User talk:Bhuston/Archive 01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:W don cornwell.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:W don cornwell.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 05:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Absent referent[edit]

An article that you created, Absent referent, has been proposed for deletion, for the following reason:

Subject may not be notable enough to merit an article; see notability guidelines.

Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy.

You are welcome to improve the article to meet these standards and remove the deletion notice. You may also remove the notice if you disagree with the deletion; note that in this case, the article may be discussed further at Articles for deletion. Thank you – Gurch 00:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


An article that you created, Absent referent, has been listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absent referent. The reason for the listing is explained there. Discussion will now take place on that page to determine whether the article is deleted. You are welcome to participate in the discussion; however, please do not remove the deletion notice from Absent referent while the discussion is in progress. Thank you – – Gurch 05:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absent referent survived the Afd!! Yay!! --Bhuston 16:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts[edit]

My revert was self explanatory.-Bharatveer 12:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contract law[edit]

Hi Bhuston, thanks for the warning. You're right about style, etc. But the page was slightly all over the place already. Maybe you agree though that the biggest style problem is the lack of proper referencing and structure? You're right, I did delete some stuff. Was it things you'd written? The validity of contracts is really just renamed 'contractual formation'. I think that's more correct, because validity encompasses the third section of the article, now: 'setting a contract aside'. And so you saw a lot of repetition. What I never would delete are good references, because these make law. I'm basically going straight from a textbook, by Ewan McKendrick (now down the bottom of the page) and I think the first thing to do is get the categories right. User:Wikidea

Don't you think you need to begin by responding to some, or perhaps at least one of the comments I put on the page? There are quite a few. Or the comment above here? Do you always accuse people of vandalism? You've just reverted, for the third time, a whole host of new and valuable additions. User:Wikidea
Answered on Talk:Contract Bhuston 16:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persuasion[edit]

Try not to get carried away. Most academics regard techniques of persuasion (such as what I am "doing to you" with this message :-) as distinct from "mind control" techniques such as brainwashing, thought reform and deprogramming.

Readers turn to an encyclopedia both to explore similarites and to learn about distinctions. --Uncle Ed 18:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on Talk:Mind control --Bhuston 18:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

test[edit]

test --Bill Huston | Talk 10:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Huston User talk:Bhuston <--- Why doesn't this work right?

Image:Imclogo.gif and User:Bhuston/Userbox/indymedia[edit]

The image is tagged with {{logo}}. As such, it may not be used on User:Bhuston/Userbox/indymedia. Whether it is in fact in the public domain is, at this point, irrelevant. We do not permit non-free license tagged images outside of the main article namespace. If you want to use this image, then determine what the source of the image is and contact that source to determine if they have released their rights. We can not do this based on assertions of our users; we must have a verifiable means of determining the release of rights from the image. Somebody created the image. Who? How to contact them so we can verify? Did they release their rights and if so where is the proof? I am reverting your reinsertion of the image. Please do not re-insert the image again without doing as suggested above or similar. Using this image on that page, when you know what the policy is, is vandalism. I'm happy to help you work through this, but re-inserting the image in violation of our policies is not an acceptable route to go. Thanks, --Durin 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durin, you said, "I am reverting your reinsertion of the image. Please do not re-insert the image again". Just to point out, I don't think I reverted your removal, and the edit history does not show this. I've been around here long enough to understand the gravity of copyvios. So unless you used your super-admin-powers to modify the edit history, I would ask you to retract your assertion that I reverted. Accusations of vandalism are quite serious, and I would like you to set the record correct. --Bill Huston (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies. You are absolutely correct. Lost in the shuffle, I removed an instance of the image [1], received your message [2] and then removed another instance of the same image from your userspace [3]. When I first received your message, I did not know to exactly which page you were referring. When I found the second page, I made the (false) presumption that you had reverted the removal of the fair use image. Consider the record set straight, and I apologize for the error. --Durin 13:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana[edit]

