Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:21, 3 November 2009

This user is a participant in WikiProject Alternative views.

Template:Talkbottom

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

You were listed on the en:Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians/China page as living in or being associated with Shanghai. As part of the en:Misplaced Pages:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit en:Category:Wikipedians in Shanghai for instructions. Rmky87 16:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead of HIV article

Hi there. I've begun a new section at Talk:HIV#Recent changes to lead discussing my rationale for reverting your recent edits for a second time. Before reinstating your edits, please be sure that the new material you're proposing is supported by editorial consensus. Thanks, Emw (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see talk page guideline

Neuromancer, regarding your edits and talk page comments at HIV, I would encourage you to please see WP:TALK. The talk page is not a forum for discussion of AIDS denialism or even the science of HIV/AIDS. Please know that I will remove any further abuses of the talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP violation warning

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Misplaced Pages about living persons, as you did to Talk:HIV. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Chat warning

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:HIV for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Misplaced Pages articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Misplaced Pages is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last seven days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Re

Neuromancer, in response to your question on my talk page, no, there is nothing personal to my criticism of your behaviour on Misplaced Pages. You are, in my opinion, advancing a fringe point of view beyond due weight, and you are soapboxing on the HIV talk page. You have plagiarised from several sources, without giving citations at all, and have refused to admit this. You have created an article with substantial amounts of trivia (lists of contest winners) about what I consider to be a non-notable company, leading me to question what your connection with this company might be (please see WP:COI). I don't know you, so there's nothing personal, but I would much prefer that you stop using Misplaced Pages for promotional reasons or as a forum for your beliefs.

In future, if you have questions about virology and immunology methods, please direct them to the Science Reference Desk. Demands for a single citation to establish that HIV exists in Africa or is in fact a virus or has been isolated, etc., should be directed to more appropriate sites on the internet, of which, as I am sure you know, there are many. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia and not a forum for AIDS denialism. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made some improvements to the Fatcat article and noticed that much of the information contained in it indicates an apparently intimate personal knowledge of the motivations and histories of the individuals involved. A large part of this has been removed as potential WP:BLP violation. Please take care in future to add information to Misplaced Pages only when it is available in reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 46579f0826e550b28969de8359b03f8f

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

HIV dissent

The talkpage Talk:AIDS denialism has several times discussed the scope of the article, leading to consensus that denial of the connection between HIV and AIDS is properly included at that article. Please discuss there if you think a spin-out article is warranted. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, someone changed your new page to a REDIRECT to the old AIDS Denialism page within hours. Let me know when the new page stabilizes and I will participate.

It sounds to me like some people have seriously adamant positions, which I'm guessing comes from having lost a loved one. Hard to believe that scientists would insist so much on THE answer. Martindo (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring and 3-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on HIV dissent. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. MastCell  05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And please take a look at our policy on inappropriate canvassing while you're at it (). MastCell  05:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer your implied question at User talk:MastCell#HIV dissent, the relevant sections are Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Votestacking and Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Forum shopping. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate my edit summary here, please be aware that you have made more than three reverts to HIV dissent in under 24 hours. This is in violation of the three-revert rule sufficient but not necessary bright line definition of WP:edit warring. Please desist before you are blocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I get off reverting to the redirect because it's the only policy compling option. Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Neuromancer,

You will never get anywhere with the likes of Keepcalmandcarryon, Mastcell, Nunh-huh, etc. Going into the archives of some of the articles here on AIDS and HIV, I found that some of these people have been working, full-time it seems, on keeping these pages biased for years, and that they don't allow any edits which provide alternative information to the orthodox theory that HIV=AIDS, or anyone attached to these theories. They can be illogical, bullying, they will name-call, they will call any persons with honest questions denialists, and they will use any and every strategy no matter how ugly to keep these pages the way they want them to read. They don't allow edits they don't like to stay up for more than 30 minutes, and their tactic is to bully and threaten people until they give up. Of course people do give up, because they become exhausted and worn down as nothing they try to correct will stay up. Interestingly enough, some of these people also police pages on subjects such as Aspartame and alternative medicine. It's frightening how the AIDS orthodoxy doesn't want the public to know the facts. Most horrifying is the effect on AIDS patients themselves, who have the right to know everything there is to know and to make their own choices. I'd be interested to know your uncle's history, whether he was taking AIDS medications, what AIDS-related disease he actually died from, etc. AIDS has turned into a fear campaign - they give you a death sentence, and tell patients that if they stop the drugs that they will die. I wonder if these mercenary editors here have any idea that their policing of these pages could be leading to actual deaths in the world, as thousands of people take poison in a desperate attempt to save their lives, when they are not even sick. Mister Hospodar (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Neuromancer, I've already spent many hours of my life trying to get in even small tiny points corrected, and they don't let ANYTHING stand. I would be happy to help you here if you do manage to create a page that stays up, but if we could get a few more people on board that would help tremendously. I've noticed that they take something down saying it was because of a "consensus" when there has been no such thing, and then they get an administrator that they know to get on their side. It's like a mad tea party, and there is no logic, no science, no fairness involve. It's the Wild West! I'm going to be very bust in the next few weeks unfortunately, but I will step in where I can. Mister Hospodar (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism vs. Content Dispute

