a serious condition (Impotence)and greater awareness can only be beneficial to all.

Thanks Steve douglas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.201.157.246 (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on your talk page: Welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've added links on several articles (Butea, Butea superba, and Erectile dysfunction) to a site selling the HealthyEd brand of Butea supplement. Adding links to an article for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Please see Wikipedia's policies on spam and particularly the policies on that page concerning link spam for further guidance. In addition to removing these links, I also declined your request for creation of the article titled healthyed for the same reasons. I don't think you are intentionally spamming, but your actions are contrary to the policies above. Thank you.

I see you added the links again to the Butea superba article. Please don't continue to do that as it violates Wikipedia policies, as I described above. Please feel free to add links to reliable sources documenting the effects of Butea in general (see the guidelines on good medical sources), but there's no reason to promote or even mention this particular brand of Butea supplement that I can see. Read the policies that I've linked to here and I think you'll agree. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting that obnoxious vandalism on my talk page. How do I bring in an administrator to deal with the vandal? MarcusMaximus (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If it keeps happening (it seems like this guy has made this edit to your talk page three times thus far), revert the vandalism, then warn him on his talk page. I already added a first-level vandalism warning for the one I reverted, as well as a second level personal attack warning. If he does it again, I would suggest that you use a third level warning for vandalism, then a fourth, and if he vandalizes again (after his final warning), have him blocked at the WP:AIV board. You may, of course, skip to a "final warning" if he does it again as his edits are clearly both vandalism and personal attacks (and since the only use of this account has been vandalism), but if you do that, the block request may or may not be honored.

Warning templates can be found at WP:VANDAL#Warnings. To report a vandal to be blocked, go to WP:AIV and use the following template, adding the IP address and links to the vandalism diffs:

{{IPvandal|1.1.1.1}} – IP used solely for repeated vandalism, including <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_Bison?diff=1111111 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_Bison?diff=1111111 2]</span>

If I'm around, I will gladly help you with reporting him if you like. I'll also keep an eye on him as a known vandal. I know it sounds like a big pain in the ass to have to go through in order to stop someone from vandalizing your talk page, but it's the best way to stop the vandalism. Above all, don't let it bother you - these guys are a dime-a-dozen, and their vandalism never lasts long. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reverting the rogue edits to my talkpage, it is people like you who keep Wikipedia running. Thank you. --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the other editor who have been repeatedly undoing my work has no idea what Otitis Media is and even less what otitis media with effusion is. The same editor has lso no idea what dyslexia is and so it totoally unqualified to know that about how otitis media with effusion can be a cause of dyslexia. I could be wrong but there has been no evidens over thr last few weeks to prove otherwise, just some personal vendetta for reasons best known to them

dolfrog (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion and consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia#RFC. Dolfrog can't/won't accept the strong consensus that his additions of Category:Dyslexia are inappropriate. And I'm getting pretty tired of these personal attacks on my ability to understand topics. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're trying to do, dolfrog, but you have to work within the policies of Wikipedia. An article that doesn't mention dyslexia at all and which has no easily discerned connection to dyslexia generally isn't a good candidate for the dyslexia category. And if you just show up and add a seemingly off-topic category to an article (as with Otitis media, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with dyslexia) without so much as a mention on the talk page, it's a good bet it will be reverted. The better approach would be to add information to the article first (assuming you have reliable sources to backup your claims), and then look to add the category if it makes sense.

I just replied to you on the Talk:Otitis media page, and suggested this approach. As I said there, if you've got reliable sources to backup what you're saying, then this should be added to the article. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All

I have added some new sections below which have come from various talk pages in recent days but all realted in some way to the dyslexia project. So I have added them all below, in the hope that we can all begin to add our own input as one person working alone can cause also sorts of problems as can be seen above. I will post a copy of this to all who I think may wish to the new begining of the Dyslexia project and a copy will appear on your individual discussion pages ( I hope you do not mind). The oringinal copy of this can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia the discusion page of the main project article you will see revise project template, the changes on the tamplate is the addition of a Project pages section, which includes the orinal project pages and the new STAGE TWO page which is hopefuly the new starting point. the STAGE TWO page has the dyslexia article as it is now. And we can tinker with it without changing the actual article itself and discuss and issue we may have before making further changes to the article itself.

dolfrog (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for wordsmith edits. I get these word recall, or word block problems due to my APD , can be very frustrating at times dolfrog (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Please check both of my changes for content, though. One part in particular didn't read right. I tried to keep the correct meaning, but please make sure I did. It was the part that discussed "discrepancy" tests between IQ and reading level. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Transity

Tonight (9 July 2009), I hit my usual link to my watchlist and was told that a) I was not logged on and b) I had a message.

