User talk:MrBill3/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome

Hello, MrBill3! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Allecher (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Welcome to Wikipedia

Bill,

I'd just like to welcome you and thank you for your gracious and thoughtful comments on the ACS talk page. It is surprisingly rare for a new editor to take the time to read and respond. Your tone and efforts to learn the ropes is impressive. I'm glad you're here. Have fun. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Books References Not Showing

When I export as a PDF or create a book, or print an existing book, the references don't show up. MrBill3 (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The references should show up. They are sometimes printed at the very end of the document. What pages are you adding? Which reference style are the pages using? --LauraHale (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The first time I noticed this was after exporting as a PDF a complete Wiki Book that already existed Book:Critical Care: An Introduction. Then I went to an article that is in the book Intensive-care unit, finally I went to a draft rewrite I am working on User:MrBill3/draft article MSS. The intensive-care unit article has 8 references. In the PDF the inline cites are all there and numbered but the reference list has only references 1, 6 and 7. My draft article has 36 references and only 1, 2 and 3 show up on the reference list. The intensive care unit article uses the <references /> tag, my draft uses the {{reflist|2}} template. The following exceeds my knowledge but is a guess based on my research/looking around: I was wondering if some part of the citation template or it's transclusions has somehow gotten onto the exclude in print list. I have noticed that the missing references use a form of citation template. Thanks. MrBill3 (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The best place to actually ask this would be on the help page. My experience has been that not all citation templates are rendered and a number of them are deliberately excluded. I would guess references like "[dead link‍] [1]. Healthcare Financial Management Association." are not going to parse correctly. Raw urls are not going to show up. Cite book often does not show up for me. Cite hansard template renders blanks for me. Cite web and cite news have traditionally printed well for me. The best advice I can give at the moment to make them show up is to systematically go through every citation on those pages, use Template:Cite web and Template:Cite news to replace malformed citations, raw urls, etc. After that, if that does not fix 75% of the citations showing up problem, ping again. --LauraHale (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
On my draft article many of the citations are Template:Cite news and Template:Cite web, the same is true for the intensive care unit article. Oddly enough what is showing up is the raw urls. How do I ask on the help page?MrBill3 (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
URLs will show up in the PDF from cite web and cite news. This is on purpose, because if you print the PDF, people will be able to tell what the URL is so the can visit it. Sometimes, the whole url appears. Sometimes, only the domain appears. (And looking at my pediapress books, cite book does work. I know cite hansard does not.) --LauraHale (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I am getting nothing (well bracket number bracket inline but nothing on the reference list) for the cite web and cite news template citations. What IS showing up is only the BARE urls. Try a download as PDF on Intensive-care unit and you will see what I mean.MrBill3 (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest asking WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

thanks for your note. I've responded on my talk page. cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 05:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

It seems when I right clicked to copy and paste a portion of your comment to BLPN, I inadvertently selected cut and paste instead. This was unintentional and I have rectified this error in this edit. My apologies and thank you for bringing this to my attention. — Keithbob • Talk • 04:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Proofreading Request

User:Ugog_Nizdast has joined our WP Project and recently completed some updates to the page for Basava_Premanand. He already has a mentor, but is keen for one of the Skeptic group to proofread his changes. Would you be able to do this please as I'm not a good proofreader (as you know from my writing) :-( I know u r busy at work so if you can't manage pls let me know and I can ask one of the others. Joolzzt (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

citation counts

Citation counts don't need to be done in an article. Citation counts can be used as an indicator of notability, but we don't do that in the article itself, it's unnecessary and poor style. The kind of person that cares about citation counts for papers, knows how to get them :) IRWolfie- (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

TLDR point taken! Cite count discussion is ongoing on talk page. Thanks for your input - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Merseyside Skeptics Society

The Original Barnstar
For your excellent work in rewriting the Merseyside Skeptics Society article to a high standard! Samwalton9 (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

MSS references

Hi Bill, I was just about to sort the references out in the Merseyside Skeptics Society article to be on one line when I noticed you had left some fields commented out (such as "| author = <!-- no byline Merseyside Skeptics Society -->", "<!-- omitted for conciseness 13677217 -->", etc.) Just wondering why this was and if you want to / want me to remove the commenting when sorting to normal formatting?

