User talk:Me Three/Archive 1

Archive 1

Linking of Dates

Please note that linking of dates is now depreciated, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Martin451 (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I wasn't aware of this new change[1]; I put the links in specifically for formatting purposes. I'll note this for the future, and unlink the dates in my Mike Emrick article if requested/required. Thanks for the update. sme3 (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Home Depot

Well, the actual address doesn't have to be in the first paragraph. Maybe If there are more sources about the actual headquarter facility the address could go in a subsequent paragraph or something. As of writing the lead sentence is fine as is. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

stop reverting!

I DIDNT VANDALIZE UR TALK PAGES!!! AND STOP CALLIN MY EDIT VANDALISM!!!U AINT SUPPOSED 2 JUST RV ANY EDIT BY AN IP THAT U SEE! TALK PAGE EDITS AINT SUPPOSED 2 B REVERTD AT ALL CUZ THEY'RE MESSAGES!!! 98.234.176.85 (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't u know that u have to ASSUME GOOD FAITH?? That means dont revert an edit unless its 100% vandalism!! And my edit wasn't vandalism at the time! I thought it to be correct! All you nerds just go around recent changes reverting any edit by an ip regardless of whether its a good edit or not! You're gonna revert this edit too arent u? Go on and see.

No more empty threats about vandalism! MY EDIT WASNT VANDALISM! And go apply for adminship, u aint gonna ban me none as a lowly rollbacker! 98.234.176.85 (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Since you didn't use any profanities or name-calling this time, I'll let it stay. But even if I give you the benefit of the doubt that changing the name of the company Comcast to "Cartoon" [2] was an innocent, good-faith mistake, the contributions you've made since then don't exactly suggest that you strive to be a responsible editor. Assume good faith is not a license to vandalize. Please see WP:WELCOME for some tips on how to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. And consider spelling out full words (no "ur", "2 b" "cuz") and using proper capitalization if you want to be taken seriously. -Sme3 (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Minimed Paradigm

Unbelievable! That has got to be the best, most polite, most thoughtful criticism ever to see the light of day in Wikipedia. Well done, cheers, thank you. I would give you a barnstar or bannerstar, or what ever it is called if i knew how to do so. Will probably take all your suggestions, except maybe the blanking of the talk page. FYI: not done contributing to the article, my tendency is to do a "brain dump" initially (which also includes copy/paste) then heavily edit towards the end. Good to know you're out there, keep in touch, drop a bomb...it's all good. Henry Delforn (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My comment on each of your points:

• • "The introductory paragraph has some phrasing which is identical to reference #3"...The actual truth is that the "introductory" lead paragraph is completely my own words and was created prior to reading reference #3.
  • "the Paradigm RT, cited in the article, has a sensor, but all Paradigm pumps do not"...okay, good point, will clarify.
  • "The section on Diabetes Mellitus is copied from here [2], and is unsourced"...true, will rephrase sufficiently and cite source. But know this fact: there is a minimal limit in the number of word-for-word reproductions that legally can be considered a copyright violation, furthermore, there are cases (such as in mathematics or English language) where definitions or concepts are except from copyright considerations.
  • "Keep the article relevant. This is on the Minimed Paradigm pump, not on insulin pumps or on Diabetes in general."...disagree strongly, the Minimed Paradigm is an insulin pump as it pumps insulin, and while the article is not on diabetes in general, many many articles in Wikipedia do the same thing (i.e.- give a brief on the general topic but also include "main|Diabetes mellitus" atop the section). Nevertheless, that section will be reduced in size and complexity.
  • "Keep it factually accurate. Again, looking at the intro paragraph, you write ...with minimal patient intervention. The ideal of such a "closed-loop" system (where the pump automatically delivers insulin based on a measured blood glucose reading) will be a huge milestone in diabetes care, but it has not yet been achived."...this is a very very interesting point you raise, because, as i said above, i wrote the lead with my own words and as such, i initially assumed that indeed there had to be a feedback or closed-loop control of the insulin and i wrote as much in the article (check the early history). Then after reading the pdf from blucross, which you correctly stated to be unsourced, i went back to my lead and corrected my assumption. As it is now, it is not true when you say, "The text implies that it has". Not true because of two qualifiers: 1) "as if" (ie - the word "if" implies a theoretical condition), and 2) "pre-programmed amount" (ie - if preprogrammed, it can't be feedbacked controlled). Also note that the Overview section clearly states: There is not a feedback mechanism between the two components. On a personal note, as a retired engineer: i can't believe diabetes care is so god damn retarded as to not have feedback control of insulin, that tells me how fucked upbadly our technical priorities in the world of health care are lined up. Seems like nobody gives a shit in this industry. Regardless, and back to the point, i will further clarify your point in the article.
  • "The article is written at a very high level"...okay, had no idea, will use more internal wiki links on words and simplify on a more general basis.
  • Finally, "you've "blanked the page...it's generally frowned upon"...don't give a damn.