Vandalism requires a desire to damage the encyclopedia. Although you are damaging the encyclopedia by placing content that is factually false and pushes a (harmful) tiny-minority PoV, I do not accuse you of vandalism, because you believe the enyclopedia will be better if it says what you believe. You should grant me the same courtesy. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Neuromancer~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Blocking administrator: blocking administrator (talk)

Reviewing administrator: Neuromancer (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Request reason:

After the blocking administrator has left a comment, do one of the following:

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted.

{{unblock reviewed|1=A number of users have wholesale deleted content from an article I created. I have numerous times attempted to revert their deletions, and to continue making constructive edits to the Wiki. A simple review of my contributions will show that the information I present is unbiased, well referenced, and constructive. I have not reverted an edit, I have reverted wholesale deletes of an entire article that has since been nominated for deletion, deleted anyway, and converted to a forward. I fail to understand how a consensus on a dispute can be reached when the article is being wiped every few hours. So I have reverted the page clearing in an attempt to continue making constructive edits, and to allow the discussion to continue for at least seven days per wiki guidelines. If that is an issue, then I will refrain in future, and instead find more constructive, if also more time consuming, methods to combat what I feel is agressive behavior on the part of the editors in question.|decline={{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed|1=A number of users have wholesale deleted content from an article I created. I have numerous times attempted to revert their deletions, and to continue making constructive edits to the Wiki. A simple review of my contributions will show that the information I present is unbiased, well referenced, and constructive. I have not reverted an edit, I have reverted wholesale deletes of an entire article that has since been nominated for deletion, deleted anyway, and converted to a forward. I fail to understand how a consensus on a dispute can be reached when the article is being wiped every few hours. So I have reverted the page clearing in an attempt to continue making constructive edits, and to allow the discussion to continue for at least seven days per wiki guidelines. If that is an issue, then I will refrain in future, and instead find more constructive, if also more time consuming, methods to combat what I feel is agressive behavior on the part of the editors in question.|accept=Accept reason here ~~~~}}

Neuro, you've made it very clear at this point that you are not looking to discuss anything. You are looking for people to agree with you. Anyone who doesn't is promptly told that they are wrong, you are right. You've also made it clear that because of this, no one will be able to convince you that you're wrong. Now, maybe you're not wrong. Maybe you're completely right. But at some point, you have to realize that you're arguing with the community that developed the original research policy and the three-revert rule. You are seeking redress from administrators who are philosophically incapable of agreeing with your edits or your behavior. So you have a choice. You can continue to tilt at the windmill until you're banned from Misplaced Pages, or your can learn to assume good faith, resolve disputes, and drop the assumption that you know more about Misplaced Pages policies than those who have been here for years. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's my issue. I attempt to contribute to the Wiki. Before my work is up for two hours, it has been unilaterally wiped down to a redirect. No discussion, no time period, no anything. Just gone. Who am I supposed to resolve a dispute with if they don't even notify me they have a dispute. How can a dispute be resolved unilaterally by one editor in a matter of an hour or less? Can you understand my frustration? I am trying to contribute what I, and others, feel is notable information. I have spent hours researching, referencing, and editing prior to posting anything. Then it gets wiped without an articulated reason minutes or hours later. Neuromancer (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would ask that you extend to me the same level of respect. Please review Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Alternative Views before trying to wholesale delete information because you do not share the same viewpoint. The purpose of Alternative HIV viewpoints is to present a notable viewpoint which lacks widespread acceptance. There is no reason to delete it.

• Alternative views: This project aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant "alternative views"—those theories, hypotheses, conjectures, and speculations which, though notable, lack widespread acceptance, and which may challenge a "dominant view" which does have such acceptance. The project encompasses alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities.
• "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Misplaced Pages, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies."

Neuromancer, Someguy is an old AIDS orthodoxy guy, you will not get justice from him. I recognize his username from old discussions. They block anyone that tried to change anything on the AIDS-HIV pages, they are thrilled with reverting everything you do so that you are blocked, but they don't get blocked because they trade off amongst themselves. It's bullying in numbers. A reasonable, good-faith editor can go nuts here. When you are allowed to edit again, maybe you can help with the House of Numbers page, in which they will not allow even a normal synopsis (see my attempted, perfectly neutral edits). Thanks. Mister Hospodar (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no cabal. JoeSmack 20:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Unblock on hold