I'm also considering nominating the article for DYK after that's been sorted, I think there's plenty of interesting material to use! Samwalton9 (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You can just go ahead and take out the commenting if you want. I have had several discussions on reference formatting and it seems there are a variety of "standard" formats. Go ahead and put it in the format you think appropriate, I just wanted to have all the information there for those who thought it necessary, but I prefer the reference section be as clear and standardized as possible while providing verifiability. Thank you for all your help and I think a DYK would be great. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Nominated for Did you know, and I've sorted the referencing! Samwalton9 (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Merseyside Skeptics Society

Orlady (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Weird message on my Talk page

It seems to come from you, and tells me that I "have new messages at Talk:Freedom_From_Religion_Foundation". But I don't. Not that I can see anyway.

Any idea what's going on? HiLo48 (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

List of hoaxes

Thanks for your understanding and your kind note on my Talk page. Cheers, LuckyLouie (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate messages wrt Susan Blackmore article

I removed clearly incorrect and misleading information at Susan Blackmore. I consider your voluminous messages on my talk page to be highly inappropriate and a way to avoid WP:admitting you're wrong. Please discuss at Talk:Susan Blackmore, as I do not take your "reprimands" seriously. Thank you. Vzaak (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page for the article, "I have corrected the error in the quotation, clearly identified the author of the quotation and given the subject of the article for context." I think that resolves your contention that the information was misleading or incorrect and amounts to admitting I was wrong. Discussing editing issues on a user's talk page [2][3] is not highly inappropriate. Performing a second revert before discussion [4] and accusations of vandalism [5] are. I apologize if my comments seemed excessive. I agree further discussion should occur on the talk page of the article and focus on content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
You wrongly accused me criticizing Blackmore's research methods and methodology (still no apology), apparently because you thought I was some pro-paranormal enthusiast. You misrepresented the content of the Guardian article. You didn't carefully reassess the article after the removal, and didn't check the confirming reason for the removal, the Perrott-Warrick Project. Moreover, you misattributed a quote to Blackmore, and even the misattributed quote was incorrect. And, to boot, you forgot an ending quotation mark. All in one sentence! There is no controversy whatsoever in removing such a sentence, and your voluminous efforts to paint it otherwise are highly inappropriate. Please stop with these messages on user talk pages. Discuss at the Blackmore talk page instead. Thank you. Vzaak (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

feel like finding two more avionic engineers for Philip_J._Klass?

See Talk:Philip_J._Klass#Categories. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for awarding me a barnstar (in spite of past differences) and for recognizing the work of other editors. We are all under appreciated, I think. Best wishes, — Keithbob • Talk • 12:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

NPLEX "citations needed"

Hello Mr. Bill, I am an employee of NPLEX, and may be able to provide the citations the page says it needs. Can you indicate for me specifically what part(s) of the page could use citations? Also, there's a dead link at the bottom of the page, but I don't know how to fix it. I think that link wants to link to: https://www.nabne.org/home/test-sites/ Thanks, Nplex (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia (WP) Nplex! I appreciate your interest and hope you decide to continue as an editor of WP. As you have told me that you are an employee of NPLEX I wanted to inform you that WP has a guideline regarding conflict of interest and point you towards a useful essay, Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. To be brief and directly address your question/interest in the article on NPLEX. It is not appropriate for you to edit the article directly, but you can post suggested edits to the talk page for the article. If you chose to do so I will be happy to take a look and edit the article.
The article Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations is almost completely unsourced. The only two (I added one) sources give the frequency and locations of testing. In WP all content must be verifiable. That means each fact or set of facts requires a source. The sources themselves must be reliable and preferably secondary from a third party. If you take a look at the other articles on naturopathy (Naturopathy, Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine, Naturopathic medical school in North America) I think you will find sources that support the lead (first section). I suggest the sources that do not have a reason to be promoting naturopathy. I think you will also find sources for the eligibility to take the NPLEX Part I and II on those pages. Just let me know which sources support each fact. On the talk page put the article the source is on, name of author or title of source and year and I will add them to the article. The content of the NPLEX (and possibly rigor and comparability to other exams) should be discussed in some journal article somewhere. That would be the best source. I don't know if some of the sources in the other articles cover this information, I suspect some of the laws may get that specific. Let me know what you have available/find and I will be happy to work with you to get the best available references (per WP standards) in the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ticking "m" box