Question: did you have a prior Wikipedia identity? (yes/no?) Sme3 was born 19:52, 28 March 2008. In closing, stay in touch, do want your feedback on the article, it is important to me. Henry Delforn (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my comments seriously. I now understand your thought process (brain-dump, then revise) and I must have caught the article right in the middle of all that. You may want to consider putting an {{inuse}} or {{underconstruction}} template on top while you do this. {{inuse}} puts a banner in the article which looks like this, just so everyone understands that the article isn't quite ready for 'prime time' yet.

About not having a closed-loop system, I think there's a huge fear of such a system failing - the consequences could be fatal - and the testing required is tremendous. Also, even with quick-acting insulin, it would be a reactionary system, where blood sugar would spike post-meal before insulin is delivered (unless maybe it goes intravenously) - I'm not sure how the developers would solve that one. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't love to see such a system; barring some sort of cure, it would certainly make my life easier!

Also, I have no prior Wikipedia identity. I had made a few (less than 10) edits before signing up, but that's really it. I'd be glad to help you out with the article, or other diabetes-related articles, as best I can -- given the little time I have available! -Sme3 (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that on the day after i should feel like an idiot for the choice of words and tone of voice used in your talk page and in Wikipedia in general. But while researching for the article, i spent a good amount of time reading adverse event reports from the FDA MAUDE database [3] and it became reason and unknowing motivation to go off. One particular report was heart-felt when a mother blamed the device or manufacturer for the death of her diabetic son. While i do not know the root-cause of the case, it is nevertheless a tragedy and a well understood position taken by the mother.

Guess i'll do a little work on the article now...start simplifying and maybe adding an "Operation" section (this will have to be targeted to one specific model, perhaps the 722). By the way, i don't think "a reactionary system" is a problem at all, i think it is the only way to go. The device should be slave to the patient, not the other way around. The device should react to the patient's unfettered life. This is not impossible. If the rate and rate-of-rate of increase are measured, the device should be smart enough to know when it will reach your peak and infuse accordingly via multiple reserviors. I know i'm simplifying, but it is what it is. Here's another "by the way": learned that by late Summer in the UK there is plan to launch a closed-loop system although it is very rudimentary. It only makes appropriate adjustments for the low limit by turning itself off when in hypo state. Hey, it's a start. Henry Delforn (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for letting me change the article.--*** ******* 18:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)User:Boyhere

Getallthefacts.com

I've moved your AfD nomination to Redirects for Discussion, here. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Olaf -- this was the first time I tried to suggest deleting an article; I suppose I need to brush up on the procedures for doing this. Sometimes its difficult to wade through all of the WP: sections! Appreciate the help. -Sme3 (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! I've replied to this and your other message on my talk. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: quotation marks

The recommendation is "somewhat recent" (people don't reread MoS every day ☺) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style&diff=242700044&oldid=242608748 Thanks for letting me know, though! —j.eng (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Minimed Paradigm

Now that the article is complete (from my part), it is unfair to continue to suggest that plaguarism is involved, as you do in the article's discussion page. I have explained to you at length how i go about creating articles, by copying/pasting original material then edit as my own words much later. You happen to have caught the work in progress. However, the continued suggestion in the discussion page regarding plaguarism affects my reputation to any reader on an on-going basis, it gives and leaves a plaguarism impression, which is not the case at all. Please be fair by at least deleting the words "plaguarism" from the discussion page, or best, delete the entire entry since it is a snapshot in time of a situation which was transitory. I believe that assuming Good Faith from the start would have prevented this mishap. It's absolutely not fair for you to attack my reputation. Please practice Good Faith, especially when the work is in progress. I have behaved civil with you throughout the construction of this article, explaining in fine detail many actions taken, have gone beyond reasonable amount of explanation. Now please to the right thing and correct this problem. Think about what it would feel like if someday you put lots of honest effort into some public project for all to see then someone who doesn't know anything about how you operate comes along and declares for all to see that you cheated, that you are a cheater, but continues with this message after having explained and proven not to be the case at all. Please have more Good Faith in fellow Wikipedians, be more patient, wait until there is no absolute doubt that it is indeed plaguarism before making the statement. Plaguarism is a strong word to use in a sentence, even if there is not a direct accusation, you are still putting doubt in the reader's mind. I believe that Good Faith is an actual Wikipedia policy, but even if it is not, let Wikipedians prove themselves before taking the chance of harming a good reputation. Henry Delforn (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry, you are right about good-faith, and after your explanation of a month ago, I did indeed step back and allow you to complete the article. I believe you did quite well, as a matter of fact. Note that the comment you reference on Talk:Minimed Paradigm was written on July 20, 2009, not August 20 (yesterday). I have written a follow-up to that previous comment on the article's talk page, explaining all of this, and hopefully it will clear up any confusion, both to you and to any others who may be reading this. I certainly am not looking to tarnish the reputation of anyone on Wikipedia, especially an intelligent editor such as yourself. I apologize if there was any confusion. With regard to tagging the images, I followed Wikipedia strict rules about evaluating fair-use images and tagged them appropriately. I thought an automated Bot would put them on your talk page. -Sme3 (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• FYI, this issue was raised here. Based on my understanding of the editors' concern, I have blanked the talk page replacing it with a WikiProject template. In anticipation that this is OK with you, I will shortly mark this matter resolved. Best regards, –xeno^talk 19:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Url redirects