I clicked the 'message' banner first and saw

User talk:91.110.236.64 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]June 2009 Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Common cold. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Transity (talk • contribs) 20:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what my IP number is (nor how to find out) but it was not I that vandalised Common cold. Having a clear conscience I am unperturbed by your message, which was extremely polite considering the rubbish that had been inserted.

However, either there is a glitch in the Wikipedia system or someone has been able to take over my IP address. Can you suggest anyone who might be able to help with this?

In addition, I imagine that will have now switched off the 'You have a message' banner so the real offender will not get warned (if he/she cares). Any ideas on how to fix this?

Having now logged on for another month, I am able to wish you…..

All the best, Dinoceras (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(leaving this on your talk page as well) My best guess is that your ISP assigns IP addresses dynamically, and every 1+ days, you get a new IP address from them. At the time the vandalism was taking place, you had a different IP. Today you had this one, and since your autologin had expired, you saw the message left for the IP user from several weeks back. You already have a login, and you will likely have a new IP soon enough, so I wouldn't worry about it. The problem will take care of itself. Cheers! --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I hadn't realised that IP addresses were habitually reassigned by ISPs. A pity, since it means that the original vandal won't be rebuked. Cheers! Dinoceras (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've contested the speedy deletion on behalf of the article creator as I've found a NY Times source - see article talk page. Exxolon (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, just saw it. The brief mention probably isn't enough to make them notable, but it is enough to reasonably remove the speedy delete tag. I may still AFD it after a while to let others decide if they are notable enough - I'll watch it for now. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to mention that I looked at the two articles, Fairbank and Charleston, Arizona, that you requested input on. They both look really good. There hasn't been a lot of activity on the Ghost Town Wikiproject lately and it's good to see new contributions to the project. Keep up the good work!Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The extra eyes are appreciated. I plan to work on more ghost towns in Arizona (probably Harshaw and Mowry next), and if I find more information on Charleston and Fairbank, I'll expand them further as well. Thanks, again. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Geography Barnstar
		For making a decent, referenced, non-stubbed article about Harshaw, Arizona. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an old riddle: Which weighs more, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers? Of course they weigh the same. Then, you say, what about an ounce of gold vs. an ounce of feathers? The answer is the gold, because precious metals are traditionally weighed in troy ounces. And as you can see at the ton article, what you refer to as "regular tons" (in the U.S.) are short tons. These things aren't usually spelled out; it's just understood. Fact is, I didn't even know about the tons myself until I was reading the documentation for the {{convert}} template. Good job on Harshaw, Arizona; I hope to see more of your ghost towns contributions. Ntsimp (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note your good work in trying to help the creator of this article; you definitely assumed good faith and tried to help, but I came across the article in the course of assessing another article for speedy deletion and I have to say that I cannot imagine that the article will ever be able to provide any reliable sources that demonstrate any notability. I did a brief search and found nothing whatever that gave me any confidence that the individuals have anything other than a YouTube account and a desire for self-promotion. Nevertheless, you were doing things the way that I would like to do them myself on my better days, and I thought it deserved to be recognized. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, thank you for taking the time to spell out your thought process here. You were right, of course, to re-tag for speedy delete. The author had plenty of time to show reliable sources and notability, and it was time to re-tag (it was on my watchlist, and I likely would have done so shortly). I guess it was the author's willingness to actually engage in a discussion that caused me to assume good faith - most of the time, disputed CSDs are never defended at all, and a willingness to discuss the issues usually makes me want to pause to hear the arguments. Thanks for the nod, and for taking the time to explain why you were doing what you did. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote about the wrong person. I meant the CEO of the other Griffon Corp. Both are defense contractors but French is the CEO of the small Griffon, not the large one. Very confusing! User F203 (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know I'm confused! Now the page redirects to a baseball player...? My advice would be to work on the page in a sandbox, then publish it when you're ready. Putting it out there as such a short stub (sub-stub, really) makes it hard to see that it should be kept. Thanks. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there.

I noticed that you've made changes to the dyslexia article in the not-too-distant past and wanted to solicit your input.

I just started a new conversation on the Wikiproject dyslexia talk page about our attempt to provide a worldwide view in these articles. We could use as many people providing feedback as possible. Please read and respond, if you can.

Thanks!

