Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:08, 8 June 2009

Review of Muzaffar Iqbal's Science & Islam

I thought you might be interested to have a look at Robert Irwin's review of Muzzaffar Iqbal's book Science * Islam in the Jan 25 issue of TLS (pp. 8-9). Iqbal is a strident defender of Islamic science, against the perhaps overly-pessimistic claims of blowhards like Steven Wienberg. Irwin, I think, strikes just about the right balance between the two. Although no mention is made of Alhazen, it is still and interesting piece. 76.69.140.17 (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

History of Psychology

Your response to the contributions of "Jagged 85" to the history of psychology entry has become part of a blog entry I recently posted at http://ahp.yorku.ca/?p=299. I thought you might be interested to read it (and leave behind a comment of your own if you wish). Christopherdgreen (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute

The MEMRI article is always a challenge to edit. I have restored some criticism that was based on a recent compromise. Not sure why it was deleted. Always try to think of where content can go besides one single article -- there are usually alternatives that may be a better fit. --Deodar 23:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: MEMRI, did you take a look at the Yusuf al-Qaradawi article? The guy is "controversial" according to multiple POVs and as the cite makes abundantly clear. I don't understand your objection, and I really don't see how the Mayor of London's criticisms are even notable in the first place, when they are simply a reproduction of Brian Whitaker's, which are already in the article. <<-armon->> 00:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to the original BBC article Isarig accused you of fabricating. Notwithstanding Isarig's nonsense about a "conspiracy theory," it's pretty usual for online news services to continue editing stories that are already posted.--G-Dett 15:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to The Fountain

Since the edit summary is too small to let me explain fully, I want to tell you why I'm reverting the information about Yggdrasil. There is nothing that I've come across in my research putting together this article to indicate any kind of connection with Yggdrasil. You are making a connection where there may not even be a connection, and this qualifies as original research. Everything in the Themes and influences section has been cited directly, but your citation mentions Aronofsky in the lead paragraph of the interview, and Aronofsky isn't even mentioned in the interview at all. The "connection" is shaky and underwhelming, and I'd prefer that the article for The Fountain to steer clear of any assumptions that cannot be verifiable. If there is a citation in which Yggdrasil is specifically mentioned as inspiration for the film, we can use it. --Erik (/_contrib) @ 16:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not contesting the existence of the Hyperion project or that Aronofsky was attached at one point. I am contesting that there is a connection between Hyperion and The Fountain based on lack of citation in regard to the tree ship. If you say you're "not the only one" who suspects plagiarism, then verify your claim by citing reliable sources. --Erik (/_contrib) @ 23:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Refrencing

Please use a template whan refrencing rather than just the website in ref brackets it make life simpler when trying to verify sources thanks.--Lucy-marie 18:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This refrence is in relation to a webiste that you added I know it is laborious to add in all this information for just one webiste but it does save someone the task later on when the template has to be substituted in. So could you ploease use he template for all additional refrencing including webistes. Thanks very munch Lucy-marie 16:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request – Bates method program or educational program ?

This message is to let you know that I have posted a request for arbitration for the cabalcase :

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Bates_Method

See : http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:RFAR

Arbitration request

As you may have seen, the Arbitration Committee has decided not to hear the arbitration case recently filed against you. Several of the arbitrators recommended that you continue to perform other means of dispute resolution, such as seeking a third opinion on your disagreement. Good luck. Newyorkbrad 20:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Can I remind you that Misplaced Pages articles should conform to Neutral point of view. This means that it is inappropriate for articles on British energy suppliers to rely disproportionately on the amount of money spent on new renewable resources when assessing how green they are. It is also inappropriate to use glowing language and phraseology in articles about one such company and highly critical language when editing articles about its competitors.

If you work for or are otherwise associated with one of these firms then I strongly suggest you cease to edit articles about them. Regards, The Land 17:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's your responsibility to make sure that your edits reflect a neutral point of view. In the past on this subject they have not: please take the fact that there is another side to the argument on board in your future edits. Regards, The Land 17:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My VTS rv

Sorry, did not intend to rv your edit. I was rv the vandalism using pop-ups that obviously don't work on high volume articles. --I already forgot 21:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not have admin powers so I cannot issue blocks. However, the admins are handing out blocks as fast as the vandalism is being added to the article. --I already forgot 21:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Orgone

Hi, I notice you reverted my removal of the pseudoscience category tag from Orgone. I'm figuring that you probably thought I was trying to say that the subject wasn't pseudoscience, since that's happened a few times already with other articles I've re-categorized. I assure you're I'm most definitely not. :) I'm actually just trying to clean up the category page itself, since it includes a lot of articles that are already listed in one or more of the sub-categories (in this case, Orgone is listed in both Category:Orgone Science and Technology and Category:Vitalism, both of which are sub-categories of Category:Pseudoscience. I'd prefer to have just the sub-categories listed since this keeps the parent category page cleaner and easier to use (and this is also in line with Misplaced Pages guidelines on categorization, although there is some room for debate on the issue) but before I re-edit the article I wanted to have your thoughts on the matter, and to make sure I understand your motivations correctly. --Sapphic 17:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Psychological Publishing

A tag has been placed on Psychological Publishing, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Misplaced Pages guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 13:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

Thank you for your addition to this article. Unfortunately, I had to revert it as no source was provided for the claim that the Bates method is pseudoscience. As "pseudoscience" is a derogatory label, we're forced to maintain a hard line and put subjects in this list only when there's an authoritative source claiming them to be pseudoscience and this source is referenced in order to avoid possible NPOV and original research violations. For a subject which indeed is pseudoscience, a source shouldn't be hard to find, but if one can't, this is likely indicative that it isn't notable enough to merit inclusion anyway.