It's good to have the Alt. med. refs revised in an orderly way as you are doing little by little (now, up to[6]), but it may help us if before uploading you ticked the "m" box, unless any are actual additions or alterations which make a difference to the text, or in cases such as where the ref fails to support the text, which could be briefly noted in edit summary for attention. It would still be possible for any one to check through the "m"s to see whether some error or unintended change had occurred (it can happen). Qexigator (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Sorry, I know I have cluttered the edit history and watchlists. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Bill, thanks for the tips. Still wet behind the ears, as you can see. Hope I'm at least doing this part right. 30sos (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

BACKLOG OF THE WEEK Category:Pages with broken reference names

Hello - some editors fight off the vandal hordes, as I do repairing pages with citation errors. If I didn't - there would be a large backlog in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting and in Category:Pages with missing references list as in Category:Pages with broken reference names (more than 1500 yesterday). But it is impossible to work it alone. Do you know how to do a "Blitz" (excuse the comparision) to find willing editors to work on it. It is much more easier to repair references if you do it one hour, one day or one week ago after the errors were made instead of months and years after the error was done. Very, very difficult to find these errors.

Only with WikiBlame Search it is possible to find and repair such errors.

Best wishes --Frze > talk 08:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Backlog template made by User:TheJJJunk

Backlog status (Purge)
Category Current status
Pages with incorrect ref formatting  Not done
Pages with missing references list  Done
Pages with broken reference names Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",".

Best wishes --Frze > talk 04:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

New article on a skeptic

Hi MrBill3, since you're into skepticism, as I noticed from your considerable amount of work on David Gorski, I was wondering if you would be willing to help me out on another skeptical article I have just created, namely Kimball Atwood. Thanks. Jinkinson talk to me 15:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look at the article. I will make minor edits directly and propose more major ones on the talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

New REFBot

There is a suggestion on Wikipedia:Bot requests#New REFBot for a new REFBot working as DPL bot and BracketBot do. I beg politely for consideration. Please leave a comment if you wish. Thanks a lot in anticipation. -- Frze > talk 04:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!
Ein Dankeschön!
Frze > talk

05:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Dropping in to cold fusion

While I think I – sort of – appreciate what you were trying to do with this post at Talk:Energy Catalyzer, I'm not sure that your approach was ideal. As far as I can tell, that was your first-ever edit to the talk page (and you've never edited the article). It's a tad unusual for an editor new to a topic to pop in to a talk page to both notice and leap into facilitating a discussion of disputed content after there have only been a couple of reverts, days apart, with no (as far as I am aware) discussion taking place on any outside talk pages or noticeboards. But hey, unusual isn't the same thing as bad; it just can cause ears to perk up.

Where you really do yourself a disservice, though, is both in the specific request you've made, and in the way that you've worded it. Your post makes it appear almost like you didn't bother to read the content you're demanding that we discuss, or at least you didn't examine it closely enough to make the smallest comment on it. From the way you phrased your edit, it looks like you're not really planning on contributing anything of your own to the article or discussion. With respect to the particular wording, saying "Discuss here...carry on" comes across as rather peremptory and condescending, in light of the fact that you weren't prepared to 'get your own hands dirty' and offer any input.

While you're certainly more than welcome (and encouraged) to participate and contribute in this area, I hope you'll keep in mind what I've said. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry my phrasing was unclear. The Energy Catalyzer article is on my watchlist and I noticed what appeared to be the start of an edit war. My intent was to open a discussion on content that was subject to multiple reverts. It was precisely because there had been no discussion on the talk page that I placed the content there. I happen to agree that the sources are not WP:RS. I just have not yet fully evaluated them, this will take some time due to the language barrier. I am certainly willing "get my own hands dirty", however I felt it appropriate to wait for some comment from the editors already involved. It is my opinion that any editor can suggest discussion of contentious material. Basically I didn't want to enter a revert battle as the next time that material was added I would have removed it. I realize not doing the work and stating my conclusion regarding the sources was lazy. I hope I have plead the language barrier and deference involved editors adequately for some lenience.
I regret that my tone was misinterpreted. I apologize if I came across as condescending. It was not my intent. It was also not my intent to be peremptory rather salutatory. I realize text does not carry tone and intent well and that contention carries a certain level of weight on WP. I am sorry if my attempt to display good humor was clumsy. I hope my explanation has provided some clarity and restored good will and good spirits. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
See my comment on the talk page of the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Community Forests International

I went over it a second time, checking other links besides the original one, and did indeed find quite a few issues, namely with the main website. I cut out the information both from the link you noted as well as several other ones, so there should be no copyright issues now. Wizardman 14:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
For your hard work bringing neutrality and editorial order to a number of medical and altmed topic - much appreciated! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Message

