This user may have left Wikipedia. Gandydancer has not edited Wikipedia since June 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
"My understanding of feminism is that it requires the cooperation of males and females to ensure that both sexes have equal rights and equal opportunities, it's not a war between the sexes."
This editor has joined the opposition to the targeting of editors by the politically-correct and ideology-driven so that we can keep this the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just the one that only those who haven't yet done something unacceptable to the easily-offended can edit. Don't let the octopus of the easily-offended bring down the entire project!
Gandydancer, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 16[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guantanamo Bay homicide accusations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Justice. 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) 09:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks , I was so surprised and happy to see you on the page, I had left a note with Chris about a GA nomination, do you think its a good idea, id certainly want your advice above anyone elses. thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie, I only linked a couple of words in the lead. As for the GA idea, I have no idea as it is way beyond my level of expertise. I have only brought two articles to GA and IMO it's a lot of work. BTW, while we're talking, regarding the Ebola article, did you know that dates should be written, for instance, "18 January 2015" rather than, for instance, "January 18th, 2015"? Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ill change the dates correctly, from now on--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, We're in luck... on a whim I thought I'd check out the Colorado Women's Hall of Fame to see if she was an inductee, and she was... which gets us over the notability hump right off the bat! It also had a good synopsis of her life as a starting point for the article.
Right now there are two sections - one for early life and another for adulthood, which I'm sure will be changed as the article progresses (e.g., marriage, philanthropist as potential headings).
The article has some of the basic starting points (you probably don't need this):
start of an intro
sections
references (I prefer templates because it makes for clean formatting + used {{r|<ref name>}} short citations)
I am going to look around photographs - we're in luck that she died before 1923, which makes finding an image in the public domain much easier. It's also fun for me to work on "Early life" - so maybe I could start there - and you could build upon her adult life as you'd like with the sources you'll be getting. If you'd like another approach, though, let me know.
By the way, to answer your question, I am in Colorado Springs.--CaroleHenson(talk) 05:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 23[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lake City, Colorado, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Utes. 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) 09:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gandy. There has been a request that more women get involved in a conversation about the future plans of the WER Project. I went thru the members list an hour ago and smiled at your name. "Yea. Gandy should be here". Anyway, when you get there, if you decide to join in, you will notice an on-going kerfuffle about Eric. That's not why I ask you to join in. You can if you want but that's not the reason. Your insight and ideas and calming presence will be welcome. It's not the same as the talk page of a contencious article. Much more collaboration and agreement. Give and take. Endeavoring to convince. Hope all is well. TRA! Buster Seven Talk 00:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello dear one, yes I'm aware of the discussion. Buster I am just sick to death of what's been going on under the pretense of increasing the number of women editors. IMO a small group of editors calling themselves feminists have now spread the idea far and wide, including out into the general public, that Wikipedia has run amok with men not only discouraging women from joining but chasing them down and abusing them here. I've been here from 2006 and many of my edits are related to women's issues and I've run into plenty of difficult editors, but I've never seen the problems that I've run across as sexist in nature. Frankly, considering that somewhere around 80 to 90 percent of our editors are men, I think that they should be commended for doing a fine job. Perhaps it is human nature to look for an easy answer and then focus on that as a threat. It's the commies, it's the ragheads, and so on. In this case it's the Manchester Mob, with Eric in the lead, that's out to destroy our women. They call themselves feminists but I'm a feminist too, and I sure would not go around this place and say so for fear that our men might put me in the same group of women who have become so, IMO, so hateful. Well, I could go on and on all night on this one, but enough for now...Gandydancer (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Add: I guess that I shouldn't call them hateful because I know that they have only the best of intentions. Gandydancer (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When ever I visit you page it's a feel-good vibe. The door is open, tea is brewing, the garden is blooming. The gender gap is an issue that won't go away...and it shouldn't. Wikipedia and the Real World would be so much better with thousands of women in leadership, decision-making positions. We have a picture history hallway in our house. Prominently displayed are pictures of my wife with Betty Friedan and Bella Abzug. Mayor Jane Byrne of Chicago was an acquaintance. Feminism and the support of it have been a part of my whole life. I needed to say that somewhere. I'm thankful you provided the space. TRA!. Buster Seven Talk 17:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Buster and I can hardly say how much I've come to respect you as an editor and as a person. For some weeks now I have wanted to say so on some of the gender gab related pages going on right now but always hold back reluctant to say much of anything. I've never forgotten a conversation that we had a long time ago in which we talked about cussing in which you said you felt that it was not "proper" to cuss around the "ladies" and which I called sexist. With your feelings, that you could put them aside and support Eric as strongly as you have has been, for me, the sign of of a truly high-minded and mature person.
As for Eric, he's about as much of a sexist as you are, which is none at all. It pains me to see this whole place turned into a witch hunt, /Joe McCarthy Commie hunt/, etc. to find the evil-doers responsible for the gender gap. IMO having more women here would certainly improve WP, but I just don't see it happening. I've tried many times to get the women that I know to edit and they have no interest at all. Again, I could go on for hours about that but I'm pretty sure that we are cut from the same cloth and pretty much agree on most anything anyway. At any rate, I want you to know that it is the few editors such as you, Dennis, and even Eric that keep me going here. As for women, we have editor user:WhatamIdoing who always makes me feel ready to kiss the ground she walks on as far as attempting to keep this place grounded in reality.
as you know it seems as if this is winding down in west Africa,(which is good) though there are still hotspots ,before you move on I though you should know how important your presence both on the talk page and article were month after month.
The Medicine Barnstar
for leading the way during ebola/west Africa article Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ozzie. I have no plans to move on. Gandydancer (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gandy. The horizon is that way------------>. . Buster Seven Talk 22:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was a poor attempt at being philosophical. The horizon representing the future, future journeys, new beginnings, etc. I should have kept it to myself...but it's what i thought when I read the exchange above. Tra! . Buster Seven Talk 00:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I use Wikipedia daily to look up and supplement any research on a wide variety of subjects. If I find a Wikipedia entry that has problems, sometimes I will try to correct them. Recently, I have seen a number of false claims of a "scientific consensus" that GMO's are safe. I wanted to see how Wikipedia handled it, and was floored to see that this false claim was repeated in the article I looked up. I was tempted to fix it, but I also know that correcting a blatant falsehood like that is likely to meet with substantial and unreasonable opposition (from my experience on the Lennar_Corporation page) and that contentious pages are can be more or less "owned" by a small group of watcher with a particular slant on the subject, and if one or more of them is an admin, they often threaten novice editors with their power to censure and block, their greater knowledge of the process and connections and credibility (deserved or otherwise), making any attempt to challenge their slanted view almost hopeless, except for those with extreme patience and perseverance.
So before jumping in to correct the bogus "scientific consensus" claim, I decided to see where it came from and who the players are on that page and what kind of resistance I am likely to encounter by stating the "inconvenient" truth.
The "scientific consensus" claim was added to Genetically_modified_food_controversies by a now defunct user "pathogen5" on 14 December 2010 (23:48), with a host of other strong pro-industry statements, some of which were quickly identified by you on 24 April 2011 (11:14) and eliminated. Unfortunately, the "scientific consensus" sentence survived and I was unable to find any debate on it on the talk pages there. I looked up your talk page to see if I could find anything more and found your discussions with Petrarchan47, Viriditas and Groupuscule on this or related subjects (and frustration with getting the truth in these articles). I saw the comment by Groupuscule "I was disturbed by what seemed like a pattern of corporate manipulation at the Monsanto page. I get that you see the 'scientific consensus on human health' claim as a lost cause, and maybe you're right." From my limited review of your and the other's user talk pages of that time period on the subject, I got the sense that a number of the four of you were met with heavy resistance (some even blocked) for trying to put in the truth on this and related subjects. I definitely understand, I have been there too on a page that will remain nameless, but for which I did get the truth in after a 3 year wait!
So, I am contacting you and asking any advice on how to proceed with addressing the issue. I will likely write up my proposed edits and see what the 4 of you think, before I jump into the water of sharks with them...