I spend a fair amount of my wikipedia time removing the inaccuracy that cannabis is exclusively marijuana; please dont get in the way. Keep in mind that this is not an American but an international encyclopedia (I am not American myself). Also remember that the governments of the world do consider cannabis to be a drug and for the most part an illegal drug. That may not be nice but we are both old enough to know that we have to live with it, SqueakBox 03:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate your hard work, but a couple of points. I never said "cannabis is exclusively marijuana", I said "cannabis is a plant genus". I said that "cannabis (drug)" is quite awkward, and may not be ideal according to Wikipedia naming conventions. I called for a discussion, and am quite astounded by the arrogance and cavallier attitudes of you and others who a) removed the merge tag, b) were hostile to a DISCUSSION of the issue, etc. Much of what Wikipedia is has to do with discussion, persusaion, and consensus building. I was met with "I am opposed to debate", and "please don't get in the way". Thanks for pointing out that "marijuana" is a predominantly American term. If I might point that Wikipedia does not belong to you, and you should be open to a discussion, and not meet other Wikipedia members with overt hostility. --Bill Huston (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didnt remove the merge tag and I did engage in debate with you, making my reasons very clear, and hopefully persuaded you (a) that cannabis is considered a drug and (b) that marijuana is an exclusively US term for some but not all of what cannabis users consume when they take this plant as a drug. You seem to be the one who is narked not me, SqueakBox 17:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute, argument maps[edit]

Hi Bill,

You probably remember some animated logical dancing on my part over the saga of This argument map. You even accused me of being a logician I recall!

Some more of my maps have been tagged as violating the NPOV policy and I thought that you would be a good person to notify. I am canvassing your thoughts on these images:

Image:Anonymous Lefty excluded middle.png, Image:False dichotomy public transport.png and Image:John Quiggin enumerative induction.png. Thanks for any consideration. Regarding the excluded middle, see also some comments I solicited on this article talk page - Grumpyyoungman01 11:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia New York Meet-Up[edit]

Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC --David Shankbone 21:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Onechectomy[edit]

I saw you are in the Animal Rights WP and was wondering if you are against Declawing animals or Onychectomy? The userbox is located at {{User:PatPeter/User nocatdeclaw}}

User:PatPeter/User nocatdeclaw

So just copy the title as you are viewing and put it with the {{ }} and w/o the [[ ]] to your userpage. -PatPeter 18:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week[edit]

WikiProject Pharmacology is currently organizing a new Collaboration of the Week program, designed to bring drug and medication related articles up to featured status. We're currently soliciting nominations and/or voting on nominations for the first WP:RxCOTW, to begin on September 5, 2007. Please stop by the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week page to participate! Thanks! Dr. Cash 17:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs[edit]

I am sorry for my belated reply, for I have been a bit busy the last few days.

I have a minimal involvement in this matter, but perhaps a bit of research might help here, since what has occurred is a bit complex. I will present a timeline below.

  • Kwertii starts the page in June of 2005.
  • In July 2007, Cerejota moved the page to a different title, in which I later deleted the resulting redirect after the deletion of the article.
  • On 06:35, 24 July 2007, Corpx tags the article for deletion.
  • Just two minutes later (06:37, 24 July 2007), Krimpet deletes the article, with the reasoning "indiscriminate BLP nightmare". I believe that since the article had been deleted so swiftly, Corpx did not create the nomination page.
  • A day later (06:22, 25 July 2007), Madsci recreated the article, apparently unaware of the deletion prior. Note that this is not vandalism, although it may seem so when reading the history.
  • WWGB nominates the article for speedy deletion with the reason "pointless list, could go on forever"; User:Butseriouslyfolks declines and advises to take the article to AfD.
  • WWGB tags the article and nominates it for deletion.
  • During the AfD, Corpx nominates for speedy deletion because of G4; Natalie Erin declines as G4 doesn't apply.
  • The wub speedy closes the AfD and snow deletes the article.
  • A month later, a courtesy restore, userfy and delete by The wub.

