User talk:SDY

Welcome

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Ankithreya! 08:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

0.999...

Hi, thanks for your comment about 0.999.... Just to let you know that I've moved it from Talk:0.999... to Talk:0.999.../Arguments, as it's more about whether or not the number equals 1 than about the article itself. Please note the wide range of academic papers cited by the article. If there are more logical objections to be covered, they need to be based on more than original research conducted with a calculator. Thanks for all your ongoing contributions to the encyclopedia. BigBlueFish (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response to the post, though it appears you did not read it. It's not a challenge to .9r = 1, it's simply a caveat to the limitations of calculators.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; a bad call on my part. I hope my nastygram didn't come across as too nasty! I thought it would be better to let you know than to do it silently as though I was dismissing your comment entirely. All the best. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem. I should have lurked before I leaped, didn't realize what a minefield that page was.

5/16 DYK

On 16 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article first generation jet fighter, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 04:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of blood donation agencies in the United States

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of blood donation agencies in the United States, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Stifle (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tools for formatting wiki style citations

I'm not sure if you are aware of them but there are some tools out there to help format citations using templates which make it easier to keep a consistent format for citations. Diberris' template filler allows you to just put in a PubMED ID as well a few other IDs to automatically generate them. Also magnus' citation generator allows you to enter this information and takes out a few steps as opposed to doing it by hand. Thanks for making that HIV Subtype article, please keep up the good work. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility?

There's nothing uncivil about pointing out the obvious and admitted POV pushing of an editor. bringing it to the fore so that it can be discounted by the wider community is not uncivil; it's part and parcel of the debate. Logical fallacies can be discredited during debate freely. The editor you're referring to is making an appeal to emotion (morality), not a logical argument. Clear refutation of such spurious arguments is part and parcel of debate. Try not to censor positions opposed to yours by citing policy as a weapon. ThuranX (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do. there are a number of admins who have no interest in subtlety, and only react when things are made plain and clear. As for how I say it, I also remind you, blunt speech is NOT incivil. I never insulted him. I spoke about his actions, not the person. His action is to push a POV, thus he is a POV pusher. I didn't insult his intellect nor his views, just spoke about his methods and poor debating tactic. ThuranX (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blunt speech doesn't have to make other's 100% comfortable. It's not that sort of speech. So long as I'm not directly insulting nor excessively confrontational, that's enough. ThuranX (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't push POVs. Just heroin. ;o) But, seriously, thank you for your request for a bit of civility. Seems reasonable enough to me. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prius discussion

Wondering if you are interested in responding to User:DeFacto on Talk:Toyota Prius. He is asking why WP:CRUFT. Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prius and minor

"A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." its like typo correction as the source says differently as article --— Typ932^{T | C} 16:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And please dont delete comments on my userpage --— Typ932^{T | C} 16:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Ill try to study what is minor and whats not... --— Typ932^{T | C} 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You linked me to WP:AAGF. Why? Beam 01:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been trouted. Beam 04:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MSM blood donor controversy

I've replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Burmyanmar

I WAS, in fact, discussing changes to the page. The people in that section were suggesting we change the main article name to Myanmar, and I was explaining why I was opposed to it. Jetblue1717 (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of British Blood Transfusion Society

A tag has been placed on British Blood Transfusion Society requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood donation

Thanks for your message. Indeed I initially reviewed the article, but I'm having access problems at the moment and have therefore asked Snowmanradio to pass the verdict. JFW | T@lk 09:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

I think that talk pages are used for discussion after the GAR result has been given. Snowman (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burma

Hi. I think when I commented on the name change all the other sites with the name change were not active yet. --Shorty23sin (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I doubt that anything but a unanimous decision would have put this to rest, though." Remembering how I felt when I saw one bureaucrat had voted Myanmar, one had voted Burma, and the fate of the article title rested on which name the third leaned toward... yeah, I see your point. I guess I can't really blame WarofDreams for passing the pressure along. -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have created Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Burma. I have added you along with added 18 other users (including myself) to the list of involved parties. The ones I have listed are ones who have commented recently, or who commented on the Mediation Cabal case (except if they solely made a neutral comment). If you disagree with me listing you there, remove yourself from it if you wish. If you feel someone else should be involved, add/ask them. I hope those I have added are alright though. I also hope this step is what finally ends this dispute! Deamon138 (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"in response to"

