| Revision as of 21:19, 11 July 2008 editElonka (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators70,959 edits Re: Quackwatch← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:17, 14 July 2008 edit undoElonka (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators70,959 edits →Quackwatch: - CautionNext edit → | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| ==]== | ==]== | ||
| Regarding the new ] at the Quackwatch article, your name was added to the list because you have been participating at the talkpage recently. If you are "done" with the article, meaning that you are not going to participate at the talkpage anymore, it's fine that your name be removed from the list. However, if you continue to participate, your name is going back on, because the list is for the use of the administrators to keep track of current participants. Let me know if you have any questions, --]]] 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC) | Regarding the new ] at the Quackwatch article, your name was added to the list because you have been participating at the talkpage recently. If you are "done" with the article, meaning that you are not going to participate at the talkpage anymore, it's fine that your name be removed from the list. However, if you continue to participate, your name is going back on, because the list is for the use of the administrators to keep track of current participants. Let me know if you have any questions, --]]] 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| : This is disruptive. If you continue with these kinds of actions, per ], you risk further restrictions, from page bans up to potentially having your account access blocked. --]]] 17:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:17, 14 July 2008
| This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Minderbinder/Archive/Archive 1. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
 |
|---|
| 24 December 2024 |
|
Please add messages below, I recommend using the + tab above if you're creating a new subject. Also, I'd appreciate if you could sign and date messages, that way they should be archived automatically. Thanks - MM
COI
Let me first of all make clear that I derive no benefit from promoting homeopathy. I have received no consideration nor offers of consideration from anyone. I do not understand how you say that Dana Ullman has some inherent COI by virtue of being a recognized expert who has published books in the field. We do not prohibit chemists from editing chemistry-related topics, and indeed we encourage those with relevant academic knowledge to help us build a better encyclopedia. Just because homeopathy is a controversial area of study does not mean we treat experts in that field as less deserving of respect. —Whig (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say he has inherent COI, I'd say he has the potential for COI. I'm sure nobody would have objections to him making corrections to articles on the subject, just edits that slant the article toward a sympathetic point of view. And looking at the article history shows an edit that does just that. --Minderbinder (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think everyone has the potential for COI, so that's not really relevant. Your position that he is unable to make contributions to articles other than corrections is simply untenable. —Whig (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I would appreciate it if you would supply the diff that you think was objectionable. —Whig (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not really my position, it's what WP:COI says, partiularly WP:COIC. This is all a moot point now anyway since the arb enforcement section has been closed, to be honest I'm not that interested in debating this with you. Cheers. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- This will be my last reply, then. As an editor in the opposing camp put it so well, "WP:COIN is for obvious conflicts of interest: Editors adding information about themselves or their specific interests. Specific interests include employers, friends, family members, etc. It does not apply to professions, areas of expertise, personal beliefs, etc. If DanaUllman has edited Dana Ullman, that would be an obvious coi. Homeopaths editing Homeopathy without editing about themselves or their specific interests is expected and welcome." (in fact, Dana did at one time edit his own article and was blocked for it, but has learned the rules and complied with them since.) —Whig (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd agree that he can edit the article in a manner that isn't COI. Unfortunately, looking at the edit history, it appears he hasn't done so. --Minderbinder (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I did not wish to reply further. I only note that I asked you to supply a diff, because the edit history doesn't prove anything. That's all, and I'm done here. —Whig (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd agree that he can edit the article in a manner that isn't COI. Unfortunately, looking at the edit history, it appears he hasn't done so. --Minderbinder (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- This will be my last reply, then. As an editor in the opposing camp put it so well, "WP:COIN is for obvious conflicts of interest: Editors adding information about themselves or their specific interests. Specific interests include employers, friends, family members, etc. It does not apply to professions, areas of expertise, personal beliefs, etc. If DanaUllman has edited Dana Ullman, that would be an obvious coi. Homeopaths editing Homeopathy without editing about themselves or their specific interests is expected and welcome." (in fact, Dana did at one time edit his own article and was blocked for it, but has learned the rules and complied with them since.) —Whig (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not really my position, it's what WP:COI says, partiularly WP:COIC. This is all a moot point now anyway since the arb enforcement section has been closed, to be honest I'm not that interested in debating this with you. Cheers. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Minderbinder, under your logic then, conventional medical doctors could not critique homeopathy because of COI due to the potential benefit that they might get from people who seek their care instead of homeopathic care. Let's not get too crazy here. If I refer to my own website on the article pages, please cry out COI (though this won't happen). In the meantime, perhaps be pleased that some experts (and not just armchair philosophers with axes to grind) are still editing here. DanaUllman 15:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back
Welcome back to the asylum :) MastCell 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Lost episodes
Regarding your revert here: Take a look at the ref section in the main episodes list. The ref is displayed with a red error message there. --- Oh, hold on. I've figured it out: The problem is that only the table is being transcluded into the main list article. Ugh. This means all refs that are being used both in the table and in the rest of the article should be formatted so that the full ref instance is in the table. I'll go ahead and do that then. Dorftrottel (canvass) 22:09, April 15, 2008
- There, that should do the trick. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 22:15, April 15, 2008
- Thanks for figuring that out. I was just looking at the Season 4 article, where it didn't have an error, didn't realize it had an error when transcluded elsewhere. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose there's no easy, technical way to permanently resolve this. Maybe an according hidden notice (added to the existing one in the section) might be a good idea? Dorftrottel (troll) 23:02, April 15, 2008
- Thanks for figuring that out. I was just looking at the Season 4 article, where it didn't have an error, didn't realize it had an error when transcluded elsewhere. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe something along the lines of
* Also, please note that the table is being transcluded onto the main episode list article (]). This means that references that are used both within the table and also in the rest of this page must be formatted so that the full instance of the reference appears within the table. Otherwise the empty ref will result in an error message in the main episode list article.
? Dorftrottel (warn) 23:09, April 15, 2008
Reiki
Wow- do you really stand behind that source and content? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Minderbinder
Minderbinder aus Deutschland? :) --Gwynplain (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. US of A. --Minderbinder (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am user Minderbinder from the German Misplaced Pages. I am glad we seem to share a taste for literature. Minderbinder-de (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Quackwatch
Regarding the new conditions for editing at the Quackwatch article, your name was added to the list because you have been participating at the talkpage recently. If you are "done" with the article, meaning that you are not going to participate at the talkpage anymore, it's fine that your name be removed from the list. However, if you continue to participate, your name is going back on, because the list is for the use of the administrators to keep track of current participants. Let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is disruptive. If you continue with these kinds of actions, per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy, you risk further restrictions, from page bans up to potentially having your account access blocked. --Elonka 17:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)