I saw Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_11

The outcome of the discussion interferes with Wikipedia:Notability (web), which says "Websites or content which fail these guidelines but are linked to a topic or subject which does merit inclusion may be redirected to that topic or subject rather than be listed for deletion." - The whole point of redirecting the URLs to the article pages is to cover those kinds of websites. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting -- I hadn't seen that (as it's buried deep in a footnote) - and I obviously wasn't the one who determined the consensus. But, by "are linked to a topic or subject", I don't know what degree of association that means: does it apply to a web site such as Orbitz.com, which is the only/most-common way to do business with the company Orbitz (and does, indeed, redirect there -- similar for Yahoo.com and Google.com), or does it apply to every business that has a web site? The consensus, and WP:RCAT, tend to suggest the former.

Also, note that it says may be, not shall be or should be, meaning it's not a strict rule. -Sme3 (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

King of Hearts, the closing admin, suggested that I start a discussion. Therefore we have Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)#Redirects_from_websites_to_subjects WhisperToMe (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A Special Thanks

Thanks dude you're best. Ricky3374 (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a misunderstanding

Hi, um, the link I posted on the bottom of the news station pages were links to that udernames youtube. Not to the News blooper - Have you ever used youtube before? Well there will always be a video on their homepage. So, that was your misunderstanding. I'm leading people into this youtube page, to show them that there are tons of videos from the stations in NY. They're in playlists which contain promos, graphics etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endrizzi427 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I now understand what you were saying, and was mistaken when I said the link was to a blooper reel. Still, I'm not quite sure what the point of the link is. A YouTube user has put together a library of videos from the other four networks, some may be legally posted, others copyright-violations. How does it add to the articles? See WP:YOUTUBE. -Sme3 (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Friendly note regarding talk page messages

Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:132.3.1.68, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages or warnings from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or shared IP header templates (for unregistered editors). However, it should be noted that these exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thank you, — Kralizec! (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Kralizek. I hesitated a bit when I posted that message on the IP's talk page because I know that users have almost free reign over their talk page, but I thought that warnings also fell under that exception list. But, being uncertain, I tried to phrase my comment in a non-confrontational manner, "please do not.... removal suggests that....". Now knowing the rules as you've explained them, I stand corrected. Me Three (talk to me) 03:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

WordWorld

Regarding your edit summary here: as far as I was concerned, I was reversing a bad edit from from a contributor who is either (assuming good faith) somewhat confused or (not assuming good faith) someone who mixes good and bad edits in order to sneak in vandalism (you can probably guess which case I believe to be true). However, a second Google on "Nathaniel Relchman" reveals that they may well have meant "Nathaniel Reichman" who does appear to have some kind of music credit on WordWorld. If this can be properly verified, then I have no objection to the relevant credits being restored to the infobox. 88.109.101.135 (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup... I see that on the Nathaniel Reichman page ([4]). I'm ok with it being adding in, spelled correctly. I'll do that. Me Three (talk to me) 19:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Slade

Thanks for your reversion here. [5] He made reversions of me at these three articles too; Chambers St [6], Bowery [7], and Marcy Ave [8].

He also blanked his talk page [9] again after User:Rich Farmbrough made a comment on my behalf.

