Misplaced Pages

User talk:Second Quantization: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:36, 24 July 2012 editEdwardsBot (talk | contribs)354,693 edits →The Signpost: 23 July 2012: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 17:56, 24 July 2012 edit undoKurdo777 (talk | contribs)5,050 edits →Drive-by revertNext edit →
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 387: Line 387:
</div> </div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0304 --> <!-- EdwardsBot 0304 -->

== Drive-by revert ==
Drive-by reverts are seen as disruptive in Misplaced Pages, specially when you don't seem to know anything about the topic, per your own admission. It is very likely that you were asked to do a drive-by revert by User:Binksternet, with whom you have had a lot of interactions, which is itself a violation of several Misplaced Pages polices. In any case, '''I did not not make any new changes''', I simply restored what had been removed, well-sourced material that is, without a discussion earlier. Here is of the page. So if your concern is really about "bold changes without discussion", you should bring that up with the person who had removed the content in question quietly, earlier without any discussion, despite the fact that several proposals to remove the phrase in question, had all been rebuffed earlier, and there was no consensus for such "bold, disputed changes" as you put it, to begin with. Also, Binksternet is the one engaged in edit-warring, and his position is an extreme minority viewpoint according to Misplaced Pages policy, not the other way. Try looking up "" on Google books and you'll see what I mean. There are literally thousands of academic sources backing this, and that clearly makes Binksternet's position ] in comparison. ] (]) 17:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:56, 24 July 2012

Archive 1,2,3,4

Possible content fork

Archetypal astrology seems to me to be a content fork of Cosmos and Psyche. It was also created by Goethean. What do you think? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, again the sourcing in this article is very peculiar. For example, it looks like it's making large claims about therapists practicing astrology but sourcing it to "The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism". I notice a complete absense of sources outside of the in-universe sourcing (I wonder if it is even notable?). The article is a complete violation of WP:FRINGE and presents fringe views uncritically and without any regard for the mainstream positions. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
i've put it up for AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Vassula Ryden". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talk • contribs)

WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups

Hi IRWolfie

You may not have seen that we now have a sub-page of RSN where massive overuse of poor or dubious sources can be flagged up and dealt with. We have been looking at Answers in Genesis, and are now making some progess. I was thinking that you might like to look at the science articles where it was used; those are now all cleaned up, but there are still quite a lot of articles that relate to the argument over young earth creationism and "intelligent design". If you want to cast your eye over them you may have suggestions on what is needed. You may also want to comment on the processes that we are trying to develop. Best wishes. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested and will try and get up to speed with this. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

GreenUniverse clean up

I think you may be going a bit overboard. Where's the copyvio in this?. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say there was, but the text is from a banned sockpuppet with copyright concerns Misplaced Pages:Contributor_copyright_investigations/GreenUniverse. I can't verify the content myself as I don't have access. If you have verified it isn't a copyright violation feel free to restore the text. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletionism

You asked that I not use the term "deletionist" as a label. Why not? It has a long history of usage. -Stevertigo (t | c) 17:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The article you link to says it all: "rather the term is often applied as a slur". IRWolfie- (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Right. Its more of a "label" than a "slur." -Stevertigo (t | c) 18:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
No, these were yours : it should be discredited or othewise shot down whenever it is expressed. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Youre pulling the quote out of context: The "it" its referring to is: "This philosophy is extremely anti-wiki and it should be discredited or othewise shot down whenever it is expressed..."
Note that Bloodofox routinely refers to the AFD as a "steaming pile." Hence the label. If you were fair, you would correct his terminology as well. -Stevertigo (t | c) 18:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The article is pure SYNTH and OR without any reliable sources on the topic. I don't think referring to an article as a steaming pile is contentious and is not directed at users. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
So, you don't pretend to be impartial, even though you closed the vote section as if you were an impartial admin. -Stevertigo (t | c) 18:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, I was WP:BOLD and closed it because speculating on vote counts (purely on the basis of counting) is clearly pulling the AfD off the issue (and the title discussion). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Partisan is a very bizarre choice of words for a revert, it suggests a battlefield mentality. Please justify why you reverted the collapse considering that it has no bearing on the AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Why do people only say something is "pulling the AFD off the issue" when things aren't going their way? The word partisan is meant to describe anyone who is not neutral on an issue, in this case it applies to you as you are clearly a delete voted, and to me as well as I am clearly a merge voter. Your characterization of the vote as " no bearing" is beyond wrong: Despite your claim that votes mean nothing, we take votes all the time, in case you hadn't noticed - and we take votes to get a firm gauge of where people are at on an issue, and to base consensus. -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


