User talk:JTSchreiber - Knowledge (XXG)

1330:

articles reviewed or written by anyone involved in the medical community-they are written by writers). The website we cited falls under the same category, and if the information on the website is elaborated upon, while including study reports, it doesn't make sense that these other places are exempt from the rule, and ours is not. The issue at hand is that the article is incomplete in it's information. It is fact that diagnosis pertaining to physical trauma goes far beyond neck injury. This can be proven by our site by including citations and sources of studies contained in information available to the medical community, but not available online. Last, if a MD guest blogs on our website, or if an MD reviews our articles and information (name included-same as on sites like Web MD, etc.) regardless of it being run individually, it seems strange that the source would still not be considered valid, as the info can be verified on a professional level. Also not sure why, while the information we provided in the cognitive dysfunction article remains, the citation is deleted. If, in fact, the information isn't factual in the eyes of the editor, should it not be removed entirely, rather than simply removing the citation? Knowledge (XXG)'s links are not do follow links, thus, provided information is in effort to help further complete two very incomplete articles. I do understand that anything without a source can be considered opinion, but you say that it will always just be a self-published website,so no information will be considered reliable. This just doesn't match up with other citations through not only the aforementioned articles, but many other medical articles on Knowledge (XXG). I've seen slews of individually run websites, with no professional background or even sources in their information, cited on Knowledge (XXG). This includes biographical information on living people (whom are in no way associated with the source). I'll reiterate-I understand the removal of the current content, being that it was not sourced to anything that can be defined as verifiable by Knowledge (XXG), however, I do not understand some of the citations that remain, nor do I believe the statement that any information provided by the website in the future, will not be reliable-especially if MDs and the research of MDs is included (being that most citations on the page are just that). I do appreciate the allowance to express the above concerns.

1283:

a lot of information in general and it is my intention to update it. If the cited website gains permission to quote the MDs that the information was taken from, will this become valid for Knowledge (XXG) (ie. "Fibromyalgia has shown to appear in patients as a result of post surgical trauma", states Dr. Example Smith )? Essentially, what exactly makes the information and source verifiable? I have noticed in other, unrelated articles, that certain websites have been cited without historical sources. For instance, if a website discusses an alternative way to play candyland (I'm using this as a fake example, as I don't want to call out writers of other articles whose efforts do seem to be simply to provide useful info), yet those rules are not stated in the box's instructions... what makes it verifiable information , and valid to remain on Knowledge (XXG)? Thanks for any insight!

1326:

comes from him and the medical community. Whereas, I see citations and sources as comments on web forums, which is completely unverifiable. One citation includes a link to a web forum where an article was copy and pasted from the American Academy of Neurology website. I can go to the NIH website and copy and paste their articles, as they are public domain and allowed to be copy/pasted, yet it would be the incorrect way to cite, being that the original content, verbatim, came from the NIH website. I'm not sure why that is justifiable for a web forum post. Two citations go back to a spammy website's front page, containing absolutely no information regarding the topic of the citation.

260:, you quoted the WP:SEEALSO sentence about "editorial judgment". First, I would point out that you seem to be pursuing an approach where the "editorial judgment" sentence is the only sentence you follow, using it as an way to override the rest of the guideline. I really doubt that is what the authors of this guideline had in mind. Second, in a situation where editorial judgement is needed and there is a conflict among editors about the correct course of action, the appropriate way to handle the disagreement is to discuss it on the article's talk page and try to reach 2461: 578:. Clearly our culture will need to be different (in fact one of the reasons why I started the wiki was because I knew that there was an awful lot of terrific material about TMS that simply wouldn't be allowed in Knowledge (XXG), and I wanted to make "our own wiki") but I feel like there is an awful lot that we can learn from Knowledge (XXG) and Wikipedians. For example, one thing that I have already learned from Knowledge (XXG) is the importance of citing sources in a wiki. 2643: 699:. For example, on page 81 he says, "...I did not stop prescribing physical therapy until twelve or thirteen years after I began to make the diagnosis. It took that long for me to fully break with all the old traditions in which I had been schooled." He then explains that one of the reasons he stopped using PT was that "some patients had put all their confidence in the physical therapy (or therapist) and were having placebo cures..." -- 3369: 1216: 730: 668:"The teaching begins in my office at the time of the consultation, is continued in the formal lecture/discussions and reinforced by the physical therapist who administers physical treatment. A well trained physical therapist can be very important to a successful outcome, for he or she can answer many of the patients questions as treatment progresses. 398:

I am certain). Please let me know the best way to post information about Frolovs device in asthma section - if you suppose that it looks promotional, please help editing it so that it does not look promotional. Thousands of people in Russia cure their asthma with the method, and I do not think that it is fair to remove the post about it.