He is out of control. Please collect any diffs you can find of his disruptive edits. I'm putting together an evidence page for an RFC. Acps110 (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You got it. I was thinking an ANI was about due... Me Three (talk to me) 00:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Per your edit on User talk:Tinlinkin [10]:

Don't be too hard on yourself. You did the right thing. Bringing the matter to administrator attention took it out of the small range of editors involved and got a fresh set of eyes (or several sets) looking at the situation. He had built a rather damning set of evidence against himself, so he has to take responsibility for his actions now. Happy editing! Acps110 (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, our "friend" has been busy restoring all the content he deleted/blanked on his talk page over the past 2+ years. Maybe he just feels a compulsion to edit something! After reading the restored stuff, though, I don't feel so bad anymore. Maybe he's just trying to demonstrate good faith -- but digging up evidence against him isn't helping his plea for unblocking. If anything, he's lucky he lasted this long.... Me Three (talk to me) 13:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw that too. ;-) Every time I read one of my comments, it's just amazing how calm I stayed for too long. I did actually get him to stop linking station complexes differently than individual stations though. Acps110 (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

MSG Network

Thanks for the input. Sometimes I summarize, but I should be more consistent. No problem letting me know. I should scan the whole article for updates rather than change as I go. User:fxhomie —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC).

Wachovia Spectrum

Yes, once the building is razed, I would consider renaming it the "The Spectrum (Philadelphia)" for the column. NoseNuggets (talk) 6:52 AM US EST Dec 29 2009.

Fair enough. I wasn't sure about the timing, and I couldn't find anything online referencing what events could cause the naming rights (and payments by the bank) to cease. Interesting how Continental Airlines could back out of the naming agreement for the Meadowlands, NJ arena when one major tenant (Devils) left, but Wachovia keeps its name on the building after all of the tenants leave, waiting for it to be demolished!

As a side issue though, I think the article "The" is not part of the name. Looking at the commemorative logo and (my recollection of) the old Flyers ice surface, the name was simply "Spectrum". Me Three (talk to me) 13:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

IP Address

Oh I understand. Thank you for noticing. How would I report another user for making numerous unconstructive edits and undoing the accurate ones?Carmaker1 (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks then. It actually was uncivil, but then again that was because I try to keep things organized on dated or chronological information and it's very frustrating when I feel my complaints about troublesome users aren't being heard and acted on. I'm kind of glad you noticed because it tells me that I don't need to resort to such posts and will be eventually heard by good users to help counter difficult users who are rampantly vandalizing Wikipedia. Carmaker1 (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Newsweek 05 24 09.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Newsweek 05 24 09.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 16:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving your talk page

I fixed the configuration of your auto-archives. It was missing "talk:" You might want to include "|maxarchivesize = 50K" to keep that archive from growing too big. When the first archive reaches that size, the bot will automatically move on to number 2. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix! I was unclear about the Maxarchives parameter -- I guess it moves things into the same archive until it reaches the limit? I had thought that once an archive was created, that file was effectively "frozen" and the next archiving activity goes to a new one. But seeing that the bot comes along every day, I suppose that can create a whole lot of archives really fast. I'll take the advice -- thanks for the help! Me Three (talk to me) 13:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct, the bot keeps using Archive 1 until it hits whatever size you set with maxarchivesize, then moves to Archive 2 automatically. It keeps archiving the last thread to the first archive, to keep that thread together. If you have less than two threads to be archived, it passes until there are two that need to be done. When I saw your edit summary of "I hope I got this right."; I checked because I use Miszabot too.

I like how flexible Miszabot is; I use a completely different setup on my auto-archives. I have it set to archive one thread at a time immediately after it "expires" to a monthly-based archive file. Each month is a separate file, and I only get about 2-3 threads per month. The drawback to that approach, is that I have to manually update my archive index. None of the indexing templates are set up to take a date-based file name.

Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually "stole" some of the setup from your page! Including the usertalkback template at the top. But I still screwed it up. Hmmpf. Thanks again. Me Three (talk to me) 21:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha, Ha! That's fine; Glad to help. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SpectrumLogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SpectrumLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Newsday15-oct-09.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Newsday15-oct-09.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the image is now outdated, and a newer one has taken its place. I have no objection to deleting it. Me Three (talk to me) 02:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

“RFK Bridge” renaming discussion

Efb91 (talk · contribs) is requesting that “Robert F. Kennedy Bridge” be moved back to its old title of “Triborough Bridge”. As someone who was involved in the last move, I figured I’d bring it to your attention. The discussion is at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Bridge#Proposal To Change Improper Article Title; Triborough Bridge Is Common-Use Name According to Wall Street Journal.. Larry V (talk | email) 00:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)