Gandy. Do you think Petra will return in response to the above? I would feel so much better knowing she was around editing somewhere. . Buster Seven Talk 16:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Buster and David, this subject is so hard for me to write about that it will take awhile to get to it. I'll try to answer tomorrow. Gandydancer (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gandydancer: Thanks for the reply. I understand completely. I have been there before having quality sources mercilessly and hypocritically removed and ad hominems thrown at me, but sometimes this makes me all the more eager to correct misinformation, by finding ever more reputable and reliable sources that make the truth indisputable and making it impossible for falsehoods to continue to be promulgated as truth when viewed by anyone new/unbiased to the subject. It can, of course, be a lot of work, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are people paid by the GMO industry who work on and/or at least keep tabs on these pages! That was certainly the case when I made an edit to the Lennar_Corporation page. Anyway, I did want to let you know that there is active discussion on what I wrote on and on Groupuscle's talk page and my talk page where Jytdog has engaged me in discussion about the RfC on this subject and I responded to him. I may start putting my thoughts on the talk page for GMO controversies.David Tornheim (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the scientific consensus really is that GMOs are safe... if by "not safe" you mean "if you eat GMO tomatoes with fish genes inserted, then the fish genes will get into your human DNA and turn you into a human-fish mutant". (Yes, there really are a few people who believe this. They're probably the same people who believe that microwave ovens make food radioactive.) I haven't read that article, but I believe that it's appropriate to our general educational purpose to clearly state the areas of solid agreement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. We are not that stupid. Have you seen GMO Roulette? The 17min. trailer gives a good idea of the legitimate concerns about GMO. There is definitely no "scientific consensus" that GMO's are safe. (In fact, if there is a consensus, it is that GMO's need more study.) Nearly all the articles and organizations cited by the GMO Proponents about such "consensus" say that it is *impossible* to make such a claim that GMO's are "safe". The best quotes GMO Proponents have cherry-picked say things like, "After X years and Y studies, GMO's have not by virtue of being GMO's been found so far to be per semore dangerous than conventional food. Hence no additional testing need be done to GMO foods if they are 'substantially equivalent' to conventional food." (The E.U. *definitely* does *not* agree with this and has more rigorous testing than the U.S.) Also, obviously "ordinary" non-GMO foods on the market can be toxic and have been taken off the market, so have GMO foods. Consider the various sugar substitutes. So no, definitely creating a GMO food definitely does not make it "safe", and few scientists would agree with that, despite GMO proponents grossly exaggerated claims. The trailer for the documentary I recommend is: here. Even watching a few minutes of this, you'll see what is going on that the GMO proponents don't want you to know about. I'm sure GMO proponents will say it has an agenda, filled with lies, biased authors, ties to organic, etc. If even a small percentage of the claims in the documentary are true, it really calls into question what the pro-GMO folks are saying. I have looked into a number of the claims in the documentary and they are for more accurate than those of the GMO promoters claims of a "scientific consensus" that GMO's are "safe".David Tornheim (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David, my point is that there are (unfortunately) some people in the world who believe things that even the most die-hard GMO opponent considers nonsense. One of the points about safety that all rational people on both sides agree is this: all food contains DNA, and eating that DNA does neither removes your human DNA nor adds food DNA to your human chromosomes. No matter what your mother said about "You are what you eat", eating carrots does not add carrot DNA to your own DNA; eating fish does not add fish DNA to your human DNA; and eating GMO-inserted DNA—no matter how nasty that is—does not add GMO-inserted DNA to your DNA.
And IMO (given the unfortunate circumstance that much of the world does not have even the most basic science knowledge) you should mention the fact that all sides agree on this particular point of safety, or, if you prefer, not that it's safe in all respects, but that there are some scare stories that are so scientifically stupid that nobody except crackpots believe them. Only crackpots believe that non-human DNA (which is present in all food) somehow leaps out of the food and inserts itself into human chromosomes, or that GMO-inserted DNA has magic powers to do this, when "natural" DNA doesn't. Since all sources from all POVs agree on this narrow question of safety, then you ought to mention it.
(The people who believe that "heirloom seed" or "organic seed" means "completely natural" don't know how those heirloom strains were created. Most of our famous plant breeders created their strains by exposing seeds to hard (usually gamma) radiation or pouring teratogenic chemicals directly on the actual wild-type seeds in their backyards. Even certified organic strawberries that are grown from organic crowns [which are hard to find] have distinctly non-natural DNA. "Been around for a century" doesn't mean "natural".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you might want to reflect on the difference between "the scientific consensus" and "the rules created by politicians". The first is (mostly) related to facts, and the second has a lot more to do with the sentiments of uninformed voters. The latter gives the US both the death penalty, cram-packed prisons, and a requirement that 100% of students achieve what the median student does, which is mathematically impossible. Scientists would give us better access to mental health and a set of educational goals that had some basis in reality. When you say "the EU disagrees", you're talking about the politicians in the EU, not the scientists. AFAICT, the EU's scientific experts hold views that are not very different from the US's scientific experts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David Tornheim, after writing two replies to you and deleting them both I was reminded why I quit editing these articles. You may want to read my user page to see that I'm concerned about corporate power in general. That concern extends to Wikipedia as well. I'll say, that while not against any WP "rules", it is of concern to me that all of our Monsanto-related articles have the same top editor, often several times over. Gandydancer (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, heritage seeds are seeds that have been developed through selective breeding for many generations. It's been going on for thousands of years. I have not read info recently, but I think that the methods that you mention are more related to some more recent flower garden plants. There's a lot of concern now about losing our heritage seeds and associations have been formed to keep them going. I grow a few heritage vegetables because they have superior flavor. As I'm sure you know, the big growers grow for ease of picking, looks, and ability to transport for long distances rather than taste. Gandydancer (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Large-scale, systematic selective breeding took off in the mid-19th century, but selective breeding wasn't the only method in use a century ago. The use of mutagenic chemicals (like benzene and colchicine) is not "recent". Most people have no idea what the original source of the seeds is, because the seed catalogs usually say "discovered in the 19th century" and leave out any information about who and how. (I agree that food should taste good. Orange blobs that taste like styrofoam aren't tomatoes, not matter what the grocery store says.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment: please be aware that David is canvassing. He's left identical messages on 4 user's Talk pages. I warned him here. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you telling me about it? Gandydancer (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I were being used in a canvassing campaign, i would want to know. golden rule, and all that. ignore it if you like. Jytdog (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog and Gandydancer: I have been silent for about a week on GMO's. I did not give up hope of improving the problems with NPOV on the GMO article(s). I decided to do more homework before saying more. I did a lot of research on how the articles got to be how they are now. I am very disappointed that no one gave me the history of just how it happened, who was doing what edits that caused drama, who had been accused of being PR flak for Monsanto, and who got mad at who and when, who accused who of what, who got blocked, what happened in ArbCon, etc. It was countless hours of research to figure that out with almost no advice on what to read except Jytdog's pointing to the RfC--thanks for that. Jytdog: For many reasons, I at first really believed you were paid by Monsanto to work on the articles: A number of things, including my first impressions from seeing your edits to the article in question, how you addressed reasonable NPOV concerns with editors who saw the NPOV problems, your conflicts with Canoe1967 and with the group of four I had contacted, combined with what appears a stranglehold of control of the GMO articles, your immediate recognition that I contacted these four, the negative things you said to me about my intended "good faith" effort to try to address NPOV problems, both snapping at me for no reason, then accusing me of canvassing and then seemingly trying to prevent me from talking to the four who seemed to be suffering wounds and defeat having been chased off the page by Team-GMO. Yes, all of this really made me believe the horrible accusations that were lodged against you by these same people.
But the mounting evidence is beginning to suggest that this is not COI, but very personal with a lot of drama and painful emotions and conflict. The correspondence between you and Gandydancer above regarding your accusations that she was canvassing makes that pretty clear. In the March Against Monsanto--where everyone seems to agree this blew up--in some of the early edits, I think you, Jytdog, were keeping the editors supporting protester's positions from going too far, holding them accountable. I was surprised to find that I sided with you with your handling of the numbers estimated by organizers versus other reports that were in the article that was cited. I wouldn't trust the organizers numbers any more than the numbers provided by Monsanto or the police. It's hard to know the real numbers, but at first you did use the NPOV by providing BOTH sets and that's how it should be done! And I think it was an error on their part to insist on the 2,000,000 and toss the rest, when really it was just as you said, an estimate the organizers made and should have been in the article as that, not as if it were a FACT. (If organizers want to put it in fliers, sure, I can see that.) No one really knows how many marchers there were, so give the numbers you have available to the reader and let them draw their own conclusions. I don't know what all else happened after that, but if this was the main issue, and they beat you up over it, I could see how trust could be broken on both sides.