The discussion is precisely going along the lines that I voted. Since You posted your tally a further six votes have been made for delete, including Jimbo Wales himself commenting that he would vote strong delete. Still I think vote counting is irrelevant. We base the consensus off the strength of the arguments, not on the strength of the numbers, looking at the numbers and declaring no consensus is meaningless. The clearest example is with copyright violation, 1 AfD delete vote pointing out copyright violation trumps any number of keep arguments. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Biology and politics

I've unwatched the article. I can't work with Academica Orientalis. I hope you'll be able to use some of the sources I've pointed out to introduce some neutrality in to his POV jungle. Academica used to have an editing restriction due to tendentious editing in the area of nature/nurture, race, intelligence and politics, but I guess he doesn't anymore. Same behavior though. He started out as an SPA in the race and intelligence area, but branched into general nature nurture and chinese technology after the arbcom case. He is very good at finding sources that support his biologically deterministic viewpoint, but somehow he is always surprised when you point out that there is a large body of literature that disagrees, and he will challenge you to find it as if he doesn't believe it exists, and he will never include it himself even if you point him towards it. This means that any article he has ever worked on (except perhaps his China/Techonology articles which I haven't cared to check) are entirely one-sided pieces of propaganda. Good luck.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't throw in the towel yet. There appear to be a number of other editors trying to improve the article. I will check out any relevant arb com dealings as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The article is a mess, I've put it up for AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Better Referencing

You might want to take a look at what I did to the Moberg / Greer Research in the scientific study of religion citation. Note how I added a direct link to Google Books to make it easy to check the citation. Also note how I trimmed down the Google Books URL to just the "id=" and the "pg="; Google adds a lot of unneeded stuff to Google books URLs. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Your AE complaint

It is likely that WP:AE#GDallimore will be closed with no action. The sanctions under WP:ARBPS are still available and they could be used, if evidence shows that some editors need them. The admins who reviewed the two recent AEs have not been persuaded by the copyright arguments. If you see a repeated effort by people to insert links to pseudoscience material in articles where they don't appear germane, that might be the valid subject of an AE. Proper evidence would have to be lined up, so that the case is clear. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought that the copyvio issue was severe enough for enforcement (i.e give an official warning), considering the different opinions at AE it appears I was mistaken about how clear cut it is. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Concern over one of your article edits - the Zarkja ref to Carlson

This is a discussion on the Astrology talk page concerning an edit you made see http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Astrology#Appraising_the_content_of_the_.E2.80.98Modern_scientific_appraisal.E2.80.99_section I've suggested three ways that the concern can be easily resolved. Since you added the disputed content to the page, I wanted to make sure you are aware of the discussion and are able to contribute to the discussion. -- Zac Δ 12:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to that earlier point. With regard to your latest comment on expanding, I want to reassure you personally that I am pleased to hear it. It would benefit the article a great deal to have a good, accurate and impressive account of what the modern scientific appraisal is. If I seem critical of details in the current content it's because I want to help establish content that no one can contest, because its strength is in its accurate reporting of notable points from good quality references. That seems to me the only way to put an end to the edit-warring and controversies that have been going on for years. And until that happens the rest of the article suffers. Other sections, such as the history sections, don't get attention they should. I see a number of problems in the current content of the 'science' section but don't want to throw them all up at once. I'll slow down a little, since if you are working on developing the content you might be fixing some of the problems any way. -- Zac Δ 21:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

History of astrology

I've just reverted Zachariel's changes to History of Astrology per BRD. Could you take a look through his changes and see if there's anything of merit in them that can be saved? Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

it does seem to contain the most favourable aspect of the sources while ignoring the less favourable elements. I was planning to work through the article rigorously, after looking at the scientific section at astrology, to bring it towards NPOV. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

Deletion review for Mundane astrology

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mundane astrology. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I was advised that this might be the best place to discuss the matter. It's a messy situation and I'm aiming for a non-problematic fix. Not sure who needs to be informed, but will inform you and the two other editors who have commented on the talk page of the article since this happened: Itsmejudith and Other Choices -- Zac Δ 22:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A kitten for you, for being an all-around nice person.