1350:. That way, other people who follow these articles can see the discussion. I'm sure that people will also want to know more specifics. For example, when you say "Two citations go back to a spammy website's front page", that doesn't give people any way to to look at those citations. You need to name the website. -- 1863:. You are invited to assist by cleaning-up and copy-editing these articles. There are also ongoing discussion concerning additional split-offs. You could see split-off templates at the article's page and find discussions at the talk page. Your input would be useful for building consensus on these issues. Thank you. 571:

the TMS article know, it is precisely references to Knowledge (XXG)'s policies, guidelines, essays, and special pages that prevents the editing of controversial articles from breaking down into anarchy. I figure that one of my jobs as the wiki's founder is to help build up a constructive culture for the TMS Wiki.

973:

important about that person in relation to the Knowledge (XXG) community. To have the entire photo description be about Sanger's enjoyment of his weekends is to imply that Sanger has done nothing important in relation to Knowledge (XXG) and that any opinions he has about Knowledge (XXG) are irrelevant." --

1083:

Hi I am from India, People called me Kalki Avatar. Hindu Holy Book says Kalki Avatar comes in Judgement days. Holy Koran says Isa Asalam comes in Judgement days. Holy Bible says Jesus comes in Judgement days. Kalki Avatar will have all three names. I am Kalki Avatar. I what you to put my website link

972:

I'm not familiar with that song, so I wouldn't understand that reference. Even though you did not intend to take a jab at Sanger, many will still interpret it that way because of the context. As I stated before, "the purpose of a person's photo description in that article is to describe what's most

597:

You're welcome for the help. It's fine to call me JT. I haven't decided yet whether to add the Weil and Oz material myself, or wait for you. I would be willing to look over a couple TMSWiki pages and give you some feedback. My response may or may not be prompt, but it doesn't sound like you're in

397:

you removed my post regarding Frolovs Respiration Training Device. I do think that information about it relates to asthma because this is another breathing method that goes from Russia, like Buteyko method, and which is now much more popular in Russia than Buteyko (I am from Russia myself this is why

1282:

I am new to Knowledge (XXG) and did not intend to cite more than once. It's important that more than just "neck injury" be mentioned in possible traumas related to the condition. The physical trauma associated with the illness goes far beyond neck injury. The article on Fibromyalgia tends to lack

570:

Let me explain: I've read an awful lot about Knowledge (XXG) because I believe that the best way to think of a wiki isn't as a Website, but rather as a community. And what allows that community to exist is the culture and norms surrounding participation in that community. For example, as watchers of

503:

says that Knowledge (XXG) articles should try to accomodate readers who are looking at hard copy versions of articles, and so cannot access the wikilinks. Having the reference directly in the article would help those readers. You could complain that the current reference shows up as just "", which

218:

A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one. Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section, and navigation boxes at the

176:

given your removal of the link from the "See also" in the Fukushima article on the grounds that there was another wikilink to it buried deep within that colossal entry. The purpose of "See also" isn't to list any link that wasn't linked in the entry, but to list topically related wiki entries as the

581:

If I were to mention a couple of pages for you to look at, would you be willing to give me feedback on them in terms of how they measure up on the quality scale that Knowledge (XXG) uses? Obviously, standards would need to be different on the TMS Wiki, but if you bore that in mind, I'm sure that we

238:

Contrary to what you've written, the first, second and last sentences of the quote say that the purpose of the See Also section is to list topics which the article body does not cover. It sounds like you have a problem with WP:SEEALSO itself, saying that this approach is not user-friendly. If you

1163:

till 21/Oct/2011 and let world decide I am Jesus or Antichrist. I hope you do something on this issue if not Harold Camping go upset or he would die. I am keeping my website link in Harold_Camping page if you want keep then it is fine or if you delete then it is up to you. I tried my level best to