If you feel that the article was not given the proper attention, please discuss with Krimpet or The wub first before going to deletion review. Singularity 21:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week[edit]

Aspirin has been selected as this week's Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week! Please help us bring this article up to featured standards during the week. The goal is to nominate this at WP:FAC on September 10, 2007.

Also, please visitWP:RxCOTW to support other articles for the next COTW. Articles that have been nominated thus far include Doxorubicin, Paracetamol (in the lead with 4 support votes so far), Muscle relaxant, Ethanol, and Bufotenin.

In other news:

  • The Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology main page has been updated and overhauled, to make it easier to find things, as well as to highlight other goals and announcements for the project.
  • Fvasconcellos notes that discussion is ongoing regarding the current wording of MEDMOS on including dosage information in drug articles. All input is welcome.

Dr. Cash 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Pharmacology Update[edit]

Here's a brief update in some of the recent developments of WikiProject Pharmacology!

  • Aspirin has just completed its two week run as the first Collaboration of the Week! Many thanks to those editors that contributed; the article got a lot of good work accomplished, and in particular, much work was done in fixing up the history section. It's still not quite "done" yet (is a wikipedia article really ever done?), but after two weeks I think it's more important to push onwards with the development of the new collaboration of the week program. I will be fixing up Aspirin in the next few days and possibly nominating it for either GA or FA status.
  • Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing or dispensing medical advice amongst users. Specifically, talk pages of articles should only be used to discuss improving the actual article in question. To help alleviate this situation, the template {{talkheader}} may be added to the top of talk pages, reminding users of the purpose of such pages. Additionally, unsigned comments and comments by anonymous users that are inappropriate may be removed from talk pages without being considered vandalism.

You are receiving this message because you are listed as one of the participants of WikiProject Pharmacology.

Dr. Cash 05:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User categories for discussion on -isms[edit]

Hi. A user category that you are in has been proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. You are welcome to comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Pharmacology Update[edit]

Here are a few updates in the realm of WikiProject Pharmacology:

  • The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week has been changed to Collaboration of the Month, based on current participation levels. It is also more likely that articles collaborated on for one month are more likely to achieve featured quality than articles worked on for only a week or two.

Dr. Cash 22:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wskg.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Wskg.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kleśā[edit]

Hey Bill -

FWIW, I officially "retired" from WP in January. (This will be my first non-anon edit in about six months.) Nonetheless, I appreciated your thoughtful talk page note and didn't want you to wait for a reply from me unnecessarily. In short, change the Kleśā page in any way you see fit. I suspect whatever change you make will be intelligent, thoughtful and useful (though, frankly, even if it weren't, it's all good to me now).

If I may toss out a possibly simple approach to modifying the current text:

(1) in the intro section, start a second paragraph at the sentence beginning "In early Buddhist text..." and then add a third intro paragraph regarding yogic material.

(2) Rename the "Other literature" to something like "Yogic literature" or whatever you think meaningful.

Or, of course, please, please, please, feel free to totally ignore what I write here. Just: no need to await my response any longer. You're free to be bold with Kleśā :-)

Wet-diaper baby in lap ... GTG, Larry (larryrosenfeld@earthlink.net)

WikiProject Cannabis[edit]

You are invited to join WikiProject Cannabis, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to Cannabis. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to the plant. The WikiProject Cannabis group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.

Professional journalism[edit]

Just to let you know that I've nominated "Professional journalism" for deletion. Bluehotel (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-knowledge[edit]

Hi Bhuston, I see you've changed the Self-knowledge redirect to point to a disambig. Per WP:FIXDABLINKS, could you clean up the links that now need fixing? Thanks, --JaGatalk 10:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Bill Huston (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done (I think :) --Bill Huston (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much! Cheers, --JaGatalk 10:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Precautionary principle.png[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Precautionary principle.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Inner World of OFNR (NVC).png[edit]

Bill,

I've temporarily removed this file from the Nonviolent Communication article. As per policy the Commons, "directly visible personal tags...inside an image created by yourself are strongly discouraged". Could you please remove "diagram created by WilliamAHuston@gmail.com" from the file? Please let me know if you need more clarification. Thanks, Kingturtle = (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Bill Huston (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Kingturtle = (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed deletion of Delusion (spirituality)[edit]