I am hoping that trust can be repaired, so the more devilish problem, that you Jytdog are aware of can be dealt with correctly. You obviously know there are PR people being paid to edit, as you wrote here:
As I wrote on the Talk page, the culture of editing on the BP page is all messed up. I mentioned to Core on his/her page that it seems to me that a set of editors there has evolved a set of tactics, marginally within the bounds of wikipedia policy but sometimes out of it, to prevent the addition of negative information about BP. I am not saying it is intentional - many cultures just evolve unthinkingly -- but the patterns are there to see. The quick delete, the constant demands they make on people with ideas for content (especially demands that similar content be added to other articles - which is really crazy), the authoritative and sometimes condescending attitude, the endless "not good enough" to proposed content - all this keeps the page frozen and is very unwikipedia. And I have watched your interactions on Talk -- in good faith, you are trying to meet all these crazy demands and trying to please them. They are not playing by the same rules nor with the same goal of actually trying to create new content and improve the article; they are just interfering with your effort to do it. I don't think this is going to lead to the outcome you want, and I cannot imagine that it is any fun. Rather than revert content, we should edit it! Make it better. Let the article grow. I may not have picked the best 'test case' to start changing the culture but it is good enough. Your support of the quick delete piece of this seems to me, to be damaging to your own efforts to improve the article. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I was very inspired to read that. I really hope you want the article to have NPOV and do their job, and address the problem that the GMO articles no longer have it. That said, I will soon make a new appearance on the page. I hope we can work together and get past the initial negative interaction, and that you can go back to doing edits and accepting edits like the one I mentioned above Yours truly, David Tornheim (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will reply on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all I am not suffering from any wounds. I had hoped to stay out of this because I did not want to get sucked into a time-sucking argument that I have no interest in. Furthermore, aside from having no interest in your argument, I've only edited the Monsanto article 13 times in all - not much considering that I've been with WP since 2006. I could not have informed you about who said what and when even if I wanted to, which I did not, since I had next to no involvement in most of it. I remember editor Canoe as making a lot of statements that made me wonder about his/her competence and I certainly never had anything to do with him/her. As far as the concern you presented that included your "proof" that science is not in agreement re the safety of GMOs, I found it almost laughable and it is my understanding that there is wide agreement. The two answers to your post that I said I deleted had nothing to do with GM safety, but were related to industrial farming and corporate influence on science. I deleted them because, as I said, I have no desire to spend my time here debating the issues with you. Now I see that even the BP article is being pulled into the discussion. What on earth brought that up? I really do try very hard to AGF, but please, bringing up old wounds is not the way to promote a good atmosphere around this place. Hopefully this will put a stop to your Monsanto discussion on my talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I will stop. I was hoping to be a positive voice in healing any wounds I perceived (my mistake if I am wrong and was making maters worse) and seek common ground, promoting consensus. I saw the drama and did not want to reignite old disputes (saying the same tired things people are so sick of hearing) and wasting everyone's time when I brought up the "scientific consensus" issue. Again I am sorry this was annoying and will stop commenting on your page about this topic unless you give me an indication it is okay to continue. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. And I hope the best for you in future Wikipedia editing. Yours truly, David Tornheim (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pot brownie. You deserve it. Hope you are happy and well xxxooo petrarchan47tc 05:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC
Thanks Petrar! I sure do miss you. If you ever want to work on anything again let me know. It would be fun to work on an article together again. xxxooo Gandydancer (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This morning I had a thought, at the time was California still part of Mexico? I don't know so I think the FA wording was well chosen. I don't know much about US history, mostly bits I've pieced together, like a jigsaw with most parts missing. J3Mrs (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you probably know more than most Americans. I think that CA became a state about that time. J3, I love the American West because I lived in Colorado when I was a child. I know something about CA because I lived on the incredibly beautiful Big Sur coast for a time. I also know about the California gold rush of 1859, mostly because I know a great deal about the Colorado gold rush of 1869. If you're interested you can read about it in my article, Granite, Colorado where, knowing that almost nobody would be reading it, I used the article as a way to talk about my history as a Colorado girl. (That is my sister Judy mentioned at the end of the article. :D) Gandydancer (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed the article, I should have read it before I spent a night in Leadville on one of my two trips to Colorado! Shortage of breathable air for a sea level dweller like me! I've just read the shenanigans since I looked in last and I'm reeling back the time I spend here, so many more pleasurable things to do. J3Mrs (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While standing together waiting for the Solidarity March to begin[edit]
Petra is going to Email you the name of an editor that I thought you might want to give one of those "weekly" awards to. I don't have your email or I would have mailed you myself. I'd be glad to assist with the nomination if you like. I have coffee. Did you bring tea? . Buster Seven Talk 00:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the banner (see my user page). This entire feminist thing has just gone completely nuts and has tarnished WP's image. Petra and I discussed this long ago and both agreed that we would not have dreamed of using a feminine name because there is enough trouble here already without having to fight the additional battle of being an easy target for those that consider that men are superior to women. I only came out of the closet, so as to speak, after I had a substantial history here. Buster, I have come up against the male superiority thing all my life - the first home I bought, the realtor had "his girl" bring me into the back room to ask me if I was sure I wanted to buy a home (you know how women are - they make up their mind one day and change it the next...). Believe me, if Eric was actually a woman-hater I could smell it a mile away. But IMO these so-called feminists are just a bunch of angry, spiteful bitches. Gandydancer (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your most welcome. As for all the feminist chatter, especially from the coffee clutch clan, I don't support it. I support powerful outspoken women of action not distr-action. I could name 3 or 4 dozen women editors I am in awe of. For all I know there 3 or 4 dozen more that I think are men but are actually women. Who really knows. Or cares. At one point I said to LB, the ring leader of the clan, that our genitals are not visible at WP. She probably took it as crude and missed the point because the point didn't fit her desire. Which, I think is more "notice me" than any thing else. . Buster Seven Talk 02:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou Gandydancer, a woman hater I most certainly am not. I've been watching a series on BBC television about the suffragettes, and I'm full of admiration for what those women did. Did you notice that I've now twice been called a "cunt" on my talk page over the last day or so, by two different IPs? Completely ignored by the admins of course, yet if I even dare to utter the word "feminist" all Hell seems to break loose. It just doesn't make sense. EricCorbett 11:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Tereus rapes Philomena and then cuts out her tongue so she can not denounce him"... Beard:When you venture into traditional male territory the abuse comes anyway. It's not what you say that prompts it. It's the fact that you are saying it. It is easier to document ways that women have been silenced than it is to find a remedy to their silencing. Men have silenced outspoken women since the days of the ancients
"Wikipedia has an imbalance of gender and so an imbalance of power. We all have our views but they are based on our vantage point. Most of us are not women. Most of us do not use a woman's brain to think or to respond or to co-habitate here in WikiWorld. And so....that means that the majority of Wikipedia editors are missing a very important ingredient. A womans touch. Buster Seven Talk 02:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that Petra mentioned natural methods of healing in her recent posting. I have often wondered if having more women, who tend to be the one that is in charge of (for lack of a better way to put it...) the family's health, might make a difference in the pathetic trend to call everything natural pseudoscience. I know that I had to just give up on all complementary/alternative articles and Petra had to do the same. As a mother and a grandmother, the chemicals articles are important to me as well, but it seems that the days are numbered as far as getting these articles to be anything more than a place to advertise about Better Living Through More and More Chemicals. Many of these articles are basically written by no more than a handful of editors, mostly men, I think... Gandydancer (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gandy, I don't feel good about having that tirade posted to your page any longer, so I'm replacing it with these words: you are a truly precious gift to this world, and to this project. The readers and your fellow editors are so fortunate that you have decided to share yourself and your time. Very lucky indeed. Be well, and thanks for the sweet support over the years, petrarchan47tc 03:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd sure like to continue to have your sweet support as well and feel very lonely without it. Petra, I once had a dream/vision in which my father handed me a dictionary--I knew very well what that meant (a long story), but my mother merely took my hand and next to me, holding my hand, was my daughter. Now, since I have two daughters, when I came out of the dream-like state I wondered, "Which daughter was it???" And then it came to me: WE ARE THE WOMEN. It was not one daughter or the other, it was the long line of women standing together hand-in-hand throughout the ages. And that, taken together with my father's message, made the whole thing very clear to me. As women we have an intuitive understanding of some things and have learned to use verbal skills to be fully human. I think that you and I have both achieved this level of learning how to combine both our male/female brains and can see that Wikipedia has become too male oriented. Some of the men here embrace this higher level of understanding, Buster for example, but nevertheless, as a whole the male perspective dominates Wikipedia.