Guy Macon (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. :) I just want to note that I also hope you have not taken anything I said in DRN etc to reflect on you, as it doesn't and that is never my intention. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Your behavior on DRN has been exemplary. I expect participants to argue their positions forcefully. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I appreciate your defense of the Undue Weight clause of our Neutral Point of View policy. Thank you! MONGO 23:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Hi There, thanks for the advice on the proper way to deal with the dispute on the noahs ark article. Newbie to dealing with disputes.. maybe not a great place to start being bold! JeffUK (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer

I see you've been doing some mass deletions on this article. Are you trying to find secondary sources before you do these deletions? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been tagged with the issues for 3 years and it's not been fixed in that time. I find it highly unlikely that most of this content on the opinions of Fetzer can be sourced, we have tens of thousands of bytes dedicated to his views, most of which are primary sourced. In reality his views probably have nowhere near that sort of weight and can probably be summarized in about 3 paragraphs. It appears a lot of the content was added by the topic of the content as well. I see you are willing to accept the WP:BURDEN though. I think rather than your restoration, a better approach is to whittle away the primary sourced sections etc and build an article that is actually based on what the secondary sources say. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
There also appears to only be about 3 or 4 non-primary, non-self-published sources actually in use in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
You've been working on this article for 3 years now? Or did you just happen to see it today on the Fringe theory noticeboard like I did? No, I didn't say anything about burden, but since you brought it up, I'll point out that it's already met: WP:Burden refers to unsourced content. This material is sourced. The issue is whether there are secondary sources to provide weight. Again, I ask, did you bother to try to find secondary sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Because, at first glance, it appears as if you're just indiscriminently deleting content without performing due diligence in finding secondary sources. I hope I'm wrong though. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I did a search to find secondary sources about Fryer and found there are numerous people called James Fetzer. On this search there is no stand out sources. But again, enough for a few sentences not for the current volumes. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Again it appears as if you are indescriminately deleting content without first putting forth a legitimate effort to find secondary sources. It only took a few minutes for me to compile this list:
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I was admittedly very boldy (per WP:BRD feel free to revert and discuss), but I don't think the content I removed was particularly encyclopaedic and I think the level of content was over the top. If there was a small amount of text primary sourced, maybe one or two pargraphs, I think it would be reasonable to keep and look for the sources. But the entire article consists of it. I think a far better approach is to start from the reliable sources and work from there. The sources above are not great. This one is primary . This one is a one line mention: . Passing mention . Primary . Err this is a comment in a comment section . One paragraph mention . passing mention: . passing mention . passing mention . Two paragraphs . Is this source reliable ? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Bell's theorem

I don't wan't to drag this out - but only noticed this post just now (havn't been on WP much latley). I appreciate your concern, though I did deserve it to some level as egoistic, and don't think its particularly "uncivil". Thank you anyway. =) F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑ici 17:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries :). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquette question

I'm a little puzzled on that Wikiquette with Nenpog and Guy. I agree that it appears Nenpog is being rather relentless in his continued quest to find people who agree with him, but after a while, popping up and tossing the 'forumshopper' bomb on Nenpog has to cross a threshold from helpful to hounding, and same thing for Nenpog. After a point his shopping must cross a line from just picking up some milk to getting groceries for a week. My impression is that both of them are currently on a path that will lead to the both of them being blocked, and at Wikiquette the goal is to de-escalate. -- Avanu (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nenpog joined the IRC channel and thought that a doctor of having a conflict of interest on CT scanners for working in a hospital that owns a CT scanner. He refused to acknowledge that this is not the case when it was pointed out how silly that would be. He then proceeded to present his evidence for his content to those in the channel (at one point I think he asked for COIs, he asked for any potential COIs from me later anyway): a draft, non-peer reviewed paper which had open comments, of which some were criticisms saying that it should undergo a technical review! Note that the claims he wants to add are WP:EXCEPTIONAL and also require WP:MEDRS. After refusing to concede that the source was not reliable for the purpose he pushed the point for some time and was completely unwilling to back down. Also note that when the respective COIN section was closed and after his visit to the IRC channel he then moved to the talk page, this was after being told numerous times that there was no COI. The accusation of incivility on Guy Macon's part is just another step in moving things to multiple noticeboards. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, we'll see. I don't see a good outcome on this if things don't change. Someone is highly likely to get banned or blocked at some point. -- Avanu (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Notable