I have made a substantial alteration to section 33: first paragraph -- "avoid" to become ID "completely reformulated"..."in response to"

It is intended to reflect your input as well as that of others -- your continuing attention would be appreciated

--Championdante (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

Just want to thank you for your help at the Help Desk and for finding me a legit source for Plushgun! Thanks! Noneforall (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lymphatic system

Hi! I saw your contributions to this article. They are very appropriate. Well, are you using any source for adding info? If you are please do let me know. My primary source is a 1973 book (Gray's anatomy), which is good enough, but it'd be nice to have a more updated source. Moreover, I'm having problem actually starting the article. May be you can help there. Basically, we should first introduce the formation of interstitial fluid (very briefly), and then proceed to the the "journey of lymph" (see the template below in the article).

Then is the difficult part. Most of the info I posses would best be placed in the articles on lymph nodes or the lymph vessels, but since this article is about the lymphatic system, it should also contain the relevant info.

One more thing, in this sentence, "It also includes the lymphoid tissue that the lymph travels through. Lymphoid", I'd have liked that word to be "percolates" as it gives a better indication of slow passage of lymph with some filtering action.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 07:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Burma Mediation

Thank you for contacting me. I think you made a big mistake by reporting that both me and Colonel Warden were pro-Burma. First, because that was likely thus needless to report; Second, because that was irrelevant for that stage; and especially third, because it confirms that the mediation would revolve around distrust and bad faith assumptions. Very unwise at a time when efforts are made to convince skeptic users to renew dialog and work for an agreement. Regards, Hús ö nd 13:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ID talkpage

It's fine with me if you archive that section, and thanks for asking. Doc Tropics 18:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your question to User:Warofdreams

I have posted the discussion that Warofdreams and I had about this on the request for mediation discussion (here) so Warofdreams might not need to reply to you if you're happy with that discussion. Deamon138 (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your comment "We do essentially need a stance for one or the other since there is no "status quo" location", I was asked to judge consensus in the discussion and I found no consensus for either title. Given that was my judgement, it would be inappropriate for me to call for one side or the other in the discussion. As the "wrong title" which has been in use, I believe that Burma is the closest thing to a "status quo" location, but as you say, that is problematic. While I hope that the request for mediation discussion did move the debate forward - and that is why I deliberately phrased my summary to focus on the areas where I did find consensus - I agree with you that further discussion and quite possibly a new approach is needed to resolve the naming issue.

As Deamon138 says, he has very kindly reposted a similar discussion I had with him. If you have any queries which that conversation doesn't cover, please don't hesitate to ask me. Warofdreams talk 00:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Burma.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 01:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I've started a new page for structured mediation if you're interested. BigBlueFish (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FBI Buffalo Field Office

You did not properly close the failed GA because the talk page template still suggests the article is a GAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, sorry. Still kinda new at the GA review process. SDY (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Messages at WT:LE

Hello, SDY. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Mifter (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberella

Thanks for all your help on Kimberella. I particlualrly liked the fact that all the copyedits you did or suggested simplified the text. Give me a call if I can help you any time. -- Philcha (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. SDY (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed, thorough, and best of all, collaborative GA review on this article. Apologies for the late reply (busy weekend!) - I notice you've now listed it as a GA, but just so you know I have absolutely no quarrel with your decision ;) All the best, EyeSerene^talk 07:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Brown

I think she's well known enough, and has had enough press (about her, not just about IVF) that you shouldn't blank/redirect the article without discussing it first on the talk page and seeking consensus. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I waited over a month before making the merge, got one voice in support, asked about it on the BLP noticeboard and received support there... SDY (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping track of the list of minority-opinion scientific theories?

Hi, I noticed you opened a discussion on this, and I'm wondering if it is still on your watchlist. May want to go check it out; I've helped to point to references on it, but in response SA has blanked and redirected it. II | (t - c) 23:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't, is now. SDY (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been blanked by SA. Feel free to revert, as there doesn't seem to be much justification for it; I've reverted quite a few times at this point though. II | (t - c) 00:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion and merging

Hi, I noticed your new section at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Articles for deletion and merging. I started Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Merge policy about a week ago in response to a contested merge going to AN/I and then AfD. Unfortunately, the section received zero input. Would you consider moving your questions to the older section (maybe as a subsection), or would you like to keep them separate? Flatscan (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No burning need to merge. When one of the discussions is archived, I'll insert a link in the other. Flatscan (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...