Rosmoran (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Maryjo Adams Cochran has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Page now asserts notability, but proof is needed of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sorry about the template! Bearian (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the template. As the person who added the CSD that is now replaced by this PROD, I appreciate the head's up. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wanted to drop you a line to make absolutely clear that my decision to take the Edge article off my watchlist had nothing to do with you. It was while investigating the stuff about his directorship with the gaming association that I realised I did not want to be involved. Best of luck! Hope you get some more eyes from BLP. GDallimore (Talk) 13:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I was a little concerned when I saw your comment, and I was wondering if you thought I was trampling on BLP somehow. So I appreciate the note.

Objectively, I understand why you decided to back off. As I said, I found the page doing recent change patrol, as it was in the process of being repeatedly vandalized in the wake of the first report of the Mobigames issue. Since then, there has been a pretty constant stream of everything from waves of simple vandalism, to vandalism plastering Nazi images and text all over the article, to repeated insertions of BLP violations. In addition, the page was a clear vanity page when all this started, so it's been a real challenge getting it into even semi-decent shape.

Subjectively, I sure do need some help, so I'm hoping the BLP notice will at least attract some extra eyes. So far, nothing though.

Thanks for the assistance on the trademark issues. If you see anything else that is simply wrong there, please feel free to drop me a line here if you don't want to get involved with actively editing. Either way, best of luck to you. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think I could handle the wikistress at the moment :). On the trademark front, I think I corrected the main error which was why I decided to remove the disputed template. Just look out for things like "world trademark", which probably means "trademark rights in many countries". Also, one thing I didn't get around to saying before I vamoosed, be careful using gaming sites as reliable sources for issues of law - they might be reliable about games and gaming news, but that doesn't make them qualified to comment on the legality of ethics of trademark usage/abusage. I think the article could benefit by explaining in more general terms that games developers are angered by his actions rather than picking over all the things that those angry games developers are complaining about. GDallimore (Talk) 15:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep an eye out for the "global trademark" text, and also look at a rewrite of some parts of the article, per what you mentioned above. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's totally up to you now, that's merely what my next comment on the talk page would have been! GDallimore (Talk) 17:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. That's all I was looking for. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Transity. I appreciate your email. I am with an organization that includes nearly 20,000 medical doctors, and as you might imagine, anything we have on our website is reviewed from a medical perspective by specialists in those areas. While I understand your concern that this looks like spam, I promise you that we are not selling anything, but rather help out with areas related to health care by providing peer-reviewed information written in a format for the average patient.

If possible, I would prefer that you email me directly before removing those items at [email protected] for a discussion. My concern is that you are removing legitimate information that can help thousands with various health conditions.

Chuck Moran Director Institute for Good Medicine Pennsylvania Medical Society —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckmoran7 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already removed the links that were clearly not acceptable, such as inline links to your site in the text of articles, double links in the refs and the external links, and overly-local statements that didn't belong in the articles. I have left most other links alone, though others have removed some, and others could continue to do so. I urge you to review the guidelines I linked to on your talk page (WP:SPAMMER, WP:SPAMLINKS, WP:COI, WP:BFAQ) as your actions could well constitute spamming, despite the aim of your site. I think you would agree that you desire more hits for your site, and that adding links to Wikipedia would likely mean more hits. Whether or not you are selling something, you are serving your own agenda by adding these promotional links. In addition, there are guidelines for what sources are reliable sources for medical articles. You should review these to see if and when your site passes muster. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transity ... thanks again for your clarifications.

In your last message you wrote "In addition, there are guidelines for what sources are reliable sources for medical articles. You should review these to see if and when your site passes muster."

At the link you provided was written the following:

"A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. Literature reviews, systematic review articles and specialist textbooks are examples of secondary sources, as are position statements and literature reviews by major health organizations. A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field and be editorially or peer reviewed. Do not confuse a scientific review (the thing) with peer review (the activity)."

And, also at that link was the following:

"In general, Wikipedia's medical articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible."

The Pennsylvania Medical Society is the largest health organization in Pennsylvania for physicians. The peer-reviewed information that we publish on our websites falls within Wiki's guidelines for reliable sources of medical articles. Thus I believe it passes muster.

Chuck Moran Director, Institute for Good Medicine Pennsylvania Medical Society —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckmoran7 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, by "secondary sources" they are referring to "Literature reviews, systematic review articles and specialist textbooks are examples of secondary sources, as are position statements and literature reviews by major health organizations." Major health organizations include "the U.S. National Academies (including the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), and the World Health Organization." You site doesn't qualify for either, as far as I can see. Your site appears to be more like a less-known version of WebMD. WP:MEDRS has this to say on sites like that: "Press releases, blogs, newsletters, advocacy and self-help publications, and other sources contain a wide range of biomedical information ranging from factual to fraudulent, with a high percentage being of low quality. Peer-reviewed medical information resources such as WebMD and UpToDate can be useful guides about the relevant medical literature and how much weight to give different sources; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the literature directly."