The comment below appears to be a response to IRWolfie asking "Hi, do you not think a village Narband of 98 with no secondary sources covering it beyond a list showing it's existence is a bit of a stretch for notability?" --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC) --- All villages are notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is that in the policies and guidelines? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
A wikilawyer, huh? Read Misplaced Pages:Notability (geography) and WP:OUTCOMES and stop wasting people's time with things that have been well decided long ago and repeatedly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Accusations of wikilaywering are uncalled for. Pointing to essays is also not very convincing (Misplaced Pages:ITEXISTS#Existence if you wish). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The relevant policy appears to be:
WP:NGEO:
"..On Misplaced Pages, the notability of some geographical places is sometimes called into question. The purpose of this page is to define the existing consensus on geographical article inclusion, to avoid wasting time on unnecessary AFDs, and to provide general guidance to those wondering about the notability of a given piece of geography.
 'Populated, legally-recognized places' are, by a very large consensus, considered notable, even if the population is very low. It is important though, when notability is challenged, to reliably document that a place is legally recognized in some way. Examples include government recognition of the place as a municipality or region, or recognition by a government agency such as the United States Census Bureau as a place (in this specific case, it would be called a census-designated place). AFDs of articles where no one disputes that the place legally exists are almost always closed early by overwhelming consensus to keep."

Looking at Narband, it appears that being on the GEOnet Names Server does not by itself establish notability, because GNS has no procedure for removing entries that are later found not to exist.

The Census of the Islamic Republic of Iran does appear to establish notability, unless Iran has a later census the does not include the village (a brief Google search did not turn up any later Iranian census. Does anyone know how often they take them?). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

My primary reason for asking was that it didn't seem inherently a notable place and the references didn't do a lot to reassure me, but it seems I was unaware that villages are all presumed to be notable automatically (which seems rather strange to me). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I also am of the opinion that it is silly, but that's the policy. Carlossuarez46 should have explained himself rather than being uncivil. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi IRWolfie, Thank you for your talk on my previous creation on myself. This is Paul Lee who wants to create an article on myself trying since yesterday. Please help me to make it possible to create a fair article on myself with mentioned my publications. Thank you again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plee223 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Computed Tomography

No it would not, it would be edit warring to insert the above content. Do not encourage other editors to edit war when they can get blocked for doing so. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Help me: who decides on whether this is relevant information? I think I know the subject and I think it is very relevant and I believe anyone involved in the technicalities would (and especially if the article mentions Radon transform and the like). No interest to start a war, but some guidance would be helpful. Jaeljojo (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
jaeljojo, go to the talk page, open a thread, and discuss your case about why you think it should be included. We discuss new content on talk pages after an addition is reverted, we don't try and re-insert the text until there is consensus amongst the editors. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Photosynthesis

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Photosynthesis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi IRWolfie – re France's_Songs_of_the_Bards_of_the_Tyne_-_1850

I don’t accept your comments. The primary reason behind the article was to list the songs, detail the writers and tunes where given, so that anyone researching can compare songs and songbooks etc. and has an instant list. We are now left with an empty almost useless shell, a bit like a dictionary with the words removed because they get in the way of the preface and appendices. I would suggest you consider replacing the contents section. However, regarding the cover sheet, this would be better as an image, but I have no image, or access to one, can you help ? Alanfromwakefield (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I still think you should consider moving the text to wikisource. You can add it to wikisource and then add a link to that in the article. I removed it because it is indiscriminate information. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Jenova20

I award this Barnstar to IRWolfie- for scratching my back and breaking up a deadlock on Exodus International. If you have an itch then let me know and i'll repay the favour! ツ Jenova20 10:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
You earned it fair and square and ended a tough stand-off. Thanks ツ Jenova20 10:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
It stands for "back Scratcher" and not "bull Shit" apparently =P. Good job there's a message attached lol. Have a nice day ツ Jenova20 10:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_assistance#Wikiquette_violation_in_summary

Request to change your reason there. Per reasons given. It comes out as im in the wrong (perception or whatever), which is not what the other respondents said.Lihaas (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing the 9/11 conspiracy theories talk page

Hello,

You undid my revision 501377730 on this page. Your note said only, "Discuss substiantial changes to the FAQ" and yet where is the "discuss" or "discussion"? I see none.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories page is very biased, not the slightest bit impartial, and does not conform to Misplaced Pages's principles of impartiality. The explosive controlled demolition theory is very well documented and is in fact what really happened to the World Trade Center. Anybody with an open mind and average to above average intelligence can see this. Nobody who refuses to look at the evidence can know it though.