The article Delusion (spirituality) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Without any references, this appears to be WP:OR, and there is nothing to support that this topic is notable. Without references this appears to be a made up topic per WP:MADEUP or WP:SYN. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


In response to the Proposed Deletion tag added by User:Steve_Quinn, I am removing the tag, as permitted by the WP:PROD process.
Steve, while I appreciate you trying to improve the quality of WP, I'm wondering if perhaps this time you have acted in haste. You site the lack of references indicates that this may be original research. I agree there is presently a lack of external references.
First, I'm wondering if you noticed the Stub tag indicating a longer article is forthcoming?
Second, I'm wondering if you followed any of the WP internal links? Such as avidya, klesha, or ego?
Had you, I think you would have found that my short contribution is already well-supported in existing WP pages. Follow this link and check out how many pages refer to the sanskrit word moha or avidya in the context of delusion: [4]
Please allow me a couple of weeks to expand this stub, and I can support this with external references. Thanks! --Bill Huston (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course take three or four weeks to expand the article. Rome was not built in a day. Pertaining to your above query:
First, a stub does not indicate a longer article is forthcoming. As often as not someone creates a stub, and moves on. Second, the internal links are not considered reliable sources WP:RS, which are WP:V. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
"To show that it is not original research, all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. But in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question."
In other words, opening with the phrase, "in eastern spirituallity..." is a very broad, and general stroke. Which eastern spirituallity? All of them? Probably not. Hence, the only conclusion I could reach was that this was someone's belief, not based on reliable sources. A belief is WP:OR, unless it is notable as shown by having reliable sources added to the article. The sources must say already what you are writing, not really the other way around. However, apparently you are sure this is notable - so you will probably find sources which back up what you are writing - within the next several weeks. Also, when expanding an article I find it is easier to report what the sources are saying, rather than making stuff up and then trying to find sources.
Anyway, I am not User talk:NuclearWarfare. The reason for the change by this editor is this short discussion here. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for discussing this with me. It is much appreciated. And I notice that you are s contributor to Wikipedia yourself. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve, yes I have gratitude for his exchange. There is learning here for all parties, and Wikipedia will be better for this discussion.
OK! I hear you about the sources! I will get you sources!
thanks for the extra time... :)
I have been studying Indian philosophy for three years. This same thing (about delusion) is located in the teachings of Yoga, Vedanta, and Buddhism. This is most remarkable and noteworthy because there are so many schools there (at least 9) all with a slightly different take on things. Yet, the idea that the world is Maya seems to permeate much of Indian thought. This fundamental vision of reality, this precise definition and revelation of consciousness and God has spread from India to beyond (Tibet, China, Indonesia, Nepal, Viet Nam, etc.). So, yes, I would say much of Eastern Spirituality.
And why Spirituality? Well, the root of 'spirit' is L. 'aspirae', to breathe. There is a nexus between the material body and the unbounded consciousness which occurs exactly at the breath.
People highly trained in the material sciences have a blind spot here, it seems. Science only wants to talk about things which can be described as existent in the material world of space/time.
Science can't find the Self, the Soul, or the Center of Consciousness anywhere in the brain (and it's dissected billions!). Consciousness cannot be found anywhere in space/time! This is why they call it 'the hard problem' of cognitive science.
Science denies that animals are conscious, which helps make the animals slave/slaughter trades function. Science is blind to God, therefore science denies the consciousness of God.... Unfortunately for materialism, the trickster called Quantum Mechanics has demanded that these issues be confronted. Yet, presently, science stands confounded and speechless.
As the breath connects the body to the soul, the breath should be a major point of attention and inquiry! And it is, largely, in the East. And it is also largely disregarded (or worse) in the West.
It should be called Eastern Spirituality because it is in stark contrast to Western Materialism. I made this point in the disambiguation page, which User:NuclearWarfare sought to reverted into non-existence, without any comment as to why the action occurred. Thanks for sharing the link, BTW. Grateful.