I still think you need to review the links I provided more carefully. You are clearly editing with a conflict of interest, and your excessive links are clearly in violation of Wikipedia policies. I urge you to think about that before adding these links again. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was an error in the blanking of this page. It was not intended. An email was sent to you via the Wikipedia email system with an explanation of this article. If it is not in your Wikipedia email, please let me know and I will resend. I believe this page should not be deleted. Thank you, Srl40214 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srl40214 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not receive an email, so please either resend, or feel free to reply here or on the article's talk page with your concerns. As of right now, the article is tagged as proposed for deletion, which means it will not be deleted prior to August 10. You are free to either try to improve the article and address the issues that have been raised prior to that date, or you are allowed to simply remove the dated prod tag (leaving the other tags in place), and that will end the request for proposed deletion.

Note that if you remove the prod tag, I will likely nominate as an article for deletion unless you also address the concerns that have been raised.

Either way, I will certainly not tag for speedy delete as it was not your intent to blank the page. Thanks. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply. I will email you tomorrow addressing the issues you raised about this page. Srl40214 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srl40214 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been edited to address the issues you raised. Please advise if there are any others that should be addressed. Thank you. Srl40214 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.100.8 (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the issues raised have not been adequately addressed. You added a bunch of non-reliable sources to the article, which doesn't address the need to improve the references or the need to establish notability.

I suggest that you read the following pages so that you can understand why the article doesn't meet the requirements as it is. Start with the general notability guidelines so that you understand what confers notability in general. Then look at the guidelines for notability for companies so that you see what makes a company notable. Also try the FAQ on businesses for some general guidance on writing articles on companies. Finally, read the policies on reliable sources to understand why your sources don't qualify as reliable, and what sources you would need to provide in order to address the issues raised.

Specifically, you are leaning almost exclusively on the website of the company that is the subject of the article which is not a reliable source, and on search results which are not supposed to be used (and which show only hits from the Stay Thirsty site). If these are the only sources you have, then it is likely that the article does not meet notability standards.

If you have something more to add to the article, please do so. Otherwise, I will have to submit for deletion via the Articles for Deletion process. Thanks. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. While we may differ on the notability issue, we understand your position regarding deletion. We will not further object and reserve the right to revisit an article on this subject at a future date when additional secondary sources are available. Thank you. Srl40214 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.100.8 (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are always free to recreate an article that has been deleted. If, at that time, you have reliable sources that show notability, then that version of the article will likely be kept. That said, I once again urge you to read the FAQ on businesses and the guidelines on conflict of interest. Your comments and the scope of your edits make it sound like you are writing on behalf of this company, and that is strongly discourage on Wikipedia. If your company truly becomes notable, then others will be compelled to write about it. You should seriously consider your motivations before you contribute to articles on subjects that you are directly connected to. Thank you. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we found the outside sources that you were looking for. . . Take a look. Xenos Christian Fellowship Oldag07 (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Oldag07 (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Transity, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Motte (disambiguation) - a page you tagged - because: Please tell us what to move here using {{db-move|PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|REASON FOR MOVE}}. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Jake Wartenberg 21:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I thought I just had to tag for deletion, then complete the move myself. I have re-tagged, in the proper format, with an explanation. In a nutshell, Motte (disambiguation) should be deleted, and Motte should be moved to that page. Then Motte should become a redirect to motte-and-bailey, and motte-and-bailey should have {{Otheruses|Motte (disambiguation)}} added up top. I posted about this on Talk:Motte a few days back, and received no responses. In short, I fixed several hundred DAB links to Motte a few months back, and every one of them meant to direct to motte-and-bailey. In addition, I have watched the page since then, and every added link has followed suit. I think this change will circumvent a lot of DAB links. Thanks. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work with ghost towns, especially converting Swansea, Arizona from a mess of trivia to a fine-quality article. Nyttend (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've been having a lot of fun working on various Arizona ghost town articles, and I truly appreciate the hat tip. My goal (ridiculous though it may be) is to bring most of the AZ ghost towns from stub to at least start class, and to create a few more articles to fill in existing red links. So far it's the most fun I've had on Wikipedia.