Petra, I don't see much hope for moving away from Chris Hedges fears of corporate takeover in every sphere of our lives, including a takeover of Wikipedia. Even as I write this I know that I must get back to the Dow article to continue with my objections to biased writing when it comes to environmental issues related to that corporation. In fact, more and more I find myself spending much of my time in issues that involve special interest groups, for example the Elizabeth Warren article, which is one of my GAs. And even, of all things, a group of angry women who think that as a minority women need a special "No Men Allowed" Wikipedia group, and such.
Now I see that my name has been dragged into a debate regarding new editor David T. by Jytdog. What do I do? I could just ignore it and leave people that don't even know me think that I belong to the pseudoscience editors that are trying to ruin Wikipedia with their unscientific prattle or I can go to the page and try to explain that I'm not guilty, only to have diffs presented to show that I'm a dope. I am really just so goddamn tired of all of this that I can hardly bring myself to do any real work anymore. It has helped to have you here as I am trying to go though my thoughts.
Petra, I do know this: The future is bright if kids like my granddaughter Helena Rose have anything to say about it. While I read at the talk page that Jytdog started about David T's behavior "It doesn't help that much anti-GMO activism comes from scientifically illiterate "chemophobes" like the Food Babe, or from the organic movement, which is prone to all kinds of irrationality due in no small part to its Steiner "biodynamic" heritage", Helena goes to a Rudolph Steiner School and even though only sixteen her wisdom is amazing. In one class the assignment consists of going into the woods, alone, and sitting and observing. They later write their observations. Just imagine the depth of this assignment! While she was home for Christmas vacation she had a dream. She dreamed of going into the woods and seeing a beautiful home made of trees and many different plants with beautifully colored flowers. As she tried to explain the depths of the colors I realized that she was seeing the essence of the colors, not merely what the eye beholds--psychedelic colors, if you may. I asked her if she was aware that this was one of the BIG dreams that we all have from time to time, dreams that come from more than only one level of perception, and that was the most interesting thing of all--she knew that. Later her mom, my daughter Jane, and I talked about it and agreed that right now humanity seems to be making a huge jump forward. It somewhat reminds me of something we gardeners say about perennials: First year they sleep, second year they creep, and the third year they LEAP. I planted the little plant that was given to me from a friend, my daughter Jane watched over it and it took hold, and now that Helena Rose has inherited it it has, on it's own, grown so large that it will soon take over the entire garden.
Petra, I'm not sure if you are even watching this site anymore. I'm going to email you in hopes that you will at lest continue to talk with me as you have helped me so much in the past. xxx000 Gandydancer (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to believe I logged in again, but I can't say no to you and your invitation to stay in touch. The more I read your words, the more I find myself in agreement with everything you have said. There are many points I'd like to reply to, but I don't have the time just now (I'll be back). As for the ANI, that really is a quandary, and not one that you should have to worry about. It seems to be the price you pay for your volunteer work, sadly.
To be honest, Gandy, I haven't responded here because I'm still processing things. (Knowing that this communication isn't private adds a particular challenge and sort of stifles my thought process, too.) I'm not quite at the acceptance stage that you, and other folks I admire, seem to be. Of course Hedges was right. But I did think WP was someplace special, a place carved out for the People (the "little people", as BP's CEO likes to say), safe from the ravages and lies of those for whom money is god. Or, at least safer than corporate-sponsored media outlets. Even to this moment I still have a wee bit of hope that WP can be saved from such, and has the potential to fight this. And that's really the problem - it is unrealistic and false. This discrepancy is what led to my frustration and subsequent boycott of the site. I really used to love it here. It meant for me a place where truth had a fighting chance, and often we saw truth win out, even with adversaries such as big oil. But with the MEDRS gang, we see large sections of WP walled off, open to only a few editors who seem to have some sort of understanding. I do not see WP as having the potential or willingness stop the abuse from monied interests. It wasn't like this even two years ago (when was MEDRS created?). It used to be fun here. Now I see that bullying is the norm, even at the ANI, with no one speaking out against it. It is an incredibly dysfunctional place, with no recourse as far as I know for those who want to edit in a peaceful, respectful, and fair environment. My hat is off to you for somehow navigating all of this. petrarchan47tc 05:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't always do so well myself. For me the best thing is to read Pema and bell [1] from time to time as a reminder to live a day at a time and forget the idea of future perfection as a goal. I agree with what you say above but as you said on your page awhile ago, people like us, which includes our friends and family, know better than to trust WP when it comes to natural healing what with everything other than mainstream now labeled as pseudoscience. But is hard for me as well to see the corporate takeover of our encyclopedia. It's hard to know what to do--like politics for instance. Every year I swear that I will vote for the best candidate which means throwing my vote away and every year I give in out of fear of what will happen if the Republican candidate would actually become president and vote for the Democrat that is running. Some people say just quit voting and they can make a very good case for it, too. Along that same line, one could say quit editing here all together, but I'm not willing to do that. I wish you'd reconsider and begin to edit once more. Consider it a way to work on your emotional growth. That's what I do. :D Gandydancer (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For a couple of years I edited The Walton family and all the members...making sure the Wikipedia accurately reported the Billions that they earned (Did they earn? Or did their employees earn and just were not paid enough) It just aggravated me so I stopped doing that. I don't pay attention to the Waltons anymore. I don't edit places that aggravate me. . Buster Seven Talk 20:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely something to be said for pushing one's limits in the name of growth. On the other hand, it's a sign of growth to know what feeds vs depletes one's happiness, and choosing to stay within certain boundaries out of compassion for the self. I guess those boundaries are always changing, and we only learn by stubbing our toes when coming up against them, either by pushing ourselves, or when we naturally outgrow the cage (for lack of a better term). I sure appreciate being reminded of the fact that no one outside of WP considers this site trustworthy, that really puts things back into perspective. Looking through the comments here, I see it's still the case. A example: Wikipedia is worthless for anything remotely controversial nowadays. Maybe it's always been that way but it's becoming more and more obvious that when it comes to anything controversial, wikipedia is a way for people to push their own agenda and worldview, pages become edit wars until admins come in and enforce their own bias against editors, whoever gives up last without being banned wins.petrarchan47tc 05:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Petra, will you work with me on the Honey article re honey used as a burn dressing? While it is my impression that honey has now been found to be superior to what we used to call "that white stuff", it is not reflected in the honey article which in fact does not even accurately even reflect the ref that is being used. Here is added info [2] and here [3] re chronic wounds which we can move to next. (As an aside, Petra have you seen the TV ad in which two little girls are giving what is apparently a very muddy stray that they have found a bath with the mother coming into the bathroom and seeing the huge mess. I don't really know what the ad is advertising. The girls beg to keep the dog and it is the look of the little one that I love so much: Her little body tenses up and her hands are in fists, her jaw clenches in determination and her eyes squeeze shut as she says "PPEEEZZZEEEEE". So P, just imagine that look as I beg your help... :D Gandydancer (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are so funny, Gandy - i haven't seen the ad, but can imagine it perfectly. Thank you. With the same level of determination, i would beg you not to allow me anywhere near the MEDRS crowd, which would include this article. There are some paths that cause me to feel peaceful and happy, and there is one sure way to develop an ulcer. I have to play in a different sandbox for now. Hopefully somehow that gang can be corralled, but my recent dip back into the fray showed me that things have actually become much, much worse.