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Timestamps

I've reverted some edits of yours at Talk:Anatoly Fomenko which simply added today's time stamps to some very old posts. Not sure why you did that. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I do that in preparation for auto archiving. Not sure why I did it on that page as I didn't set up archiving for that page. If there is a better way or a way more in keeping with policy could you let me know or point me in the right direction? Thank you for your work on WP and for your assistance. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The best thing I can suggest is go to the WP:Help desk and ask. Even after all my years I do that sometimes. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Intended. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Editing Somatics

Thanks, MrBill3, but have you actually read the "ONE independent source this article had"? This source is, to say the least, questionable:

somatic therapy (somatic disciplines, somatic methods, somatics, somatic techniques, somatic therapies): Field that encompasses aikido, the Alexander Technique, applied kinesiology, Arica, Aston-Patterning, Awareness Through Movement, bioenergetics, Body-Mind Centering®, "Capoeria," "Continuum," CranioSacral Therapy, Eutony, Focusing, Functional Integration, Hakomi, Hellerwork, judo, karate, kundalini yoga, kung fu, "Lomi" (see "lomi-lomi" and "Lomi work"), "Oki yoga" (see "Oki-Do"), Process-Oriented Psychotherapy (process psychology), rebirthing, reflexology, Resonant Kinesiology, Rolfing, "Rosen work" (see "Rosen Method"), "sensory awareness," SHEN, somasynthesis, tai chi, Touch for Health, Trager, "Trans Fiber," yoga therapy, and Zero Balancing. "Subtle-energy elements" are a commonality of somatic therapies. Thomas Hanna, founder of the journal Somatics, coined the word "somatics."

Really?!

Any impartial researcher with even a mild understanding of the subject matter can easily discredit this nebulous and contradictory definition. Instead of this secondary source definition I've provided a primary source definition of Somatics, with appropriate referencing. What seems to be the problem?

Thanks for your attention and contribution, but I do politly urge you to look deeper into the matter and reconsider. You might want start with reading the book I've cited, where Somatics is defined by the person who coined the term.

Best,

The River Man

— Preceding unsigned comment added by The River Man (talk • contribs) 15:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Replied on editors talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Eric Francis

Seems like you were concerned about this article at some point. Can you propose for deletion? Is drivel.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Your technical move request

Please see Talk:Galha LGBT Humanists#Requested move. Discussion can be continued there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

A reference problem

Hi! Some users have been working hard on Category:Pages with broken reference names.

Here you added a new reference MP300327 but didn't define it. This has been showing as an error at the bottom of the article. "Cite error: The named reference REFNAME was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." Can you take a look and work out what you were trying to do? Thanks -- Frze > talk 15:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I think it was User:Mjroots --Frze > talk 15:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe it was. I have been working on the category also ;). When I find a ref like this <ref name=ABC> with no info or closing tag I change it to <ref name=ABC/> just to close the tag. Please let me know how you think my edits have been working out on that category. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Army ant may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{reflist|3|refs=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Museum of Motherhood may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for commenting on the acupuncture trial. Never mind grumpy people. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

If I may take a moment of your time

Hello MrBill3.

I am sorry if I am approaching this in a wrong or discourteous manner, but I am completely new to the back end of Wikipedia :) My name is Julie, I am a IT and Science Masters Student from Denmark, and I am writing to you because I am currently researching Alternative Medicine through digital methods. I am attempting to discover the main actors online who has an influence on public opinion in relation to Alternative Medicine.

After an investigation into the revision history of the Wikipage on Alternative Medicine, you appeared as one of the main contributors and from what my research has provided me, as a person very focused on ensuring correct references and citations within that article. I furthermore noticed, when viewing your user page, that you are a registered nurse and associated with many Wiki Projects regarding Medicine and scepticism. This led me to the conclusion that you, as a prime editor and contributor to the page regarding Alternative Medicine and with a background in medicine, have a unique and specific knowledge regarding what Alternative Medicine is and play a clear role in defining it towards the readers of Wikipedia.

What I would like to ask you is whether you might want to aid me in situating my research, as I am attempting to provide qualitative human stories and opinions to support my research. Would you perhaps be interested in offering a small quote on you personal view of Alternative Medicine, and why you chose to engage with the topic through Wikipedia? I would be very thankfull for your help and time.