I also wanted to say thanks for providing an always-needed second set of eyes on many of the articles I've worked on. Some of the information on these old towns can be pretty tough to pin down, and it's good to know that I'm not writing in a vacuum. So thank you for the help you've given me. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping improve "my" articles on Utah ghost towns. I owe you; I'll try to get around to helping out with Arizona. Ntsimp (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Besides, you already have been helping out with the articles I've worked on.

I'm trying to add the GNIS ref (and associated information) to the articles I'm looking at in Utah, do some general copy-editing if needed, and I'll take a stab at assessing the unassessed articles as well (which, I think, are all articles you've worked on). If you see anything I change/add/delete that you're not sure about, by all means drop me a line. And if there's anything you'd like me to take a look at, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Transity, Please teach me how to improve! I do not see anything wrong with it and i have cited the references. Can you please point out which exact word you see as violating WP? I can start fixing from there, and you are also welcome to edit it. Thank you. ESCapade (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for Kmccoy and Porqin to respond. I plan to invite, one by one, all admins involved in its deletion to reply. Thank you for your warning. I really appreciate it. ESCapade (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i edit a little. Please comment. Thanks. ESCapade (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply on your talk page. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESCapade (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your petty obsession with enforcing your views on something you obviously know nothing about. Goodbye. Spritebox (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'll let the record of your edits and my changes to those edits speak for itself. That thing I'm "enforcing" is Wikipedia policy, by the way. I don't know what response you got from others as a result of your edits, but every time I reverted you or changed what you wrote, I supplied a clear indication of what policy I thought you were running afoul of, and my arguments for why your edits had to be changed. I stand by every edit I made, and I'd point out that you never once even tried to counter my arguments.

I see that you are "retiring," per your user page. If you ever decide to come back, I'd suggest reading up on the ground rules here so that you understand why what you did here is not acceptable. While you may think that I reverted you because of some massive disconnect in our worldviews (which certainly exists, based on your edits), the truth is that, despite the fact that the articles you edited are doubtlessly monitored by those who share your beliefs on mediums, no one sided with you on any of the articles you edited. That includes those who, like you, believe that mediums and psychics are real. Think about that, and what it means, before tossing around personal attacks just because your edits didn't hold up to scrutiny.

If you cool down, take the time to actually look at your edits. Half of them added unsourced, POV, opinions to articles (those in support of the paranormal), and the other half removed statements claiming that they were unsourced (those skeptical of the paranormal). There's no internal consistency there — you simply used whatever argument propped up the end result you were aiming for. You came here with a clear agenda, and without ever understanding the policies of Wikipedia, you attempted to make your point, whether it was valid or not. That tends to get people upset, as you have seen.

And for the record, I have done a lot of research into the paranormal, so you are incorrect when you say that this is a topic I "obviously know nothing about." Goodbye. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if you already have this but you certainly deserve it.

		WikiProject Ghost towns Barnstar
		Because of your huge efforts in turning Mohave City, Arizona from a stub into a real article and for giving me encouragment in making Ghost Town related articles, I herby award you the Ghost towns Barnstar. congratulations! --Coldplay Expert (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate the recognition. And I hope you continue to write about ghost towns. There are so many red links and missing entries for what I consider to be a fascinating subject. If I can ever be of assistance, just let me know. Thanks. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont mention it. I cant belive that you have never gotten this award. You deserved it ages ago. And Ill try to work on Ghost Town articles some more. I usualy spread my time between This, Wikipedia:WikiProject Micronations, Wikipedia:WikiProject Alaska and Coldplay related articles.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and one more thing, how do you make the little maps that show the location of the ghost town and how do you add the corrdinates?--Coldplay Expert (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the Infobox functionality. These lines add the map, and format it:

|pushpin_map = Arizona <- which map to use

|pushpin_label_position = right <- where to label to point on the map

|pushpin_mapsize = 250 <- width of the map image

|map_caption = Location in the state of [[Arizona]] <- caption under the map

And these lines record the coordinates, then tell the page where to display them ("inline" = in the infobox in this case, and "title" = up top in the right corner).

|latd = 35 |latm = 02 |lats = 24 |latNS = N

|longd = 114 |longm = 37 |longs = 23 |longEW = W

|coordinates_display = inline,title

My coordinates usually come from the USGS GNIS site (you can follow a ref link then query for a new location). --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks now Ill be able to add those to my ghost town pages! Oh and PS do you like my signature?--Coldplay Expert 20:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to give you one of these barnstars for your work on List of ghost towns in Arizona, but I see that someone is more on-the-ball than I. Your table format makes the list much more useable, and should be the standard for lists of ghost towns. Plazak (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I saw that format in another article, and figured it would work well for the Arizona list. Thanks for adding some of the many missing details - I try to do some from time to time when I get a chance, but it's a long list! -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch. The quote was so long I thought it was just someone else blogging on here, as often happens. We should make the quote stand out better. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't notice it was a quote at first, either. Then I saw the trailing quotation mark, and wondered where the quote started. So I agree entirely that the quote should be easier to see, or else the entire section should be reworded to use less of the quote. I took a stab at that in the article. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw from here that it's been exactly one year since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Transity