If I come across some great refs though, I'll leave them here for you. "Medihoney" is the name brand being used in hospitals.1 It is impregnated with Manuka honey (which you must try - a teaspoon or more every day - delish!). [citation needed] Manuka is the New Zealand version of the Tea Tree plant, but has even greater healing properties. [citation needed] The honey produced from these bushes has 4 times the nutritional content of regular, raw honey. [citation needed] I have personally seen it used topically to regrow a full cover of skin in a single afternoon, after 8 months of the sore being open and unhealing. [citation needed] There are pictures online showing its use on massive bedsores, and the same thing happens - skin forms over the open sore when all else failed (though deeper sores took longer to heal). [citation needed]petrarchan47tc 02:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Miss Gandy, been thinking of you all day. I'm not sure why. Can you share your thoughts with me? Is everything ok? petrarchan47tc 03:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Miss Petra, I am fine. Perhaps you picked up on my thoughts as I was thinking a lot of you as well. I'm still not done on trying to convince you to work on a few selected articles... :D For one thing, from time to time I have reread the early days of posts on the BP article in which you, at first single-handedly, forced the article to recognize the importance of the spill. You know, that would have not happened without you. You are a WP Wonder Woman and I hope that you take pride in what you have done here. More later... xxxooo Gandydancer (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i was picking up on that. I'm so glad nothing is wrong. Your note feels more like a hug than a message. Needed it, too. Thank you! petrarchan47tc 05:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After reading your colorful story, I was sitting by the window pondering and received a visit from the neighborhood Mockingbird. We have a new construction project a block away, and I began to hear construction sounds in the bird's afternoon concert. Sure enough, I was hearing sounds of hammers and other tools in his new song. But the clincher was when he echoed that special whistle that construction workers reserve for any female aged 12-70. Then he did it again, really slowly, the kind that translates to "hot DAMN". It actually felt like a compliment! I though you might get a kick out of this admission. petrarchan47tc 04:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did! Petra, I've actually never heard a mockingbird and figured that they must be a more southern bird. I have heard a Brown Thrasher though, which is similar. I think that the "best" bird I've ever been lucky enough to see is a Pileated Woodpecker--both here in Maine and at my sister's cabin in Wisconsin. It has been so sad over the years to see less and less birds every year--same thing for moths and butterflies. Small wonder that we have both worked on the pesticide articles. Speaking of bird talk, have you seen this very funny video? [4]Gandydancer (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to hear there is another bird like the Mockingbird. The Thrasher knows 2,000 songs?!! Incredible. I am also seeing fewer insects and almost no butterflies. We had lightning bugs last Spring until the neighbors decided to spray their weeds. But I have to admit, every year the Mockingbirds continue to sing with as much vigor as the last, showing no signs of damage. It gives me hope much like your granddaughter does you. (And, that video is simply priceless) petrarchan47tc
(talk at the morning feeder?) If you have ever see a Rose-breasted grosbeak you won't forget it. They wear Tuxedos all day log. Very proud and regal bird...perches long and erect like it knows how beautiful it is. Seems to have a slight disdain for other less fortunate birds but that may just be my interpretation. I'm in Central Illinois.. Buster Seven Talk 14:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(chirp! chirp! chirp!) Another favorite is the Cedar Waxwing. Most times they appear in small flocks, perched on a dead tree. They all seem to take a stance in the same direction...like they are choreographed of something. When they perch on a wire, they sometimes pass a berry from one to the other, down the line, till one just can't resist and eats it! My favorite is the American Kestral...(that's my photo at the article)... A few years back an adolescent stayed in the area, and we fed it "carne asada' by hand, for about 3 days. We would stand out in the open, hold the little piece of meat over our heads, and he (she?) would swoop down and snatch it. Awesome! . Buster Seven Talk 14:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is really cool, Buster, feeding a bird like that. Sounds like something you would do. I coudln't find your photo, can you link it? Those are gorgeous little birds. My mother has several types of Grosbeaks where she lives, and yes - they are unforgettable. See you at the morning feeder ;) petrarchan47tc 05:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful photo! Yes, I've seen Rose-breasted Grosbeaks--very pretty. I loved the story about the Cedar Waxwings! When I lived in MN my next door neighbor told of watching Hungarian Partridges play in the ice flow made made by the waterer on their farm. They would take a running start and slide down the flow. As for other bird stories, I likely have the best of all as my family and I raised four baby Phoebes from featherless to full grown. That meant they had to in turns come with me to work and the girls to school. We fed them cut-up worms. OK, did you guys watch the very funny video above? And here is a bird feeder for us all to watch. [5]Gandydancer (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did see the video - hilarious. I wonder if the couple being 'parroted' is still together - sounds like a troubled marriage to say the least. Your bird story definitely wins hands down, Gandy. But as for getting addicted to another bird cam, I'm not so sure. petrarchan47tc 04:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gandy, Buster7, it's time! Take a look, two white, fluffy eaglets have recently hatched, one egg is waiting for you. petrarchan47tc 19:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i have some notion that you appreciate nurses a lot. i just rewrote Mary Wakefield - she is something! thought it might please you to read about her. the 2008 interview used as a source is a good read. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand. Why do you think I'd find this article so interesting that you'd need to point it out to me? Gandydancer (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i didn't need to point it out to you. my attention was called to it at COIN, i found a good story that wasn't in the article as i worked it over, and as I finished for some reason i remembered that you had written something about nurses not getting respect somewhere (just remembered - it was here), and thought you might enjoy reading about her. simple, not loaded. if you don't find her story interesting, sorry having taken up your time. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In January I got involved and started to edit articles, lists, etc about murals and artists during The Great Depression. Long story short, I found a book, The Biographical Directory of Native American Painters by Patrick Lester and just today started to work out of it by adding info to articles, etc. On page 7, the entry for Ahgupuk, George Aden, Eskimo, born 1911, says; OCCUPATION: railroad "gandy dancer", roofer, commercial fisherman, hunter, etc. That should make you smile!! . Buster Seven Talk 14:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it did Buster! :) Buster, this recent turn of events has really put me in a funk for the last few days. Has it come to the point that small groups of very verbal people have taken charge of this place? I'm beginning to wonder. I don't agree with everything that Petra says, but we are certainly on the same page. It is not in my nature to get depressed because I'm basically an "action" person, but of late things have been somewhat overwhelming. IMO depression is a result of feeling that one's choices are being blocked and with introspection one generally finds that choices were always available but clouded vision was preventing action. That said, there can come a time that when clearing one's vision it becomes obvious that the only action is to draw a line in the sand--that's why I liked your STRIKE! suggestion so much. During the strike I thought a lot about all of this. I even wrote an edit on a woman's page that had made an edit on the "militant feminist" charge page asking her to look at the banner on my page and propose different wording as I feel that it could be improved. Then I didn't post it... Then I wavered thinking, oh best not to even give any sort of recognition at all to this small group that have been doing all the agitation... I'm not at all sure what to do next... Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts are very simple. There's a vocal and militant group, egged on by Jimbo Wales, whose agenda is to rid WP of editors such as Giano and myself, for whatever reason. The gender issue is really just a convenient smokescreen for them to hide behind, but there will undoubtedly be another bandwagon for them to jump on once the current ecstasy dies down. EricCorbett 19:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not perhaps in complete agreement with you. IMO crusaders always need to find a person or group that represents "the other" (to my amazement they are actually referred to as the bad guys here in the US) that must be stamped out to return things to their vision of an ideal of good (us) and bad (them), and it's one that God approves of too (God does not like people who say cunt). To those people, such as Jimbo and this small group of crusaders, you represent the faction that must be wiped out (which IMO exists only in their imagination). A while back it was Bin Laden in the US so we took care of him--now we refer to them all as the terrorists. Ect. Jung has very strongly influenced my views on psychology and my thinking here is very Jungian. (I think--I'm not an expert :D) Well, this is likely trying to say too much in too few words so I hope I'm not misunderstood... Gandydancer (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I'm quite interested in Jung's ideas myself. I don't share them, but I find them interesting nevertheless. EricCorbett 20:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind, but I borrowed that fantastic box at the top of your talk. I'm not a fan of feeding that particular aquatic monster... Intothatdarkness 18:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well you certainly came along at just the right time. Please see my above note to Buster. Thanks for your post. Gandydancer (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am rather surprised and I guess heartened to see the template taken up so quickly. But the current working original was only really intended as a working draft, and I myself think the language could probably use some revision, particularly to make for some sort of more striking impact on the reader. Please feel free to make or propose any edits you might deem reasonable to the original. One thing I think might be particularly useful might be to include some sort of link to probably a userspace page where discussion of the concerns expressed by the banner might take place. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the banner John and your choice of Buster's image was awesome (a word I seldom use :D ) Let's work out something good for the wording. More later... Gandydancer (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, a lot more editors visit certain pages more frequently than they visit mine--do you think that it would be good to move the discussion to a more visible place? Gandydancer (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The conversation is happening at a few places. But...you might be surprised at the popularity of your page :~). Buster Seven Talk 17:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, version 4 of the template now has a link to an early draft of a userspace discussion page. I hope that page can be used to help us deal with some of the sometimes many times around here we get editors of all types who are work in areas relating to unpopular or bitterly contested political or philosophical topics from getting too many punitive sanctions leveled against them from their ideological adversaries. I would like to see it used as a sort of noticeboard where people who see good editors in ideologically contested fields can try to get help of whatever sort for them. And I include all such groups, including the Israel-Palestine dispute, the several disputes regarding Islam and Sikhs and pseudoscience and god knows what all else around here. I also am planning, maybe later this week, maybe asking to have a few such pages be raised to the level of sanction exemptness that Jimbo's talk page currently has, although I admit that there would be issues involved. The one thing I think most necessary would be having as many people to keep the page from going over the edge around, and removing any content that might be problematic, so if there is any interest the more eyes the better. John Carter (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
be interested in the conversation @ User:Ched's talk. I just started reading the long thread so I'm not sure where it goes, but I respect a lot of the participants. . Buster Seven Talk 19:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, rabbits come in many colors and they have no prejudices when it comes to color--black, white, brown, they couldn't care less--all are treated equally. I've heard that the same is true here in the USA--the intense hatred of our black president, for instance, has nothing to do with his color. Same thing for police violence, arrests, etc., against people of color--nothing to do with color. :D Gandydancer (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The hidden truth (?) that many on the right will not admit has been their major focus on what is wrong with the US is that "...there is a black man in the White House." They pledged to work against him from his very first day in office. They won't say it but their actions over the past 6 years show it. Any success the President has achieved, and there have been many, have been in spite of them rather than with them. He has shown remarkable guile in not calling them out for their racist practices. . Buster Seven Talk 14:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We talk about birds and I want to plant a seed. I hope you will both get involved in the upcoming US Presidential Campaigns and the many articles that get produced. I thank Sarah Palin for getting me started at Wikipedia. Because of her I created the 6 (so far) Timelines of the presidency of Barack Obama. They kept my head above water and I didn't drown (metaphorically) when the Horizon spill happened and we had to fight for every breath of fresh truthful air in the WP article. It's a completely selfish request. I just feel so much better knowing you are both here, somewhere, anywhere, editing Wikipedia. . Buster Seven Talk 14:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.