1329:

Furthermore, some of the websites contain regurgitated material. Authors have read news and articles and rewritten them for their sites (as do many websites that report legitimate news information). These are medical information sites, but are not run by anyone in the medical community (nor are

1793:

Here's a quotation from the Knowledge (XXG)'s OR policy: "The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material." On Knowledge (XXG), the question is not what's reasonable to suggest; the question is what do reliable

1325:

I appreciate the welcome, and I see what you mean (as well as the info provided in the reliable sources articles). However, I'm not sure why other sites cited on the page are considered more reliable sources. I am myself not a doctor, but my stepfather is, and a lot of the information I receive

618:

In current format section "Circumstances" has only "Health" as subsection, which is grossly misleading readers to think that health actually has relation to Jackson's death -- while no related sources point to that and while "Personal physician" is what actually directly part of circumstances of

126:

Hi, wikilinks can be used in each section of an article in addition to a lede. I think this is done as the lede should be a stand-alone summary of an article; in addition often someone will link to a section in a large article so it's fine and quite helpful to repeat a wikilink in that way. It's

58:

Stop removing my edit. There are many people complaining about the fact that the Season 1 DVD of The Cosby Show contains the syndicated versions of the episodes. It is a verifiable, neutral fact that can be backed up by reading the user reviews on amazon.com. I just don't know how to put the

454:

the information about that device. The preferred sources for a medical article would be peer-reviewed medical journals and medical school text books. Sources should be in English if at all possible. Corporate promotional web sites are not considered reliable sources of medical information on

938:

First, I don't understand how you could consider an edit that's wrong to be non-controversial. Second, the purpose of a person's photo description in that article is to describe what's most important about that person in relation to the Knowledge (XXG) community. To have the entire photo

81:

I would be happy to help you add a quality reference, but user reviews on Amazon.com are not acceptable sources for a Knowledge (XXG) article. It would be different if you had a newspaper article describing a large letter-writing campaign to First Look Studios, or if media critics at the

219:

bottom of articles may substitute for many links (see the bottom of Pathology for example). However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Indeed, a good article might not require a "See also" section at all.

1708:

A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at

3412:- if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so: 477:

There is a difference between a source and a wikilink. I'm assuming, perhaps optimistically, that the linked article is properly sourced. Therefore, a reader wishing to verify the assertion could follow the link and verify the source there, and it does not require a citation in

3457:

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

3405:

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.

347:

Azma.com, calculates a 4 day forecast of air quality trends by zip code based on a proprietary formula that takes into account five major air pollutants, including ground-level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide.

563:(TMS) article. I'm incredibly busy right now, so it may be a couple of days or even a week or more before I can add the material that we were discussing, but I'll eventually get to it (though don't let me stop you from adding it if you feel the urge). 566:

In the mean time, I was wondering if you might be willing to share your Knowledge (XXG) know-how in another way. Specifically, I was wondering if you might be willing to share your thoughts about a couple of pages in the wiki I started (tmswiki.org).

1858:

and/or its related articles. During some last months there has been an active development of cleaning up that article by splitting off large sections into separate articles. A Deepwater Horizon series were created (all the articles accessible by

1242:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

939:

description be about Sanger's enjoyment of his weekends is to imply that Sanger has done nothing important in relation to Knowledge (XXG) and that any opinions he has about Knowledge (XXG) are irrelevant. That's not controversial? --

744: 2511:, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of 1155:. I don't have secondary sources to prove that I am Jesus. I just started my website. Jesus will read all religion holy books to extract hidden information to prove Second Come of Jesus. Please see this link this is my hand signs 622:

Now this subsection is buried down and readers even have no idea that he charged the murder until they get there, which is ridiculuous. Murray's actions, according to authorities, is the key circumstance of Jackson's death.

1298:

Welcome to Knowledge (XXG)! Unfortunately, many Knowledge (XXG) articles do not make good examples of how to follow Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines. For your situation, I would recommend reading the guidelines on

1246:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..