I have added link to my Otitis Media Research paper collection on Talk:Otitis media I have long since stopped being an active editor on Wikipedia as my disability creates a communication barrier. All of my online PubMed research paper collections on a wide range of topics are listed on User:Dolfrog I hope this is useful best wishes dolfrog (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent revert was against Wikiepedia's guideline on external links. Please provide your justification for putting dead links and other external links which break WP:EL on the talk page. DigitalC (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. You took an axe to the EL section, with vague and general edit summaries as your explanations. You were reverted by another editor and asked to discuss your sweeping edits, and you reverted back with no discussion. I again reverted your changes, and again asked you to discuss them on the page. It seems that you are doing that now, so I'm sure the discussion will proceed from this point.

As a note, you didn't say which removals were due to which supposed problems, and some of the removed links were, in my view, clearly not contrary to WP:ELNO. As such, the burden does not fall to me to "prove" that they satisfy WP:EL in all cases, until and unless you can make an argument for removing them.

Regarding your two specific issues, I have no desire to include dead links in any article. However, did you check to see if the links could be found at another URL? Since you didn't say anything about that when you made your edits, I assumed that you did not. As such, it is always better to check for another URL before simply deleting the link. I think you would agree. It is also possible that the link was only temporarily broken. Again, since your only comments were the brief edit summaries for your changes, it isn't easy to tell what is really meant by a dead link here. I also have no desire to include links that are contrary to WP:EL, but as I said, some of your removals seem to be clearly okay by WP:EL, while others are borderline at worst. To me, and to the other editors actively engaged in a dialog on the article's talk page, that means that such changes merit discussion as to whether the links are contrary to WP:ELNO before simply removing them. Those are my rationales for my edit.

Finally, in no way was my edit contrary to WP:EL, so please refrain from tossing around baseless accusations. There's no reason why a civil discussion cannot take place on these links, and the best way to ensure that is to remember to assume good faith. I've long since given up the notion that science and reason trump Wikipedia guidelines, so if there's a link that violates a Wikipedia policy, I'll agree that it should be removed, regardless of whether the link is in line with or against my personal views. WP:EL can be pretty open to interpretation, though, and it intentionally leaves some room for exceptions, so the cases may not be as clear cut as you'd like. Keep that in mind, and make your case on the talk page. I'll agree with you if your case is strong. And as a piece of advice, try to avoid large-scale deletions like the ones your made without at least some sort of discussion (or at least make one change per edit with a clear edit summary to make it obvious why you removed each item, and to allow individual reverts instead of bulk ones). They almost always end up getting reverted, even on articles less controversial than this one. Thanks. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 03:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By reverting my edit, you added links to the article which had clearly been challenged. Per WP:EL, the onus is on you to justify the inclusion of such links. If you felt some of the links were not contrary to WP:ELNO, then you should have justified their inclusion, not revert the change wholesale. At the point of the edit, there were no "other editors actively engaged in a dialog on the article's talk page" about the links, so I'm not sure who you are talking for. However, again, per WP:EL the onus is on the people adding/restoring links to justify their inclusion, not the person removing the link. DigitalC (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree. When I saw your mass deletes, I saw a number of things that, on their face, were improper. To me, it seemed that you were editing with an agenda, and deleting those things that didn't mesh with that agenda - trying to find reasons to remove the links you didn't like. In a case like that, it is not up to other editors to individually argue against each of the multiple deletions you made, and trying to claim that it is would seem an awful lot like gaming the system. In addition, I didn't tell you that you had to prove that you weren't pushing a POV, I simply asked that you discuss these obviously contentious changes on the talk page. Finally, as I was the second editor to revert your changes for the same reason, I would suggest that you were making changes against consensus and without discussion, and that your reverts came very close to edit warring. So do be careful about accusing others of violating policies.