Hello, Gandydancer,
The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.
You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.
More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.
Thank you so much Gerda! I'm surprised and honored - plus this comes at a difficult time for me as I try to consider my efforts here. I appreciate the human connection you have made with me and I wish I could find more of it here. This award has helped more than you know. Gandydancer (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, seeing that you mention that I work on "rape" articles, the 2012 Delhi gang rape article is a GA of mine and as I worked on it yesterday to add a statement by the father of the girl, I was thinking that he and the girl's mother gave their beloved daughter to the efforts to end the rape culture that exists world-wide--the very least I can do is to be sure that their voice is heard. Your recognition and that realization helps me to continue to edit even when I find the attitude of some editors hard to deal with. Gandydancer (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bluebirds. What more do I need to say. We live in the city, Chicago, so we don't see them hardly at all. But, when we go downstate, near Peoria, we set up a nesting box each year, facing northeast to catch the warming sun as it rises, and enjoy their beauty all summer long. I'm not sure if its the same couple or their offspring, but they are welcome residents each year and stay around all summer long. They ignore the feeder but are always close by...watching what the other birds are up to. They like insects and catch them in flight and on the ground from morning till sunset. Right about now I have to make sure that sparrows don't set up their breeding home in the boxes designed for the blue birds. The sparrows start sooner and then the bluebirds "don't have a place in the Inn" and then set-up shop somewhere else. . Buster Seven Talk 14:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Buster7 Buster, one of these visited me today, and to my knowledge it was the first time i'd ever seen one. What a gift. So beautiful. I didn't know what i saw until just now, thanks to your post. petrarchan47คุก 04:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We put thirty spokes together and call it a wheel;
But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the wheel depends.
We turn clay to make a vessel;
But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the vessel depends.
We pierce doors and windows to make a house;
And it is on these spaces where there is nothing that the usefulness of the house depends.
We spend endless hours to create an online encyclopedia;
But it is on the 'to be edited' space that the effort lives.
Therefore just as we take advantage of what is, we should recognize the usefulness of what is not.
Dear Gandy. I shared these words with Petra. Now I share them with you. Somewhere in the Emptiness of what might be called "Future Wikipedia" is a Use-full-ness place to be happy. It is far away from the maelstrom of contentious articles and burdensome editors. I hope someday you find it. Buster Seven Talk 16:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Buster but I am quite happy already. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding that men have of women. Women tend to "chat" a lot more than men do. It does not mean that I'm not happy. Gandydancer (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am a fairly new editor and recently posted my first article on Birth Pool But for some reason it redirects to Water Birth. Can you please guide me how to correct it? MMichelleDalton (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, is there any reason that you feel that it would not fit quite well into the existing Water birth article? That's how I'd handle it and I could help you with that. It would make a great addition to that article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I originally considered this but then two factors caused me to think it required it's own page: other products such as gas and airTENS machine used during water birth have their own page, and there is so much discussion and printed material about the different types of pools, where they can be used, not to mention the newly-arising documentation around how cross-contamination is being addressed in the design of different birth pools. All of these products should be referenced in the water birth article, that's something else I'd like to do. Thanks for your help and guidance. MMichelleDalton (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will ask an experienced editor to help you here as I've never submitted an article. Good luck! Gandydancer (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Thank you GandydancerMMichelleDalton (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MMichelleDalton, I took a look and am trying to sort out what is needed. I see Birth Pool as it's own article, and the original sandbox page redirects to Birth Pool. (For what it's worth, I agree with Gandydancer that it looks like Birth Pool could be added to Water birth - and it seems like that would be a good discussion on the Talk:Water birth page.)
Birth Pool should be Birth pool, since it's not a proper name, but I'm not able to move it over the redirect. Starting a conversation about moving the article to Birth pool will likely start a merge discussion, so I thought I'd just move right to that. If the articles are "merged" then the move is not needed.
There's not been a lot of activity on the talk page of the article, so there may not be much feedback, but it seems a warranted discussion. If no one objects to the separate article, then an administrative move is required for Birth Pool, and it's revision history, to be moved to Birth pool, which can take weeks due to the backlog.--CaroleHenson(talk) 16:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Thank you CaroleHenson I will ask for some input there. Really appreciate your help.MMichelleDalton (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting a healthy conversation when times got difficult. HGilbert (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My granddaughter Helena Rose goes to High Mowing. Both she and her brother attended CTL - the head of CTL, Nancie Atwell just received some pretty grand recognition for her teaching methods! I see that someone has an article up on her already - as time permits I will need to fill it in a little. :) Gandydancer (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hello, this is about the recent edit you made. I think it would be appropriate if we use first name of the victim "Jyoti" because the last name "Pandey" that you used is quite confusing as her friend who was with her at time of incidence also has last name "Pandey". What do you say? --Haccom ✉ Talk to me 14:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, actually I would have liked to do that but it is not encyclopedic. If you find a confusing section please feel free to edit it to include the full name. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello my friend, i hope you're doing well. We do expect photos of the garden process this year, just so you know. petrarchan47tc 03:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi dear friend, I feel so bad about all the mess going on. Give Atsme a hug from me for getting something going here. It is good to see Core working on it. It does not look very hopeful for now. Please come back and talk soon - it's the end of a long day for me, a very nice day BTW, so that's all for now. Hope to talk more soon. Gandydancer (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sweetie. I think Atsme is fine now, and will likely remain that way. Texans, you know... they're a whole different breed. I'm glad you had a wonderful Easter. Big hug, petrarchan47tc 04:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Darn tootin'!! Just ran across y'all's post, and it made me smile. Hugs and kind words usually do. Big hugs back. We will survive the of the world even when it seems impossible. Just let the sun shine in and take it with a grin. Atsme☯Consult 13:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to explain, but I guess in my COI work I'm use to asking editors for a moment of their time on pages they don't have an interest in. Their primary objective is to fix whatever the problem is or address the request in the shortest time possible, so they can get back to pages they have an actual interest in. I usually need to take as little of their time as possible type of thing. I'm glad we're having a thoughtful, in-depth and civil discussion. It's actually very refreshing. I've been trying to draw attention to this page for months and typically just get a passing comment or two without much bold editing, or whatever bold editing is done is just reverted. CorporateM (Talk) 14:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 17[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bayer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roundup. 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) 09:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just happened onto a page I was editing (AlF) and left you a few "attaboys," but wanted to ask you a question about your reasoning for one deletion you made, "my life," etc. It wasn't because I approved or disapproved of it, just curious, which is why I came to look at your Talk page. I've appreciated other of your edits in the past, but haven't seen all that many of them. I don't like to communicate on Talk pages but I do use the equivalent of a "burner" email addy here on WP, with my contact linked on my User page. I communicate with a very few other editors for reasons I'd be happy to explain. You can use it if you like. I've found it to be helpful in a variety of circumstances. I'll explain my thoughts if you write me there. You may also get a chuckle (it's meant to prompt that reaction) if and when you utilize it. I'm extremely impressed with your work, but especially your Talk page and those who have appreciated it, i.e., Buster7. Anyhow, hope to hear from you. Activist (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry I thought you were getting snarky at the discussion about MEDRS in Veterinary medicine articles, I think we actually agree on the issue, but I took the " I have not noted Montana's involvement" and "you'd understand" as pointed at me and telling me that I didn't know what I was talking about. If that wasn't your intent, then sorry I misunderstood. I've got an awful lot of wiki-drama going on right now and I suppose I'm getting a bit jumpy. Montanabw(talk) 19:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
there is no need to get our pants in a bundle with concern that people will run out looking for edible bird nests to eat
Did you even read the article?