3304:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 1341:

I was happy to provide basic info on Knowledge (XXG) sourcing here on my talk page. However, if you want to have detailed discussions about these two Knowledge (XXG) articles, then those discussions belong on

1553:

Issues of article content like this should be discussed on the article's talk page, so that other editors interested in the article may see what's being discussed and respond. I have copied your comments to

957:'s Friday. Can I ask how Sanger enjoying his weekend is bad? Maybe once and a while you can enjoying your weekend? No? I was experimenting with Knowledge (XXG). Testing it's reliability. Seamed to work. ( 152:. The tool apparently determines which articles are long enough to have links duplicated between sections. I'll leave the new links alone, but don't be surprised if someone else deletes them. 2578: 2565: 2447: 2516: 1478:

Hi - I don't mind that you reverted my comments on the fracking page all that much (though more data is badly needed), but you directed me to a general rules page rather than the rules for

344:

we do calculate a 4 day forecast every day and this site will help people reading about Air Quality as it is the only site of its kind to make a forecast map and running 30 day history

1820: 2941: 2929: 127:

discouraged to "overlink" the same wikilink more than once within a section. I've also added an infobox to the barber article if you can fill in any more of the sections go for it!

828: 1505:. This is the main page for most of the talk page rules, but for the rule about not using the talk page as a forum, WP:TPG just has a summary that links back to WP:NOTFORUM. -- 3061: 3049: 1525:

Dr. Oz wants his religion to be added on wikipedia. You have no legal right to keep on changing that option. His religion must be added with his biography, end of discussion.

1009:. I will not run to anywhere to complain now, but you are hereby warned to assume good faith and not try to read the mind of other editors and speculate about future actions. 2861: 2849: 1663: 1659: 3461:

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name on the FRS page, you may be receiving this message. If so, make sure your new account name is on the FRS list instead.

1422: 1239: 524:

Your comment "I don't think so" when removing Kelgar The Barbarian as a recurring character on The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Very good...subtlety is a often a lost art. :-)

148:

article will be long anytime soon. I have seen editors delete wikilinks that are duplicated between sections on short articles like this using some automated tool, like

3359:

You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

1418: 695:

was published in 1982 and reflects what Sarno was doing back then. He has long since stopped the use of physical therapy (PT), as stated a few times in his 1991 book,

747:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. 1758:

might very well have been what Lou was watching. Maybe, I worded it or included it incorrectly but somewhere, somehow there seems that a linkage should exist. --

2278: 2266: 1583: 1088:

in Harold_Camping page. Harold told Oct/21/2011 is Judgement days and Jesus appear. I want send my message to world through Harold_Camping page. Please keep

1432: 1228: 1860: 1482:

I have a good idea what is appropriate for articles, but I've seen all sorts of stuff on talk pages. Where are the talk page rules? Thanks for your help.

736: 722: 1675: 1590:

about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

865: 3101: 3089: 2901: 2889: 1934: 1922: 428:

Sorry I am new to editing wiki. Might be slightly out of the design requirements. Please excuse for that and help to post the comments correctly.

3021: 3009: 1135:

to show that your claims have received significant coverage? If not, your ideas do not belong in Knowledge (XXG), even as an external link. --

3141: 3129: 2656: 2519:. There's lots of news this month for the Knowledge (XXG) Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... 1428: 1060:

You're welcome for the response. Let me know if you need a little more help getting started in knowing how to write on Knowledge (XXG). --

3266: 3228: 3190: 3185:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 3150: 3145:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 3110: 3105:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 3070: 3065:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 3030: 3025:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2990: 2985:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2950: 2945:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2910: 2905:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2870: 2865:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2830: 2825:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2790: 2785:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2726: 2721:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2686: 2681:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2615: 2610:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2416: 2411:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2373: 2368:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2330: 2325:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2287: 2282:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2244: 2239:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2201: 2196:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2158: 2153:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2115: 2110:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2072: 2067:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2029: 2024:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 1986: 1981:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 1943: 1938:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 1900: 1895:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 3480: 3329: 3265:. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at 3227:. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at 677: 186: 144:

Yes, I have read the rule about one wikilink per section, but I believe that is mainly intended for long articles. I don't think that the

1631:

for more info. You seem to be one the few editors who has made a significant contribution recently so I thought I would notify you here.--

922:

controversial statements about a living person? I know it was wrong but a controversial statement? little bit extreme, don't you think? (