Best regards, Julie from DK DKJulie (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

New Years


Frze > talk — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

04:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

PEAR

Hello Bill, I noticed that you’ve been improving the references on the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab article, and I was wondering if you might answer a question for me. I just inserted another reference (it’s the very last one in the article) to “Nonsense on Stilts” and I wanted it to refer to page 79 rather than page 77 which the first reference refers to. I can get it to refer to page 79 instead of page 77, but I can’t get it to show links to both. Do you know how to fix that? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it. I used the Harvid template (technically SfnRef) to create an anchor on the first citation of the book, then the sfn template to refer to that anchor. I also changed the page number on the google books url and the number that the url pointed to. To examine how to use the templates type- template:Harvid or- template:sfn in the search box that will take you to the template documentation. A url in single brackets with one space after the url followed by text (inside the brackets) will create a link to the text, like so: [http://urlhereforpage.com page#] makes page#. I use a linked page number if it is available online and do not use google books url for the url parameter (|url=) because a link to a book on google books is available via the isbn and is not appropriate in the ref unless the full text is available online (the last bit is my opinion, somewhat backed up by policy WP:EL etc.) I hope this helps. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Bill. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:David Irving

Hi! Back in December you tweaked the archiving at Talk:David Irving. But the result is this bare list of archive numbers near the top of the talk page. Perhaps you might fix that? --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for pointing out the problem. Do you think the article milestones should be listed in the archive box? - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I'd never looked at them before. Logically, perhaps - but where do such things live in other talk pages? Perhaps adjacent to it would suffice - then people looking for archives would find them both at a glance. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
On other talk pages they exist in the Article history template, as they already do on this talk page. I think they probably should remain just there and readers interested can find them easily enough. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

If this revert[7] is due to faulty referencing, may I ask you to have a look and maybe help with rectifying? Qexigator (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I left a message on the editors talk page. It looks like there have been multiple edits since then. In the future I'd be happy to help out. FYI unused refs in the ref list can just be <!-- remarked out -->- - MrBill3 (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and I have added my message there. Now I will try a bit of remarked out magic. Qexigator (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Archive boxes

Hi, thanks for the work on the McKenna article. Re the Sheldrake talk page, those little archive boxes are too tiny, at least for my taste. It looks like you disabled the {{talk header}} archive search because it pointed to a blank index. I've redirected it to the proper index and re-enabled the search field. I don't mind having the extra archive box (if only for the masochists :), but I'd like to keep the main one, please. vzaak 17:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries, for large archives I completely agree and in general it's not an issue for me box or talk header. I archive many talk pages anytime you feel like modifying feel free. Feedback is appreciated as I archive boldly.
As for the McKenna article it has been Screamliner not me doing all the work. I've just been formatting refs and finding a few Screamliner has been finding high quality refs and doing the editing. I realized the article was not quite making it to NPOV but was greatly improved. I was hoping it could be brought up WP NPOV, FRINGE etc in an encouraging way. I try to recognize the efforts of my fellow editors and encourage and support new editors. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Theories about Stonehenge

Did you look at the IP's addition of "The tent theory"? Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the article overall, just doing AWB maintainence. Looks like tons of unsourced material is in the article. I'd pull the tent theory out but there is so much unsourced. Where to start... - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I've pulled the tent theory out as the IP keeps adding OR to articles. Most of the rest is sourceable, but that wasn't. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll put it on my watchlist, good luck. Let me know when and if you see other questionable editing, I'll do what I can to help out. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Top medical editors

The Medicine Barnstar
You were one of the top 10 medical contributors to Wikipedia in 2013. Many thanks for all your hard work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration

Hi, I just want to let you to know I am requesting arbitration for fair resolution of the current editing dispute on Daniel Amen.

Here is the link: #Request for arbitration re inappropriate editing of leads on Daniel Amen article

Thanks, 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of mediation

Instead I am starting with mediation, I have named you as a party in this case. Here is the link to the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Daniel_Amen You might al;so want to check your Wikipedia related email.
Thanks,
Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Daniel Amen". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 March 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Just saw your Olive Branch

Hi,

I only saw your olive branch near the end of may last posting session. I had to go so had no time to respond. I wanted to say that I appreciated it and if I had more time, I would have offered you an Olive Branch back. :-)

Since I was under time pressure, I decided to just quickly withdraw my comment about Wikipedia policy versus thinking independently because I was concerned that my wording might have been getting too heated.