It is a major disservice to Misplaced Pages users all over the world for this page to be so biased, false and misleading.

Being new to this I do not know all the rules. However, what is the reason for your undoing my revision? When and where is this so called "Discuss substiantial changes to the FAQ" going to take place, if ever? Do you really intend to have a discussion or do you just want to undo my edits?

I have more additions / edits to offer on this page.

What is next?

Beasley Reece (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There are no wikipedia principles of impartiality. Misplaced Pages instead uses NPOV which isn't the same thing. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Or simply put, it's what you can prove, not what you know. ツ Jenova20 11:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Exodus

Hey buddy, thanks for handling that plagiarism at Exodus. See you around... – Lionel 03:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Quick question. Is having Chambers in "Love Won Out" duplicative? I mean, we have the same content covered extensively just 3 paragraphs above. You know, I don't he's even talking about LWO. – Lionel 08:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The love won out stuff doesn't appear to have a direct link to the topic, so I've removed it. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie can you discuss the removal of the Love Won Out section since it is directly related to Exodus? Surprise surprise, Lionel is involved ツ Jenova20 09:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look at it again later. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Jenova, your animus is unnecessary, because to an extent I agree with you. LWO is relevant to Exodus. But there is no source linking Chambers to LWO. Thus Chambers should not be in LWO. – Lionel 09:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't restore the entire thing because of those concerns. If you can read what i restored you can see i only readded material directly relevant to Exodus ツ Jenova20 10:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you.– Lionel 10:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I find it strange how your attitude is so much different here than compared to the hostile one on other pages we have had contact on today Lionel, any explanation? ツ Jenova20 10:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no necessity to continue along this line. The issue is currently solved for the moment, let's leave it at that. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Prod template

Please see and comment here if you wish. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

Edit in Manuka honey

This edit appears troublesome as it uses unreliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

ANSWER :

12 sources added in the edit that you removed, including 10 from scientists / university people (as reliable as the ones that were there before, and if you don't think so, pls say why) + 2 from industry practice for the conversion table and for the meaning of UMF15+.

Also note that "To be labelled mānuka honey, honey should have a mānuka pollen count of at least 70%" is nonsense : no honey contains 70% pollen. On that point, one of the added sources, which you removed, only corroborated what this is supposed to mean while the edit was clarifying this nonsensical statement.

Nonsense too are the claims that there is not enough clinical studies about honey (google scholar, "clinical studies manuka honey" : 943 results). It is also biased to not mention that it has been government-approved as medicine by USA and New Wealand - and others but I did not have time to look for which ones precisely, apart from what I deemed unreliable sources, so I did not mention it. Please explain what there is in that that you deem "unreliable".

All the added sources, which you rejected in block, are verifiable online. Please precise which sources exactly are "unreliable" according to you, and why you deem them so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.196.207.202 (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Break your proposal into pieces and discuss them on the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
An answer to this has been started in the relevant talk page. So far it includes the following points :
  • "You are relying on individual studies" - false;
  • "the reviews used in the original article" - a critic;

The breaking down of the proposed edit into pieces and discussion of each point, ref by ref :

  • classified as a Therapeutic Good in Australia, and approval from the US Federal Drug Administration in 2007 - let me add for this one that I find you removal unworthy of any discussion; if you disagree with honey as an official part of the medicinal array, you should take it up with the relevant government agencies, and until they decide to abide by your views you should either put back this information in the article here or let them be put back without further interference.
  • Mānuka honey thixotropic, highest viscosity among a range of studied honeys. This is its main visually defining character;
  • To be labelled mānuka honey, at least 70% of its pollen content should come from Leptospermum scoparium;
  • Honey has long been used as a healing agent;
  • more than 70 microbial species having shown susceptibility to it;
  • Its efficiency is due to hydrogen peroxide antibacterial components (considerably affected by heating) and to two antibacterial agents called inhibidines (not affected by heating).
More will follow. Please read my arguments and explain with as much attention as I have done for each of these points what it is in them that you deem "unreliable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.196.201.24 (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Re-thinking the approach, some points cannot possibly be justified for removal. Starting with a "description" section, separated from the "food section". This has been put back. So has the classified as a Therapeutic Good in Australia, and approval from the US Federal Drug Administration in 2007; Mānuka honey thixotropic, highest viscosity among a range of studied honeys. This is its main visually defining character; and To be labelled mānuka honey, at least 70% of its pollen content should come from Leptospermum scoparium;. You'll probably find these inocuous enough to let them be. All in all, anything that I think you'll probably find inocuous will be put back; that'll leave only the medicial aspect to be discussed, which will save time and possibly temperaments... (of course I found a block removal of all the edit a gross and unjustifiable approach! So let's assume that you can do better.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.196.201.24 (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Nenpog vs. Guy Macon, Doc James, and Yobol. 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—