I'm glad we agree that you've lost the argument, but in case you're wondering, I've instituted my own technique for dealing with civility after almost a year of discussion and I find it works very well! ScienceApologist (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should do some research into the history of my interactions with civility if you are curious. If you have specific concerns, please follow the procedure on my talk page. Thanks! ScienceApologist (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me you've revealed enough about yourself for me to figure out what your modus operendi is. Good luck. See you on the opposite side of the Maginot Line! ScienceApologist (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

patently secondary

Hi Yankee,

I have reverted your addition of "patents" to the list of primary sources; I think they're a bit of a grey area, but then I'm not a specialist. Please see Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Patents_and_research_articles and comment.

Regards, Slashme (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airport notability discussion

You have shown interest in an airport AfD in the past at [[Chadwick Airport] You may wish to visit Stoney Point Airfield and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoney Point Airfield to participate as well. This message is being sent to editors who participated at Chadwick but have not participated at Stoney Point, regardless of the editor's opinion. Thank you!--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pet peeve

Interesting point on Talk:Water fluoridation opposition. I'm convinced. Should we offer the article up at AfD? What say ye? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I think about it, the forking guidelines seem pretty clear to me. We should treat the "controversy"/"oppostion" articles as if they were still in the parent articles for the purposes of WP:UNDUE with enough context to make sure that a reader that happens upon the "controversy"/"opposition" article is not given an impression of tacit endorsement or ownership of the article by those who are oppositional/supporters of the "controversy". That might be something we can try to draft as a principle for inclusion either at WP:NPOV or WP:CFORK or WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your detailed review of the G6PD-deficiency article. You'd likewise, posed questions for lymphatic system, which was also the MCOTW some time back. After your questions, I'd replied to them, and also significantly added to/altered the article and the related articles (lymph node, lymph capillary, lymphangion, etc.). It'd be nice if you could go through the articles again, and leave some comments. —KetanPanchal^taLK 04:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An award

		The Medicine Barnstar
		I, —KetanPanchal^taLK, award the Medicine Barnstar to Somedumbyankee for doing exceptional service to the Medical Collaboration of the Week WikiProject, by making detailed reviews of the elected articles. By the way, as I am not supposed to make comments on Somedumbyankee, but only on his/her contributions, they (contributions) are anything but, dumb ;-) —KetanPanchal^taLK 05:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

with style

"...with style a distant eleventh ..." ROFLMAO -- Philcha (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small shelly fauna

Hi, SDY. The last activity on the GA review of Small shelly fauna was 29 Aug, when I posted responses on a couple of items. We need to discuss the earlier items I linked, plus your line-by-line comments. If you're having a vacation, I hope it's a great one. -- Philcha (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression something else is giving you trouble. I'm sorry. All the best. -- Philcha (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MedRevise.co.uk

Don't know if you will be interested, but with a colleague I have set up a Medical Revision website, called MedRevise.co.uk. It is not trying to compete with Wikipedia, but trying to be something else useful, and fun. If you are interested, please read our philosophy and just have a little look at our site. I would appreciate your feedback, and some contributions if you have the time. Thanks a lot! Christianpunk (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that HAL Tejas is 4.5 generation

Just before 2 days ADA, the developer of HAL Tejas confirmed that HAL Tejas is 4.5 generation. Here is the link-------- [1] I hope you would appreciate the facts.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadya Suleman

There seems to be a broad consensus that BLP1E does not apply in this case. I wonder if you would consider withdrawing your nomination of this article so that the debate can be closed as a WP:SPEEDYKEEP. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been relisted for deletion after further BLP problems. Physchim62 (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you work for "the US Federal Department of Administration FDA"???

