Jump to content

User talk:Grim23: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
ed
Reverted 1 edit by 70.137.143.108 (talk): Refactoring someone's comment. (TW)
Line 118: Line 118:
==Investigative journalism as medical ref==
==Investigative journalism as medical ref==
I have again deleted investigative journalism as medical ref in article Ketamine. This is hearsay, by lay persons who are out for sensational reports.
I have again deleted investigative journalism as medical ref in article Ketamine. This is hearsay, by lay persons who are out for sensational reports.
It is therefore tainted by this interest in the sensation. It also changes from day to day, just dependent on what the sought after sensation is, and also in such cases like drug use, what the sought after drug political goal is.
It is therefore tainted by this interest in the sensation. It also changes from day to day, just dependent on what the sought of sensation is, and also in such cases like drug use, what the sought of drug political goal is.
As such it is rather volatile and unreliable material and to be excluded as a medical reference. WP has guidelines, what is to be used as a medical reference: It are secondary sources like recognized textbooks, and it are review articles in peer reviewed publications. It are not case reports, letters to the editor, self-published materials and journalist sources.
As such it is rather volatile and unreliable material and to be excluded as a medical reference. WP has guidelines, what is to be used as a medical reference: It are secondary sources like recognized textbooks, and it are review articles in peer reviewed publications. It are not case reports, letters to the editor, self-published materials and journalist sources.
It are also not primary sources, as long as the results are not recognized part of the common and secured medical knowledge. Otherwise WP may take on the volatile and sensational character of investigative journalism itself, rather than being encyclopedic.
It are also not primary sources, as long as the results are not recognized part of the common and secured medical knowledge. Otherwise WP may take on the volatile and sensational character of investigative journalism itself, rather than being encyclopedic.
[[Special:Contributions/70.137.143.108|70.137.143.108]] ([[User talk:70.137.143.108|talk]]) 23:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/70.137.129.167|70.137.129.167]] ([[User talk:70.137.129.167|talk]]) 10:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:22, 10 July 2011

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
North Greenwich
Methylbenzodioxolylbutanamine
Methylenedioxyhydroxymethamphetamine
Ladywell
Ariadne (psychedelic)
Sudbury Hill
Hook, London
Preston, London
Methylenedioxyethylamphetamine
The Hyde
Drug policy of Virginia
California gubernatorial election, 1954
Brent Central (UK Parliament constituency)
Brent Park
California gubernatorial election, 1958
Substituted cathinone
2941 Alden
St Raphael's Estate
Transform Drug Policy Foundation
Cleanup
Arkley
Air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption
Drug policy of Sweden
Merge
Alcohol detoxification
Ben & Jerry's
Freetekno
Add Sources
Catford
Wembley Stadium
United Kingdom general election, 2010
Wikify
Timeline of Serbian history
Alex Rizzo
Ras Kwame
Expand
Greater London
Drug policy of Colorado
Chichester

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates III

Where did you get these coordinates? They are exactly the same as those of Camden Road railway station which is nowhere near Old Oak Lane Halt railway station - it's off by about 8 km (5 miles). --Redrose64 (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected, thanks for bringing it to my attention, I must have made the mistake when I copy and pasted the syntax from the Camden Rd article. (btw I got the location from an inter-war AtoZ, the station is also visible here.[1]) Grim23 21:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a paper copy of that map that I used to get the gridref TQ213818. Thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monty the metal horse

Hi Grim23. Thank you for message. I've amended the text on the image page with what I know. Off the record I believe the horse was commissioned due to the land being previously occupied by a official traveller's site and much of the land there was used for grazing. The photo of Monty and some information can be found at http://lower-edmonton.anidea.co.uk/general/oddsandends.html. (Northmetpit (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hiya, thanks for helping out with the LSE Libya Links page. We really appreciate. I have now removed the external links in the body of the text. Perhaps you could review the page again and delete the message at the top? If there is anything else you want us to do, we're happy to do it! We really want this page to become as good as possible, meaning in accordance with WIkipedia standards. Some major editing is still required, we know, but we are working on it. (Since this is an unfolding news story, it's a bit difficult to keep up with all events -- especially if you have other things to do in your life ...) Again, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikringmar (talkcontribs) 04:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response, I've removed the tag now, BTW to sign your posts on talkpages type four tildes like this: ~~~~ Grim23 04:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Grim, I do remember the tildes, except that sometimes I forget (I'm typing too fast). Sorry. There is more work to be done on this article, but I'm doing it little by little.Erik 07:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

sorry ;-)Erik 07:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikringmar (talkcontribs)

Nomination of Topple the Tyrants for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Topple the Tyrants 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/Topple the Tyrants 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.. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wildlife Trusts

The article Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts correctly describes it, as far as I can see, as an organisation with a membership of the 47 local wildlife trusts, which is known as The Wildlife Trusts, but which also has a separate grants unit. See http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/Aboutus/TheWildlifeTrusts/tabid/225/language/en-GB/Default.aspx and http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/index.php?section=about. However, there is also a separate article The Wildlife Trusts which confusingly describes the RSWT as also part of the partnership. I think it may be better to merge the two articles, but I am not sure how to suggest this. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of David Bomberg House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Bomberg House 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/David Bomberg House 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. Mtking (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

Thanks for correcting the coordinates for Princes Park. Other articles needing them are Crofton Wood, Jubilee Country Park, Copthall South Fields, Scadbury Park, Whitings Hill Open Space and Preston Park (Brent). Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Modelling" looks like a misspelling to my eyes. I didn't know that it was British English. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this enlightens your day

SwisterTwister (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :-) Grim23 14:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

East Finchley Cemetary

Hi there! I just uploaded your pictures of the East Finchley Cemetary to WikiCommons in order to insert a similar lemma to the german wiki projekt. I am working on the William Heath Robinson lemma there and so I am going to add the graveyard as well. Regards, --Calixus (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hello! I noticed you contributed to Middlesex University entry on Wikipedia. If you studied at that University, please consider including this userbox on your userpage. Simply paste {{User:Invest in knowledge/mdx}} to your userpage. Thank you. Invest in knowledge (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Investigative journalism as medical ref

I have again deleted investigative journalism as medical ref in article Ketamine. This is hearsay, by lay persons who are out for sensational reports. It is therefore tainted by this interest in the sensation. It also changes from day to day, just dependent on what the sought of sensation is, and also in such cases like drug use, what the sought of drug political goal is. As such it is rather volatile and unreliable material and to be excluded as a medical reference. WP has guidelines, what is to be used as a medical reference: It are secondary sources like recognized textbooks, and it are review articles in peer reviewed publications. It are not case reports, letters to the editor, self-published materials and journalist sources. It are also not primary sources, as long as the results are not recognized part of the common and secured medical knowledge. Otherwise WP may take on the volatile and sensational character of investigative journalism itself, rather than being encyclopedic. 70.137.129.167 (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]