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review

It's best not to attempt to counter every argument. I've responded to one that specifically challenged the language I used, but I've been fairly quiet otherwise. It's a good strategy. Too much argumentation begins to derail the discussion.—Kww(talk) 10:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, good point. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

RFAR request rejected

Per this, the RFAR request that you were listed as a party in was rejected and closed. - Penwhale | 12:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Exodus Funding

Hi Wolfie, not sure if this is even that noteworthy but Exodus International receives funding to operate from the Chick-fil-A franchise apparently, which is garnering media attention as homophobic. Your opinion? (is important) Thanks ツ Jenova20 15:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about this topic at all, but you can leave a comment on the talk page showing the sources and the proposed text etc so that other editors, me included, can see what is proposed. Alternatively, editors are always welcomed to be WP:BOLD and make a change, and see how that works out. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah...i'm pretty sure any bold edit to Exodus is likely to be reverted pretty quick. Don't worry about it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 16:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
You can propose text on the talk page, showing what sources are used (see WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY for the kind of sources to look for). Involved primary sources probably won't have a lot of weight (and you are unlikely to find many tertiary sources). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll think it over. I may just leave it and see if it develops anything more first. Thanks for your advice ツ Jenova20 18:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I need to e-mail you ASAP

I need to e-mail you ASAP concerning this: . America69 (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That particular WQA has already been archived here: Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_assistance/archive120#Assistance_concerning_user_America69_undoing_edits_I_made_and_threatening_banning_me. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your input and response. I'm laughing over here, and also trying to refrain from being baited into furthering the discussion. I wish there was a "Don't be a prick" policy, and a "Can't wait till they grow up" criteria! There needs to be a mirror that the user can look into and see their own behavior, from the rest of the worlds perspective? Cheers!--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 02:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams - New Jersey Guardianship case

Hi there, I noticed that you had removed a section I included on the Stephanie Adams article and was hoping for some clarification. This related to a court case that Adams had pursued and related to obtaining guardianship over a person who had originally been Adam's own guardian, when she was a child. My understanding of the reason for the deletion is that it is not considered a news item. I was surprised by this as I thought it was a notable event in the subject's life. I would be grateful for any clarification you can provide. Thank you, Fbell74 (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability is the requirement for articles to exist. Not content in an article. This sort of newspaper coverage of a recent event is the sort of information that gets covered at wikinews, not in an encyclopedia. If it has a lasting impact to justify inclusion then there would be more reliable sources over a more prolonged period. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

Drive-by revert

Drive-by reverts are seen as disruptive in Misplaced Pages, specially when you don't seem to know anything about the topic, per your own admission. It is very likely that you were asked to do a drive-by revert by User:Binksternet, with whom you have had a lot of interactions, which is itself a violation of several Misplaced Pages polices. In any case, I did not not make any new changes, I simply restored what had been removed, well-sourced material that is, without a discussion earlier. Here is an older version of the page. So if your concern is really about "bold changes without discussion", you should bring that up with the person who had removed the content in question quietly, earlier without any discussion, despite the fact that several proposals to remove the phrase in question, had all been rebuffed earlier, and there was no consensus for such "bold, disputed changes" as you put it, to begin with. Also, Binksternet is the one engaged in edit-warring, and his position is an extreme minority viewpoint according to Misplaced Pages policy, not the other way. Try looking up "Mossadegh+democratically-elected" on Google books and you'll see what I mean. There are literally thousands of academic sources backing this, and that clearly makes Binksternet's position WP:Fringe in comparison. Kurdo777 (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)