If you really work for the FDA, you know it's called the U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION.
FDA does NOT stand for Federal Department of Administration.
The "Federal Department of Administration" does NOT exist in America.
Be aware of the law - for your reference:
18 U.S. Code Sec. 912 says
"Sec. 912. - Officer or employee of the United States
Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." Repodaddy (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of what FDA stands for, and it was obviously meant as a joke. I have not, nor will I ever, attempt to use that identity to demand or obtain anything of value without proper use of credentials (impossible to do online). I am only stating it because it is a conflict of interest and states some obvious bias on some of the topics I am involved in. If that declaration is inappropriate, I have no problem removing it. SDY (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I still had your page watchlisted from our above conversation. I have warned this user for making legal threats. I find it odd in the extreme that their only edits so far have been to accuse you and make threats of legal action. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPS

Please don't confuse media organizations' "blogs" with self-published sources. Often times "blog" is used interchangeably, however in Wikipedia nomenclature they're not the same thing. Specifically mentioned in the policy you quoted:

"Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.

Hope this helps. :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding

My intent wasn't to antagonize, and I hope that you will continue to assert your viewpoint there and elsewhere. I don't believe you're an agenda warrior, and I do think you're here to improve the project. If your point is that criticism articles are disagreeable to you, I understand and respect that. However, I don't think Wiki policy and practice agree with your assessment. My only concern is that we apply policies, guidelines, and SOP appropriately, and not begin tendentious editing and misrepresenting policy. I don't think you've intentionally done either, and I am sorry if I offended you. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Jimintheatl (talk)

Re

No problem, I am getting a little frustrated myself with the constant side-stepping of the issues and instead focusing on miniscule errors and our supposed bad-faith. Soxwon (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Frozen Plasma move

I will undo the move until such time a consensus is developed. Talk to you later, Kjkolb (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd 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) 01:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, SDY. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities.
Message added 19:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 19:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Titmuss

So, SDY, what's your objection to the reference to Titmuss? His work on blood donation is an absolute locus classicus in the important debate on whether all human action is ultimately for personal gain, or whether on the contrary altruism is possible; and it is still raised in the UK whenever proposals are made to replace altruistic blood donation with payment. Do you object to the reference in principle, and if so on what principle? Or do you dislike my formulations, in which case what formulation would be acceptable to you? Deipnosophista (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to keep these discussions to the talk page of the article. I'll admit I may have overreacted a little bit, but any time someone uses the word "pioneered" in an addition without any sourcing I immediately assume that it's puffery. SDY (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blasphemy and the United Nations

Your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blasphemy and the United Nations would be greatly appreciated. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

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) 18:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

You are receiving this because you have commented on either Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, or Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory in the past two years; all such commenters have received this notice. It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). Please feel free to comment on the proposal at Talk:Autogynephilia#Merger proposal. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human Experimentation

Thank you for your comment on my question regarding human experimentation. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert.

I didn't get rid of the interproject links I moved them to the see also section. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 13:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finasteride Edit

Hi SDY,

Just wondering if you would reconsider my previous edit with the more direct statistics. You mentioned you thought it would be an inappropriate synthesis of information, but under the following link it seems that simple arithmetic calculations are allowed as I would expect. At the risk of being too simplistic, I only used multiplication. Please let me know what you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CALC#Routine_calculations Doors22 (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the statement is true, that's not the way that the researchers presented the data and there are reasons to keep the numbers separate. I agree that the study is troubling, but if there is a new conclusion to be drawn, Wikipedia is not the place to make that happen. Specifically, that there were 150% more persistent problems in the finasteride group instead of that 20% more of the problems in the finasteride group were persistent is a different idea, and not simple arithmetic. Instead of comparing apples to apples, we're comparing applesauce and applesauce. Sensible and reasonable to do in the real world, but still original research. SDY (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't really agree since I feel this is really just like a units conversion but I will try to find a full copy of the article. I put the original statement up from a separate article I read that referenced this one, but my edit was changed. Do you have any idea where I can find a full copy of the article without having to pay? Doors22 (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, unless you have access to a library that has a subscription, which isn't likely unless it's a medical school. It's possible that public libraries might have this kind of access as well, and honestly, I'd just ask a librarian, they may know another way to get at it. SDY (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Daniel Hernandez Jr. for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Hernandez Jr. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

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 template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Transfusion

I'm trying to clean up this page, so please bear with me as I do so since it will take some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaolin md (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! I've been watching the blood donation article for a while and I think that one is in pretty good shape, but a lot of the transfusion medicine stuff is really just getting started. SDY (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it