One reason why this is so very notable is the age of this information. This information is at least 3,500 years old. It is contained in some of the oldest texts in the human cannon. Materialism is only largely 500 years old.
My last point should be more directed to User:NuclearWarfare. There is an explicit bias which can occur when deciding whether or not 'KEYWORD' directs to 'MEANING-1' or 'DISAMBIGUATION'. DISAMBIGUATION should be preferred, unless there is a clear indication that one topic was primary, because this bias wants to be avoided.
Yet, according to a group led by User:NuclearWarfare decided that the Western, Materialist, Psychiatric definition of delusion is primary over a meaning which exists in Sanskrit literature at least 3,500 years, perhaps older than 5,000 years. I find this quite curious and I would like to understand the rational here, especially since materialism is maybe 500 years old (Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, Galileo)
I would hope that Wikipedia does not exhibit a Western, Materialist bias, because I have studied both deeply, and I will tell you this:
Western Materialist values seem to me to have caused the Earth to come to a point of crisis, where every system seems to be failing, and humanity might be heading towards a mass die-off, if we are not careful.
It is urgent for Materialist West to hear the message of Eastern Spirituality, and be presented on an equal par. Because this ancient information comes (back) to humanity at a critically important time and could help avert much suffering.
Thank you for this discussion! All the best to you -- BH
The name of Wikipedia articles is not given based on what one editor thinks is important for people to know (WP:GREATWRONGS), but rather on the primary use of the word (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Quoting from the latter page, "Although an ambiguous term may refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, the ambiguous term should be the title of, or redirect to, the article on that topic." It is pretty clear even with just a basic background knowledge of Hinduism/Indian history that the psychiatric definition is the one that most people, even Indian or Hindu, would think of. This is evidenced by the fact that the spirituality article was merely created this week, while the psychiatric article was created 8 years ago. NW (Talk) 04:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bill, following your invitation at WT:WikiProject Medicine, I'd like to add a few thoughts for your consideration. You are a long-term contributor, so please excuse me if you already know this. First of all, I agree with the other editors who believe that "delusion" has a primary topic – and that is the psychiatric meaning. To argue that there is no unique primary topic would require demonstrating that the body of literature using the spiritual meaning is comparable in size to that using the psychiatric meaning, and I don't believe you will be able to do that. The age of the literature will not count, since English words often change their meaning over time and archaic uses of a term are rarely a notable topic for a general encyclopedia such as ours - Britannica also has an article only on the psychiatric meaning. Nevertheless, you may be able to can show that Delusion (spirituality) is a notable topic and deserves a separate article from Avidyā, but you will need to demonstrate that the term is used in independent reliable sources. It may be best if you work on a version of the article in your own userspace. You could create User:Bhuston/Delusion (spirituality) (by clicking that redlink) and copy the contents of this page as a starting point, then work on it at your leisure, without other editors raising concerns. You can always move it over the current redirect when you have finished sourcing and expanding it. To disambiguate, it would only require a hatnote at Delusion, indicating the spiritual meaning. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think RexxS is right. It's the volume (and quality) of sources that matters, not their age. If you look into scholarly sources (not just scholarly scientific sources), delusion is primarily used in the psychiatric sense. This is therefore what most sources mean when they use this term, and what most readers will be looking for under this term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-tagging of non-minor edits as minor[edit]

Please do not tag all of your edits as minor. In particular, do not tag non-minor edits as minor. Please see WP:MINOR#When not to mark an edit as a minor edit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For my reference, can you tell me which edit you have an issue with? Thanks -- Bill Huston (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one hit my watchlist, but talk page comments[5][6][7], removing prods[8](!), changing (or adding or removing) templates [9], none of these are minor. It appears that you tag your edits as minor by default; the default should be non-minor. Please see WP:MINOR#When not to mark an edit as a minor edit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bhuston/Archive_01&oldid=1140175691"