In short, you took an axe to an article, and then you expected other editors to use a scalpel to correctly parse your good edits from your bad ones. I'm sorry, but that doesn't hold water at all. Now I suggest we stop wasting time in this pointless discussion on my talk page, and instead concentrate on the actual topic of this discussion, namely the article in question and its links. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 18:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I welcome discussion on the articles talk page. Hopefully you remember to assume good faith, as you mentioned above. Stating that I was editing with an agenda and deleting things that didn't mesh with that agenda is not assuming good faith. I fully disagree with you that it is not up to you to justify your reversion, when the guideline says that it is up to you, and I fully disagree that it comes even close to gaming the system. Either way, I look forward to your response on the talk page, so that we can move forward. DigitalC (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Assume good faith" does not mean the same thing as "ignore the obvious." You accused me of violating WP:EL, and I explained why my edit did no such thing. Full stop. I'll consider this discussion on my talk page closed. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 19:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on the Willie & Lobo page. I've made additional edits and wanted to get your input. Am I going in the right direction? I would not want this page to be deleted, if at all possible.

Thanks again for your help. Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchallel (talk • contribs) 04:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mysto & Pizzi (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. I AFDed this article a while back, but it appeared again. I didn't want to seem like I was crusading against it, so I edited it, and left it to see if someone else would AFD. I will weigh in at the AFD discussion when I get a chance. Thanks. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 15:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Summer Enrichment Program (University of Virginia). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer Enrichment Program (University of Virginia). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Romanek (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1910 USGS map on the "Harshaw, Arizona" page is incorrect. Although there is a mine on it called "Harshaw", it is not the same as the town of the same name. The town is located some 20 miles to the south. I live in Patagonia and am familiar with the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.212.69 (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. Thank you for pointing this out. I see it clearly now that you did so. I just don't know what to do about it yet. I will keep looking for a replacement map. They aren't easy to come by! -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 00:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed description to topo map. It would be nice to have a scale. Vsmith (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. I am planning to take the scale off of the larger map - I just haven't had a chance to do it yet. The large map itself is too big, I think, for this purpose (though I did load it, and it is available on the Commons page for Harshaw). -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 01:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 02:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works. I've removed the ref to the 1910 USGS report as it was also about the Harshaw mine in the Santa Ritas. Didn't seem to be much content based on it - you might check tho'. What nerve them old miners had to use the same name in two different mountain ranges :) Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That jutting mountains bit kinda bothers me a little - seems an odd replacement for comparatively little soil cover, but I guess it's in the ref as such. Jutting mountains gives me a mental image of tectonic or volcanic uplift. Anyway, I didn't remove the ... soil cover bit when I chopped the other source as it seems quite apt and descriptive (I worked in the area back in the 70s on Red Mtn.) and non-controversial. The erosional features of Harshaw Creek drainage with headward erosion into the Patagonias and the west margin of the San Rafael dominate my mental image of the area (supported by the topo map), but hey that's original research :) Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you. I liked the old language better than the "jutting mountains" bit, and I agree the old description (lush areas interspersed with areas of exposed rock with little soil cover) seemed pretty much spot on for the region. I'll keep poking around for a source that bears that out a little better though I doubt anyone would balk at leaving the old language unreferenced as it's pretty uncontroversial. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 15:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will review the guidelines, and check the list for pending reviews. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 02:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at the Dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push. I can e-mail you the login information if you like? There is still a lot of potential for many new articles and redirects. ---kilbad (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you might ask, but the several dermatology-related articles I've edited have been things I've stumbled upon either due to vandalism, or other more general medical edits. Good luck, though. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 00:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Transity, your endorsement, from a Reviewer no less, are appreciated! I'm enjoying my foray into WikipediaEditLand and getting positive feedback is great.--S. Rich 02:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you provided a census table for the article Silver Reef. I would first like to thank you. I'll put the table in as soon as I have some time. However, due to the fact that Silver Reef still has people in it, and some of the most popular ghost towns do have people in them, I have changed my mind about the demographics section and would like to make one. Is there a 2000 Census number for Silver Reef, and can you find anything about Silver Reef's demographics? Thanks! The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I picked up a used copy of the Moffat book a while back for about $6, and it's helped to fill in a lot of population data for these old ghost towns. Unfortunately, the book only shows numbers up until 1990. When I checked the Census web site, I couldn't find any numbers for 2000 (or later, as that site sometimes also shows estimates from in between more recent surveys). I think a demographics section is a great idea - I just don't know where to tell you to look for the recent data. I will do some more poking, and let you know if I find anything. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! I'm not sure if Silver Reef's population would be included in Leeds' population, since they're only about half a mile away from each other. Then again there were 1990 Census numbers....I'll do some poking around, too. The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be pushy, but have you found anything yet? The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 22:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a thing. I can't even find confirmation that Silver Reef is counted as part of Leeds (or that it isn't). Not sure where else to look at this point. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 00:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm....could we still add a demographics section using only the 1990 census details? The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 13:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion: sure. I try to cover historical population data as well as anything more recent in a demographics section for a ghost town. See Harshaw, Arizona, Fairbank, Arizona, and Swansea, Arizona for a few examples. Obviously for many ghost towns the depth of information used in a demographics section for a living town just isn't available. I think you take what you can get, and write it up the best you can.