They are among the most expensive animal products consumed by humans...The most famous use of edible birds nest is bird's nest soup, a delicacy...The most heavily harvested nests are from the Edible-nest Swiftlet or White-nest Swiftlet (Aerodramus fuciphagus) and the Black-nest Swiftlet (Aerodramus maximus)...Hong Kong and the United States are the largest importers of these nests....The entire global industry is an estimated $5 billion.
Not only is there concern, but is is precisely because of bogus, fraudulent health claims like this that we have a high demand for legal and illegal animal products. The most notable example is that of rhinoceros horn, which is contributing to the extinction of that species. All of these bogus health claims exist as marketing to promote the sale of these products. You can make the argument in some cases, the folklore is historically notable. For example, plant folklore has made legitimate contributions to medicine and should be discussed in many different articles because the information is backed by evidence. To me at least, it sounds like you really haven't given much thought to the problem. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine where you got that idea since a lot of my work here is related to environmental issues. In fact, where did you get the idea that I haven't given it much thought? Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is an award for diligence and diplomacy. Few can do what you do with such grace and tenacity. I remain impressed and awed. I think we simply need more grandmothers editing Wikipedia. Barring a great influx of Gandy-like newcomers, I am grateful (and I am surely not alone in this) that we have you. petrarchan47คุก 21:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you! I'm so sorry I lost track of this nice message and did not thank you sooner. Petra, I look forward to working on Bernie's article with you. Buster?... Gandydancer (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was this comment intended for me? Your edit was at 13:21, mine was at 14:07 (46 minutes later), and your next edit was in a different section than mine (which presumably doesn't conflict). If one is expected to wait more than 46 minutes, that is a standard none of us live up to on such a heavily edited article. I've had the same problem (on shorter timescales), and I've tried {{inuse}} but people edit anyway. Art LaPella (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Art, especially since I know you do so much good work at the article. I end up reading so much just to get a few words of print what with comparing one site to another, google stuff, and so on. It can take me an entire morning to do just the little that I got done today. I felt so cranky when I got that edit conflict and acted out. I wonder if it was that other person that keeps putting a complaint about the numbers in - I need to leave a note for him but I thought he would have given up by now... Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. And please do leave a note or something at User talk:Highfly3442. I was about to complain about the talk-less edit war. Art LaPella (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your editing on the Ebola virus article is appreciated and noticed. Thank you for all the improvements that you keep making. Bfpage |leave a message 15:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really do appreciate that! Thank you so much. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I long for the innocence displayed in this news report from Minnehaha Falls
At this point there was something of unexpected interest. Waving their school flag in triumph from the gable window of the old building the lads from the South Side High School shouted their school yell and BAD DEFIANCE TO ALL COMERS. At this point the Central High School scholars were billed to relieve the South Siders, and consequently surrounded the building. The spirit of school rivalry broke out, strong and bitter. The South Siders refused to surrender the fortress and flaunted their banner from the window in spite of all entreaties and orders. Contractor Pratt could not oust them. Supt. Jordan could not oust them, and finally Sergeant Martinson called for a detail of police and made a rush for the house. But the South Side lads were still game, and did not give up until several had been made to feel the force of police authority. Then they made a break. As they dashed from one door the Centrals entered by the other, and their banner was soon flying from the gable amid vociferous cheers. The South Siders were chased up the street by a detachment of Centrals, and for a moment it looked as if the rush would result in some bruised heads. However, good nature was restored and again the house started on its way.
Were you laughing the entire time you read this? Can you imagine news such as this today? Thanks for involving me in such a sweet article and peaceful atmosphere. petrarchan47คุก 10:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I've finished combing through it. Shall we see about "good article" status and a DYK? I thought these were interesting tidbits (potential hooks):
'Despite its name, the Longfellow House was never home to the American poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow; it was instead the home of Robert F. Jones, a Minneapolis philanthropist and entrepreneur. Built in 1907, the house is a two-thirds scale replica of Longfellow's home in Cambridge, Massachusetts'
'In 1896 over 10,000 school children helped pull the John Harrington Stevens house to its present location in Minnehaha Park'
Yes, I was laughing about the story of the kids hauling the house. I thought about a GA and a DYK but it would be my luck that they would find copy vio, even though I try very hard to avoid it, and I'd be worse off than just being happy with a good article. There is a copy vio checker somewhere but I forget where...do you know? I could check it first and decide from there. Thanks for your help. Gandydancer (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a very gentle process - someone leaves kind notes on the talk page guiding editors to individual issues with tips for fixing them. The article doesn't need to be perfect ahead of time, at least from what I've gathered. Viriditas seems well versed in this, perhaps he will stop by with a suggestion for our next step. Atsme appears quite involved in the GA thing as well. (Any input is welcome.) petrarchan47คุก 17:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a few GAs and one DYK, so I know how it works. I could also ask Core for advise as I believe he's done a few. Gandydancer (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[7] 👈 The Dupe detector tool. Btw - the left aligned images created excess space between the last few paragraphs in the Fashionable Tour section. You might consider galleries. I didn't check any of the citations, RS or prose. Just did a quickie skim thru - hope it helps. Atsme📞📧 19:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Atsme, that's great help. I have not been able to figure out galleries yet - can you help me with that? (I just found a tremendous amount of beautiful and historic Minnehaha Falls images that I'll be uploading to Commons, and will need help creating a gallery.) pingpetrarchan47คุก 21:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Petra, I'm sure you noticed that a gallery is already started? There are quite a few photos at Commons already that I chose not to use--I actually deleted a lot from the existing gallery. There is one vintage photo that I'd love to get my hands on that shows the lower falls bridge and all vintage can be worth consideration. Atsme, I'm not sure what you mean about a space in the Fashionable Tour section re "left aligned images" as they are all on the right.
Demonstrating the blank spaceAtsme📞📧 01:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'm afraid that my brain will explode if I try to deal with this any more tonight. :) Maybe you can help me understand this better tomorrow because I can't make my screen show what you show. (Disclaimer: I'm a real dope when it comes to these things...) Thanks for the help. Gandydancer (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gandy, I noticed the gallery, but have never been able to figure out how to add images. I'm really glad you stopped me before I uploaded a bunch of unusable photos... I'll bring them here first. What do you think of these? 123456789. Anything you like? petrarchan47คุก 09:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Petra, just look at the way the others were entered (remove [[ ]] and "thumb" etc.) and you will see how easy it is. I wonder if the gallery pics should be larger? I used to know how to do that and could look it up. (Though perhaps Atsme knows without looking it up first...) Gandydancer (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, no matter how small I make my print I can't make a page that looks like your picture in which the previous photos hang down so far that they mess up the next section. On my screen it looks OK but I don't know how to do a "screen shot" (is that what it's called...?). Petra's screen must have showed the same as yours because she moved the statue (and I moved it back). So, I moved the Minnehaha statue to the gallery and got rid of the frozen falls - is it still messed up on your screen?Gandydancer (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gandy, it looks great on the iPad. I can't confirm on my 21" laptop because something happened when I was working on photos - think maybe the graphic card finallly went kapoot for the last time - so I don't know how it looks on 13" or larger screens. I would think it's fine now that the images are lined up right with more consistency and are not being pushed down in alignment because of the extra long vertical image. I apologize for not being able to help more but I am limited on this iPad. --Atsme📞📧 12:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What a wonderful collaboration. You have filled the "to be edited" space with your happiness and stress-free editing. Congrats to you and Petra. I know others helped but my smile is for you two. . Buster Seven Talk 13:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Buster! grab a cup of coffee or tea and check out and vote on the photos! Gandydancer (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All are great for the article but...its like a wedding reception...you have to chose the 5 or 6 you will invite... #2 and #3 are keepers...I agree that #8 is better...and #5 and #9 are twins (invite one of them). ($43∞). (Can you guess what that means?). . Buster Seven Talk 16:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
#2 shows the Falls in winter, frozen. It's the most stunning version to be sure, but here are 3 more alternatives that show a bit more scale; 2a and 2b show actual tourists (which is what the article talks about): 2a2b2cpetrarchan47คุก 20:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2b is just absolutely spectacular. This is probably quite unusual to be able to walk behind a frozen falls like this and there is a geological reason: The upper layer, the limestone layer, is more durable but the layer that lies below it, the St. Peter's sandstone layer which is hardly even cemented into rock, very easily erodes away - thus this walkway. Petra, have you had good luck in adding Flicker photos? I sure have not and even have given up on my own vintage photos and anything except recent photos of my own or Library of Congress photos. It has been very frustrating. Perhaps you or Atsme can help me out with them. At any rate, I think I will email the owner of that photo and ask him/her to enter it is the annual WP photo contest. Gandydancer (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We could perhaps have a special section for "Falls in the Winter" where you could explain what you just have, and we could expand just a bit on the Winter tourist season. You're right - the photos are out of this world! A special section would justify use of several Winter photos. I also found one that shows the frozen falls and entire area from above, complete with tons of tourists. Birds' eye views are very encyclopedic, imo.