Please do not post to my talk page, and do not replace posts which I've removed. I have nothing further to say to you, and no desire to waste further time with your trolling. Desist, or you'll be blocked. And don't bother replying to this message either.--Scott Mac 13:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mystery fruit.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Mystery fruit.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article creation restriction

Hi, I've tried to incorporate the questions on effectiveness and safety in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Restriction of article creation to autoconfirmed users. I've tried to explain what this would entail, in particular requiring the community to consider this point before making a further decision on article creation restriction. Cenarium (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bounty Board Article

Your bounty board request has expired, so do you mind either updating the request, or otherwise removing it? Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for South African National Blood Service

On 29 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article South African National Blood Service, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the current CEO of the South African National Blood Service was once rejected as a blood donor because she is black? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I shouldn't have said that.

You're correct. I apologize for my snide remarks at WP:DRV. It was uncalled for, and really has no excuse. I let my emotions get the better of me, and said what I probably should not have. You are entirely correct in your criticism and assessment of the inappropriateness of my comments. --Jayron32 05:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal. It gets... frustrating around here sometimes. SDY (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your recent work to make the introduction to Cancer be intelligible to us mere mortals.[2] Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for the additional edits. I mean well, just clumsy sometimes... SDY (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, I did a bit of work on rewriting the introduction on the cancer page last week to make it a bit less technical, and you've done a really nice job on polishing it up, so thanks! KatArney (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a bit of a complaint from an external reviewer that our article was too technical, so I got bugged by a little bit of WP:SOFIXIT. My plan is to go through all of the top-importance medical articles and try and demystify the lead sections. I expect that there will be a few landmines along the way, and I hope I don't (and didn't) step on any toes. SDY (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I work for Cancer Research UK in our science information team. We're working with the Wikipedians (is that the word?) who asked us to get involved in improving the cancer content and making it more understandable. Here's our project page, if you can see it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HenryScow/CRUK_Editors Feel free to get in touch and see if we can share anything around - we're all busy with our day jobs but do what we can. Cheers, K KatArney (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Death of Socrates

I think the picture is an excellent choice for the Suicide article. I don't think anybody should get their panties in a twist over it. So thanks a little commonsense can dispense with alot of B.S. I did however change the caption. 7mike5000 (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landing flare

I see that you indicated that you have unwatched this page, but I did what you to know that I just posted a comment to explain the behaviour that you are seeing from that other editor. If you like you can pop over there and see what I have written. - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the user's history, but can't say I'm surprised. SDY (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very long history, I just cited two incidents from it. Thanks for reading what I wrote. - Ahunt (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-E antibodies as a reason for blood donor deferral

Hi, SDY. Do you know perhaps whether having anti-E antibodies is a valid reason to defer a potential blood donor? (a source would be welcome) That's what happened to me at our national transfusion medicine centre as I went to donate blood today. I've found this source claiming otherwise but am not entirely convinced yet. JFW referred me to you. Thanks for the reply. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donor units with a positive antibody screen have to be labeled as such under US regs, and some blood banks don't use them because they'd have to go through the additional hassle of identifying the antibody, so the donor would be deferred so they don't waste their time. Antibodies are in the plasma, and some places still use the packed red cells from antibody-positive donors since they have minimal plasma in the RBCs. Pediatrics and other high risk populations avoid them, but an incompatible minor crossmatch is not nearly as important as an incompatible major. Short version is that some places might defer donors for convenience, but it's not an absolute or a necessity. SDY (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts on controversial image use

Hi. I'm trying to get a feel for the actual problem wrt curation of controversial images. If you think there's a problem, would you mind adding your thoughts here? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinking George, Washington from Cristóbal, Colón

== Un-linking of George, Washington from Cristóbal, Colón Only after reading your edit summaries on the two edits cross-linking these pages (adding links in a pair of new "See Also" sections), did I get it. Of course the editor is right who observed that Lincoln, NE doesn't really quite fit the silly/unique place-name pattern. Barring your objection, I will add a note to the two "See Also" entries explaining why the pages are linked. Actually no, I will remove the links, replacing them with a note about one other similarly unique place-name, since this fun fact doesn't really call for a reader to cross over to read about the other city. Okay with you? Bookerj (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Med

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new non-profit organization we're forming at m:WikiMed. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit)

Get free access to research!

...Support Open Access...

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Super AIDS for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Super AIDS is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super AIDS until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]