For Silver Reef, that would include a demographics section that includes the historical census data, the more recent 1990 census data, and a discussion of some of the speculated population numbers that are often found in books and other less quantitative accounts. It would be great to know where those residents are counted today, and that's still something that can be researched, but for now, I'd go with what you have. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 14:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like that. I'll try to work with that when I get some time (I'll be fairly busy most of today). I have one concern, though. The difference between Silver Reef and the ghost towns you mentioned is that Silver Reef still has a few current residents. Therefore, demographics should look like any unincorporated community; with average income, average number of people per household, etc. Can you dig any of that up, or will we have to stick with the simple sentence "As of the 1990 census, Silver Reef housed approximately 50 people"? The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I think for now, stick with the sentence you mentioned, and in the mean time, we keep looking for the more recent information. If we can just source the fact that as of 2000 the numbers are now grouped with Leeds (for example), then we can mention that and link to the Leeds demographics section for further information. There must be a way to find that out. I'll keep looking. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'll do as you said, and start the demographics section. I'll also keep a lookout for both 2000 Census data for Silver Reef and a source that says Silver Reef's population is included in Leeds. One last question, though. Should we change the label of Silver Reef from ghost town to unincorporated community? A couple ghost towns (example 1 and example 2) are labeled as such, so I think it would be a good idea. What do you think? The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 19:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can go wrong either way at this point. I think Silver Reef itself is gone. Having a few residents doesn't make it "not a ghost town," in my opinion (and according to the working definitions I've seen and used on Wikipedia). I also think it qualifies as an Unincorporated Community as well, and that there's some overlap between the two. I'm not sure. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 01:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some links to the Discussion page to answer some of your questions about notability and other references. As I attend the church (and my spouse works there), it would probably be best for proper POV for another member to excerpt this information. But it's there, in books for a national audience, written over a 10 year period, and the stuff is available on Amazon and is searchable on Amazon, so it does not have to be purchased. This should help. Let me know what you think, as I thought your tagging of the article was proper without these "new" references.Kgilbert78 (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out with One Direction. I can barely keep up with the amount of edits coming through, let alone warn the editors too. I'm pretty sure some information and references have got lost in all the reverting, so someone will have to find the last clean version at some point. I requested the article be protected at WP:RfPP, but it appears all the admins are otherwise occupied. - JuneGloom Talk 00:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Can't wait for that protection to come through!! -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 00:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a plea for help to the first admin I spotted online and the article has finally been protected. Thank you again! - JuneGloom Talk 00:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you were stuck there alone for so long. I think I need a nap! -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 00:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I know what you mean about the nap, think I'll go now before I stumble upon another situation like that. - JuneGloom Talk 00:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frenchie is my character from my show that is her name i am just trying to make a Wiki for my show that is all i am linking them to my Wiki Character page ok!

Have you made any effort at all to read the policies and guidelines linked to you? Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 02:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of MyOwnEmailShow characters i am trying to make a Wiki for my YouTube Show ok that is it i am make pages and linking them together so it would be cleaner the to just have it all on one page so please just help me and let me do what i need to do im not a dad guy i am just a guy trying to get some popularity on YouTube — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyOwnEmailShowWiki (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of MyOwnEmailShow characters i am trying to make a Wiki for my YouTube Show ok that is it i am make pages and linking them together so it would be cleaner the to just have it all on one page so please just help me and let me do what i need to do im not a dad guy i am just a guy trying to get some popularity on YouTubeMyOwnEmailShowWiki (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the policies I (and others) linked to on your user page. The articles you are creating have no claim to notability, no reliable sources, and as the creator, you have a conflict of interest. Please take the time to read those policies, and I think you will see why your articles keep being tagged for deletion. Thanks. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 02:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good day Transity, this was my first attempt to create a wikimedia page, which was an interesting experience. Editor AlexF was curt as expected but kindly directed me to appropriate reference pages to learn more.Mgpeters (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Transity! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What section in the article is being disputed? Nightscream (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

一隻小貓送給您！

周信行 22:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Transity,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long time no see! 92.17.185.193 (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hyder, Arizona, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyder, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]