I withdrew another comment (about Overmedication) to avoid misunderstanding as it never had anything to do with you at all (or any other person posting on Dr. Daniel Amen- related pages), but I was concerned that it might be taken that way.

Thanks, Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the good wishes! We might not always agree but I appreciate your dedication, your carefully considered points and your passion to uphold the spirit and collective wisdom of Wikipedia!
Sincerely, Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ken Ham

Always willing to have a discussion. Would you consider a compromise on the Ken Ham Article? Thank you for your willingness to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.178.43.177 (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

See talk page of the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Stop icon

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
I see you have made four reverts in six hours. StAnselm (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note that most of those edits were reverts of an IP now blocked for edit warring. Note also that my "reverts" were restoration of material removed. Additionally the inclusion of the content is supported by numerous other editors. See Talk:Ken Ham/Archive 1#Editing the lead without discussion here first and that it continues to be supported for inclusion and restored. Given the consensus for keeping the material I suggest editors seeking to remove it find support and consensus on the talk page before removing the material. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I see you've warned me twice on my talk page, but I don't understand what either of the warnings were for. StAnselm (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The warnings were for disruptive editing on a talk page. You have soapboxed on a fact not in question in the academic community and are now disputing what a "fact" is. These are not issues of debate per WP policy. Continued interference with constructive editing through talk page posts is a form of disruptive editing for which you can be blocked, banned etc. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Daniel Amen, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Welcome from STiki!

Hello, MrBill3, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a WVU alum myself, but born and raised there, and a season-ticket holder come football season. Let's Go ... Mountaineers. West.andrew.g (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Anthropic principle

Hi MrBill3, I added a section near the beginning of the wikipedia article for Anthropic principle, and seconds later you deleted it, and sent me what looks like a standard message. I have thought about the Anthropic principle for some time, and in trying to explain it to my friends, have developed a number of illustrations that my friends find useful. So I thought I had something to contribute. This is my first attempted contribution to wikipedia, so perhaps I've added my paragraph to the wrong place, or it is the wrong style, or perhaps there is no room for ideas, however useful, that certain people don't agree with. I welcome your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Ponting (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

First sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~. Second WP is an encyclopedia, content needs to come from published reliable sources your original research or unpublished essay does not belong in an encyclopedia. Don't mean to be brusque, just being brief. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank You,Yay!

Dear Mr.Bill3 i am wvc192005 i think i made a mistake on my edit but thanks for taking it off your very kind sinserly wvc192005

Wvc192005 (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem I am using an anti-vandalism tool, STiki, and it also finds fragmentary or apparently erroneous edits. I appreciate the feedback. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

HI

THANKS FOR BEING GREAT

Wvc192005 (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Revision using STiki

Hi MrBill3, I noticed that you used STiki to identify one of my posts (on the Helen Caldicott article) as vandalism. I assure you that my edit was not vandalism but rather a constructive change to the article. I know that vandalism is an issue on Wikipedia and that automated tools are a big help in dealing with the problem, but please make sure that you double-check what the tools are doing when you use them. It would be very off putting for a new member of the community if one of their edits was incorrectly flagged as vandalism. Thanks for all of your good work though, 99.9% of what you do is great. 37.48.81.44 (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently Daffydavid and Gandydancer share my interpretation of removing the sourced fact that Caldicott is a physician and using the characterization of "professional activist" as not constructive diff, diff. Your actions are edit warring as you have been reverted by three editors and repeatedly reinserted the content without discussion on the talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - - Jjibber76 (talk)) — Preceding undated comment added 04:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding IAHP

You have been editing the IAHP page without a NPOV and have continuously made undocumented changes to my edits. My edits were clearly stated and the reasons why the edits were made. Please refrain from reverting. Comments were also made on the talk page. John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjibber76 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Jjibber76 (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Take some time to actually read and understand WP:NPOV. This has been referred to the 3RR Notice board. See my comment on the talk page of the article. You made multiple edits with no edit summary. Your editing on this page is clearly WP:VANDALISM. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
If you read the talk page of the article you will see extensive policy based explanations of content added and sources with multiple editors participating. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Perms

With 14,600 edits, I recommend you try for reviewer or Rollbacker first. When you have experience with those tools, try for admin. TitusFox'Tribs 13:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Stoney Case

Mr. Bill, while I may have a conflict of interest, I was simply adding some very relevant statistics and eliminating a few opinions and derogatory comments to clean up the info about Stoney Case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjcase (talk • contribs) 20:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)