There used to be a Flickr bot that made it very easy. I've written the bot creator to see if he has a new (working) bot... no response yet. This is pretty much making me blind, but we always have the Village Pump, where we may be able to ask for assistance. petrarchan47คุก 18:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't come up with enough copy for a section that would still give room for even one photo, however we could have a "special" gallery section with "Falls in the winter". One can see that the frozen falls has always been a popular attraction because our Commons has at least one (or more--just going from memory here...) stereoscopic view cards of the frozen falls.
As for help from anyone with photos, good luck with that. It has happened to me twice that when I added a new photo, the last time was at the Lake City, Colorado article that I (mostly) created, not were some of the new photos deleted, they wiped out some of my old ones to boot. You can see here from my Granite, Colorado article where they took out three more of them: [8]. I have spent hours and hours trying to work on it and finally just had to give up. It is really quite heart breaking for me. One of them was the one-room school that I went to which was taken with my Brownie box camera. Incidentally, we had one of those stereoscopic viewers in our school--I wonder whatever happened to it... Gandydancer (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is heartbreaking, Gandy. Have you thought of asking Taivo about the deletions? He seems responsive. I told you that I wrote to the bot creator for Flickr uploads, and he actually did respond. He's not active here anymore. So no new bot. I also had some files deleted, and went to the WP editor who did it, asking for advice. She was overly helpful after I admitted to being 97% clueless. If I can remember who that was, perhaps she would help you too.
I do like the idea of a separate gallery featuring Winter falls. We'll have to get your explainer in there somehow, though, as it enlightened me a great deal. Although I had already read about the different layers of formation, it hadn't occurred to me that this is what makes the frozen falls so unique. petrarchan47คุก 00:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And here's one I just found at the Library of Congress from 1908 - wow! I've only added one or two of these uploads to the article so far, have at it! My two cents: I would love to see all of these added, but I think the below image may trump the other one we have of the rustic foot bridge (above) in terms of clarity.petrarchan47คุก
Changed my mind, they all have encyclopedic value. But I have to say, the illustration above from "guide to summer resorts" is my favorite. petrarchan47คุก 09:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WOW!!! This is just great. I'm going to have to get you to try for some of the ones that I've not been able to import in the past at a later time. Now, that is the bridge that I've wanted - I saw it at the Minnesota Historical Society site. It looks like a WPA-built bridge to me...or it could be the first one built where they asked for a "rustic" bridge. At any rate, it's the one I want to use in the article and one can go into a Gallery as well. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice the small, slightly eerie figure in the middle of the bridge? I thought it would be no big deal the other night to watch a few haunted house shows on tv. Well, prior to this innocent night of viewing, I would have either missed this figure, or thought it sweet. Now all I can see is a creepy ghost-child. Can't unsee! Note to self: do not watch ghost stories, you are not old enough yet. petrarchan47คุก 22:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Petra, I see that the Flickr photos need to be reviewed. Unless you know someone else, I'd suggest Anna Frodesiak, an admin and a reviewer, and about one of the nicest people you can find to boot. :) Gandydancer (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to help you upload. Yes, when I saw this, I knew it was what you wanted. Spectacular, huh? The review is no big deal - the photos have proper cc 2.0 and any admin will see that easily. The problem with Flickr is that the photographer can change the licensing at any time, which makes it a challenge for commons. But for now, all the photos are safe. petrarchan47คุก 22:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(non-involved observation) @Petrarchan47: Actually, if the licensing changes on the original Flickr picture, the Commons license will still be valid since CC licenses are not revocable. Also, @Gandy, I like the photos, and I wish you best of luck in your GA nomination. Epic Genius (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Epic Genius, thanks for your interest and help with the article. I like the changes you made in the reorganization of the sections with the History section placed first - sometimes while working so hard on information one can lose sight of the forest for the trees. One change did result in a little white space in that section, but I'm going to fill it in with more copy. Say, re the new article title, I wonder if "Minnehaha Falls - Minnesota" would be better than Minneapolis? Gandydancer (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter, as long as the reader knows where the park is after they read the title. Best, Epic Genius (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, Epic Genius. BTW, I think you probably chose the coolest username of any Wikipedian, ever. Nice job. petrarchan47คุก 04:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Glad someone likes my username ;-) Epic Genius (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like your changes to the article and images, Gandy. Enjoy, petrarchan47คุก 21:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I so appreciate your work here Petra. One of the photos you found, the guidebook, is a railroad promotional booklet which I did find and I plan to write a few words about it as time permits. [10] Also, the latest photo, I looked and looked for that one after I happened to come across it somewhere (but later forgot where), is really interesting in that the falls was dry when they came for the visit and hydrants were opened upstream for a few hours to create a waterfall while they visited. :D So I'll get that in. Also, I found the history of one of the photographers that made some of the stereoscopic view cards and I will add that. [11] And eventually a few words from the stuff that first brought you here - the stuff in my sand box. Gandydancer (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How wonderful! Maybe you can leave a link to your sandbox here?
The detail about the Presidential visit to a would-be dry waterfall definitely needs to be added. It would make a nice hook for the "Did you know...?"
Ping me when i can be of some more help - i didn't know you had replied here. Copy this: { { u|Petrarchan47 } } to ping, but remove the spaces. Also two notes: please feel free to un-collapse the pictures. I wanted to clean up a bit, even though this is your house, it felt like i left my toys all over your floor. Secondly: i've been meaning to tell you for a while, when i edited the text in certain places, it was only because i have a severe anal retentiveness issue with regard to repeated (non-common) words within the same sentence or even paragraph. There wasn't anything wrong with the text, just a personal quirk. I should have warned you about my AR problems before offering to help. petrarchan47คุก 04:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Petrarchan47 I thought that your edits were excellent and made the article sound much more professional. I hope to "hire" you again and in fact please continue to go through anything else I add here. Don't worry about "personal quirks" for a minute - if I don't like something I'll change it. In fact, I try to avoid repeating myself and appreciate it when someone makes that sort of change to my work. As for all the photos, I actually enjoyed looking at them and thought that we could remove them after awhile, so what you did was fine. Gandydancer (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that. Quick note on the Huskies (my favorite dog breed besides Border Collies). As a reader, I subconsciously assume everything in the article is about the subject. So as I glanced the image, I assumed that this snowy hilltop featuring the dogs was indeed taken near Duluth, presumably at the dog sled event. The photo doesn't appear to have been taken in Duluth, so it's misleading to the reader, if the reader is anything like me. Perhaps a fix would be for the caption to note that Huskies are the most common breed used in dog sled racing, and that the image is not from Duluth. By the way, Duluth is dreamy. I remember it from my childhood road trips to Northern Wisconsin. petrarchan47คุก 19:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Like . Buster Seven Talk 14:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
Like . Buster Seven Talk 21:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC) 
Atsme📞📧 19:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC) 