I've also just put a notice similar to this commented in the code for the article, so hopefully it'll jump out at people more in the future. --Infophile 18:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit better; though I'd still prefer if we could get some quote which specifically uses the term "pseudoscience." Another problem is that we prefer sources that come from authoritative scientific groups (not just individuals, as many can be cranks in their own right) or notable skeptics. What you've given is just a couple scientific papers (under the heading of "individuals") and a newspaper piece (which is next to worthless when it comes to judging science, unless it's a guest column by a scientist or skeptic).

However, if you can provide some source that shows that the Bates method is often presented as science, this might be good enough (you can just post it on the talk page for evidence to editors; I'm not sure the readers need to see this). However, I can't guarantee it will stay up in the article indefinitely unless we get the prefered type of source. --Infophile 21:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

You say it as if I am maliciously or purposefully putting it in the wrong section. I am not super-familair with the article. I have dealt with several users trying to contribute on pages they are not completely familiar with and I believe a friendly notice would be in better faith than such a comment in the edit summary. Thank you. --Shamir1 05:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Emotional_Freedom_Techniques

Ben Meijer 14:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Made a cabalcase. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-01-07_Bates_method Seeyou (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

A case has opened in the WP:Mediation Cabal and a user has listed you as an involved party, related to edits/comments at Bates method. The case is located at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-07 Bates method, please feel free to comment on the article talk page. Thank you. MBisanz 19:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Energy medicine schools

You recently deleted the list of schools and training programs from Energy medicine as spam links. I'm new to Wiki. Can you clarify what set off the spam link alarm? Is there a way to build a list of training programs that would not raise this concern (e.g., a more comprehensive list)? Thanks. --Mbilitatu (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. No, it wasn't my original list, but I did contribute to it. And not brutal ... just trying to learn my way around the Wiki. I get that Wiki is not meant to be used for advertising or tricking search bots. Your reply said that businesses should not be listed, but when I look at List of digital camera brands, each of those references points to a page, and then each of those pages has a direct URL to the web site of the respective business. So I would draw the conclusion that a single link is appropriate for businesses notable enough to get a page in Wiki, but otherwise not. The same seems to apply to schools (List of colleges and universities in Connecticut). Would that be a fair assessment?--Mbilitatu (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Bates method‎

Thanks for your contributions to the discussions in Talk:Bates method. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Bates method is a controversial article with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Stop trying to cover up the embarassing truth of what you are doing here. If you truly think your censorship is OK, and your accusations at me are fair, then why are you trying to hide any evidence of my protest? Leave this up so that people can see what you have done and agree with you. No? You won't? Of course you won't. Because you know you are absolutely wrong and that you have no right to be undoing any of my edits.

ROFL buddy. The simple fact that you are accusing me of this shows your own stupidity and bias. I have not "smeared" any Misplaced Pages user, although it is clear to me now that I SHOULD be smearing you. By giving me this message you have proven your true intentions. The truth of the matter is that I updated a page to include relevant and 100% true information, mainly that boycotts of Israel are internationally condemned and most people view the initiators as anti-Semitic. If you dispute this fact then you yourself are anti-Semitic. This is not an opinion, it is globally accepted fact.

Argue with that and you are an anti-Semite.

I don't know why you even found the necessity to harass me with that message. I made an edit two days ago and it was apparently reverted within a matter of minutes. Now two days later you come and bother me with these verbal attacks? Get out of here.

Thank you and good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.202.228 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not censoring you, you f*ckin dick. New posts go at the bottom. What you did is top-post. Now f*ck off, I'm sick of 14-year old revolutionaries messing up my talk page. Famousdog (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U

There is currently a RfC going on that you might be interested in. -Jéské 01:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Lazy eye

I just added a strabismus header to the lazy eye disambiguator - it looks correct to me, but would you mind checking it? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding User:Seeyou's MedCab case.

Hello, I am Atyndall and I have taken it upon myself to mediate User:Seeyou's MedCab case here, just letting you know that I have reviewed your side of the story and have compiled a report containing facts and suggestions about the situation, it can be found here (after reading the main stuff, look for the "To User:Famousdog" heading). I have also written similar reports addressed to User:Ronz and User:Seeyou. Feel free to discuss your report under the provided heading (Discussion of User:Famousdog's report) here. Happy editing!  Atyndall93 | talk  12:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Update

The case was closed on the grounds of being unsolvable; Seeyou and Ronz have been referred to formal mediation.  Atyndall93 | talk  01:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Orgone

You participated briefly on the orgone article, I have put forward a proposed lead to try and work past some of the substantial issues with the article. If you have a chance could you offer your opinion on the talk page? Thanks. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Third-party" discussion

Hi Famousdog. If you have time you might want to contribute to this discussion, considering your sentiment regarding the expression "third-party". PSWG1920 (talk) 03:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Bates method

Please refactor, "Ronz, it just seems that you are determined to remove any reference or link to a pro-Bates site." to remove all assumptions of my actions and motivations that violate WP:AGF. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My concern, as I've mentioned earlier, is that the article is a NPOV disaster because editors are using poor references to expand the article to the point that the notable information is drowned in a sea of poorly sourced trivia. We determine NPOV by finding and following independent, reliable sources. Where are these sources? I'm not sure the article has any. Searching the internet, all I can find notable about the Bates method is that it is quackery. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Strabismus article a new link

Famousdog I added a link in our diccussion paragraph about strabismus and the possibility of selfcorrecting. Maybe you can respond. Seeyou (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Seeyou and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,