352: 66: 2477: 878: 841: 257: 1726: 718: 3262: 3224: 3186: 3146: 3106: 3066: 3026: 2986: 2946: 2906: 2866: 2826: 2786: 2722: 2682: 2611: 2412: 2369: 2326: 2283: 2240: 2197: 2154: 2111: 2068: 2025: 1982: 1939: 1896: 1717: 3484: 2821: 2809: 2677: 2665: 1832: 1828: 1816: 1307:. ProjectFibro is a self-published site, so it will not be considered an acceptable source even if it is quoting Dr. Smith. -- 1048: 882: 845: 3176: 3136: 3096: 3056: 3016: 2976: 2936: 2896: 2856: 2816: 2776: 2712: 2672: 2601: 2402: 2359: 2316: 2273: 2230: 2187: 2144: 2101: 2058: 2015: 1972: 1929: 1886: 1586:. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out 3476: 3325: 1151:

Hello, by reading peace of line in my website doesn't prove that I am Second come of Jesus. You should read all 33 chapters in

178: 1710: 1627:

I am proposing merging the two articles as they mostly cover the same indices, and I think there is needless duplication. See

1425:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1032:

edit. I've been a "lurker" for years, and am only now getting around to really contributing. I like what I'm seeing so far!

177:

one I added but you removed. And there are two other wikilinks in the "See also" section that are also linked in the entry,

1977: 1965: 639: 366:

Sorry, adding that info would violate Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines. To justify the addition, you would need

2491: 2235: 2223: 820: 529: 3316:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1232: 740: 575: 374:

the usefulness of your site. Azma.com is a self-published site which cannot be used as a source for this verification.

3321: 2106: 2094: 2020: 2008: 1855: 1824: 1812: 1541: 1375: 824: 417: 1410: 2149: 2137: 2063: 2051: 1347: 2192: 2180: 1685:

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

1617: 743:. I do not think that this article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at 560: 1651: 3254: 3247: 2321: 2309: 1689:

The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email

1029: 681: 3261:. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see 3223:. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see 1092:

link in Harold_Camping page so that by Oct/21/2011 world will know Jesus came to world. Please do this help.

190: 1811:

Hi, JTSchreiber. According to the page editing statistics you have been among the most active editors of the

525: 70: 2460: 1891: 1879: 1387: 587: 488: 356: 1529: 1036: 1014: 673: 405: 62: 3216: 3209: 2606: 2594: 2471: 1628: 962: 927: 874: 837: 3317: 2549:

Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

1132: 261: 1763: 1608: 1395: 1383: 823:

and who has edited the article in the since October. I do not understand why the article is showing in

758: 3465: 1498: 1182:

Sorry, I am not going to read 33 chapters. It would not change anything even if I did read them. Per

311: 1010: 2537:

Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

1705:. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration. 1044: 264:. You did not do that in your editing of the Fukushima article. Instead, your behavior bordered on 88: 3293: 3284: 1767: 1579: 1284: 886: 849: 265: 212: 3381: 2752:'s programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this 2543:

OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

1671: 1487: 1288: 3313: 3297: 1168: 1112: 2981: 2969: 2531:

Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

1645: 1636: 483: 292: 133: 1304: 431: 409: 3437: 3274: 3236: 3198: 3158: 3118: 3078: 3038: 2998: 2958: 2918: 2878: 2838: 2798: 2734: 2694: 2623: 2582: 2467: 2426: 2383: 2364: 2352: 2340: 2297: 2254: 2211: 2168: 2125: 2082: 2039: 1996: 1953: 1910: 1621: 1599: 1448: 1343: 1172: 1116: 958: 923: 869: 832: 628: 583: 3309: 3301: 2753: 1647: 1587: 890: 853: 3469: 3349: 2485: 1868: 1840: 1795: 1759: 1755: 1744: 1559: 1506: 1459: 1391: 1379: 1351: 1308: 1263: 1191: 1136: 1061: 974: 940: 901: 800: 770: 700: 643: 599: 540: 505: 482:. Or should every assertion in every article have its own separate citation? I think not. -- 456: 375: 325: 269: 153: 107: 3424: 3417: 3399: 3360: 3312:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3305: 2749: 2501: 1502: 1006: 500: 3175: