Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:25, 1 May 2006

'Bold text'Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Misplaced Pages documentation, there's also Misplaced Pages:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Anser 4 July 2005 11:21 (UTC)

Chinese language

No, the topic of the article in question is the Sinitic (Chinese) languages, not the Sino-Tibetan languages. Other Sino-Tibetan languages such as Tibetan and Burmese are much further removed from the Chinese languages than the Chinese languages are from each other; in fact the very grouping of "Sino-Tibetan" is rather tentative. As for your vague statement about the "language of Guangxi", there are at least five languages spoken in Guangxi (Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, Pinghua, Zhuang), of which only Zhuang is Tai-Kadai (like the Thai language), and as such it is not even Chinese. -- ran (talk) July 4, 2005 17:19 (UTC)

I don't see where I reverted your edits to Chinese language. can you link and maybe we can then discuss?

FYI, I reverted your edit at Wenlin Software for learning Chinese. If you would like the article deleted, please use wikipedia:votes for deletion. Cheers, --Jiang 8 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)

When an article gets nominated for deletion, people can vote whether they would like to keep or delete the article. And unless there is a majority of about 70% supporting deletion, the article gets kept. So, while you think the article is an ad, others thought it was a fine article that should be kept, so the nomination didn't got the necessary amount of deletion votes. I just closed the nomination based on the votes I read, it is not my task to decide whether the article is an ad or not, that is up to the community.

Theoretically you can always nominate an article for deletion, but there is no point in renominating an article if nothing really happened since the last nominante that would change the mind of the voters. So, renominating again with the reason "this is an ad" would quite likely yield the same result as last time. --Conti|✉ 21:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Plurality electoral system

Please see Talk:Plurality electoral system. Notinasnaid 22:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Annie Emily Lawrence

I didn't propose the deletion (Doc glasgow did), although I don't object to it. I think the article is just genealogical info and I don't see why that person is important for Tasmanian history. I know nothing about Tasmanian history, so I just put up a tag asking that somebody should please explain why she is important enough to be included. I wouldn't mind her being mentioned in Early squatters in Tasmania, but I don't see why she should have her own article. While I agree that this kind of information is useful for local historians, I disagree that it belongs in an encyclopedia WikiTree is probably a better place for these things. Kusma (討論) 16:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Kusma, I didn't know of wikitree and having seen your arguments am inclined now to agree with them. Mccready 16:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Drusen

Nice. You are not wrong about anti-vaccinationists. Midgley 01:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic

I just wanted to let you know that I think you are doing a fine job of keeping your head under increasing rubbish from the pro-chiropractic lobby. It is difficult fighting for evidence-based medicine at the best of times. I appreciate your work. Maustrauser 09:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Mccready's unprofessional behaviour at Misplaced Pages

Mccready I have some very serious concerns about your editing, and the article about Chiropractic.

I, and others, make changes with explanations that we feel are more NPOV and you revert them with warnings - - your way or the highway!

It has become an impossible situation for those of us who are trying to present a neutral, informative article. It seems to me you are creating a soapbox for your very anti-chiropractic POV.

You and Fyslee, have sprinkled links to other references that you have created around Misplaced Pages, which you use as proof of your POV. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/Crank

This in IMO is seriously damaging the Wikipedian experience for me and probably for others. I have tried to open a dialogue with you, but you evade my queries as to your motives. We are just trying to maintain the basic principle of Misplaced Pages - NPOV.

I am sorry but you leave me no choice but to register a complaint about this unfortunate situation Steth 14:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic

I want to warn you that edit summaries such as if ombudsman or steth revert again without discussion I will escalate this disupte- the revert on fees was gratuitous are unacceptable. Please do not call other poeple's edits vandalism when they clearly are not (you are having an editorial dispute). I would stongly recommand you to read and abide by WP:CIVIL.

Also, calling a person a crank without providing reliable sources is not acceptable, violates WP:NPOV and our guideline on no including defamations, unless adequatly sourced. —Ruud 17:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation at Chiropractic

Hi, you violated the three-revert rule on Chiropractic. I have disabled your editing permissions for 24 hours. Please read our guide on dispute resolution during the time you are unable to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Feel free to return after your block expires, but take your differences to the talk page and please refrain from edit warring. Cheers, —Ruud 18:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of admin privileges

User:R_Koot has abused his admin privileges by blocking me for my edits on the NPOV tagged Chiropractic. It is possible that User:Steth requested this. It appears Koot has failed to review the edits, failed to review the talk page, failed to examine whether my edits were justified and failed to discuss. I would be grateful if an administrator could look into this. Mccready 19:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How exactly would bocking you for a 3RR vio constitute "abuse of admin privileges"? —Ruud 19:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You have obviously taken sides in the dispute on Chiropractic. 3rr states "Except in cases of spam and vandalism, an administrator should not block users for 3RR if they themselves have reverted that user's edits on that page. Instead, administrators in this situation should make a request at the administrators' noticeboard if they believe 3RR has been broken."

Since you decided, without adequate research it appears, to revert my edits you have breached the above rule.

Please unblock me and follow policy. Mccready 19:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And exactly how are steth's edits vandalismand those made by you not? —Ruud 19:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be responding too quickly to have had time to review this adquately. You have not addressed the issue of your violation, instead you begin to ask me questions. I have never been accused of vandalism. Your ostensible reason for blocking me was 3RR. Nonetheless I am happy to explain to you again as I have done in an email which you have already responded to:

Steth and others made wholesale reverts which reverted good edits by other editors. They have also indulged in abuse and demanded answers to questions about my private life.

They failed to discuss their reverts. They simply asserted their view was correct.

"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. " Steth expulsion of science from the article, his failure to understand "crank" etc are good examples of vandalism.

Please take time to review the case in more detail before you respond again. You might like to check my edit on other pages too." I have not indulged in this behaviour and have only tried to construct a better article. May I also remind you of further WP policy since you indulged yourself in reverting my edits: "Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. Generally, caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith."

Now I urge you again to please take time to consider and remove the block Mccready 19:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Another note on vandalism

Further support for my view that Steth and others are vandals

--Leifern 21:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC) wrote on the vandalism discussion page:

The definition of vandalism in the first section states: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." It seems pretty clear to me that anyone who reverts or deletes entire sections of articles based on an objection to a single piece of the whole, is deliberately compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia. This happens in four ways that are similar to all other forms of vandalism:

• Content that is valuable and useful gets deleted outright
• Content that may be wrong is deleted rather than edited for clarity or precision
• Editors get discouraged
• A loophole is created for POV-pushing, as the vandal can simply revert back to his/her version on any minor pretext. "

I agree with Leifern. Mccready 20:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Natural selection

I saw your comment about the opening. I made a recent edit, so you may be commenting on what I did (actually, I did not add anything I ever wrote; I effectively reverted to an earlier version of the first sentence). If your objection is not to what I did, then you are referring to edits made by User:Marcosantezana. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your recent comment to Marcosantezena. I am afraid that, based on the past three months, your comment will have absolutely no effect. M. simply does not respect other editors and does not care what they think. I hope you will continue to help out with Natural Selection, but if you do, you should look at this request for arbitration which spells out a long history of problems. And I can assure you, this request was not made lightly. It was made by an editor who joined us after Marco already antagonized several other editors, who ended up dropping out - made by an editor who really tried to reason with Marco and give him the benefit of the doubt, and who then attempted to request mediation which Marco refused ... Slrubenstein | Talk 11:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Re introductory sentence: "The claims of homeopathy have not been proved to the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine." Seems to me that a) not clear what claims are meant b) scientists would rarely claim that anything is proved c) much conventional medicine does not meet the standards of EBM, and so these are WP "weasel words". d) unfortunate to use prove in different senses in this article.

I think that homeopathy is utterly without foundation, but I think this sentence is POV. Suggest it should be rephrased and moved to section on scientific validity?Gleng 12:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree, happy for you to reword. I think it should be in the top of the article, though. Yes, can't prove a negative. Mccready 02:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

NatSel

I am sorry, but there has been so much change at that page, that I do not know which version you are refering to. KimvdLinde 14:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 18:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Complaint about Koot

Complaints about admins do not belong on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I have removed your complaint. To enable you to reuse the text if you wish, you can find it at User:Mccready/Abuse of admin privileges.

To make a complaint about an administrator's behaviour, please use one (and only one) of the following:

• WP:AN/I
• WP:RFC
• WP:RFAR
• WP:RFDA

Regards, Stifle 12:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nortman

Well, I left him a sunny and well-intentioned message warning about bulk reverting and reminding him to assume good faith. I hope that's the last we hear of it, but if it continues, you have my full support should you decide to file an RFC. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. Oh well, after taking a storm for being pro-homeopathy now I'm the anti-homeopathy crusader. You have my support for an RFCGleng 20:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Re Steth

I've left this on Steth's page. This isn't perfect I know but, the intention is to keep EBM in the lead without implicitly suggesting that no EBM means that all chiropractic is rubbish. There does seem to be a wide spectrum in chiropractic as far as I can see, from (what I would think of as)faith-based nonsense to some who are working close to medicine and within a science based/conventional medicine framework. This spectrum isn't really reflected in the article yet. Hi Steth. AS you know I try to keep neutral and think that all editors have a legitimate role to play. I think that both you and Mccready have valid points; the wording below is a suggestion that reflects article content but doesn't seek to imply that chiropractic is without value. I think it would be good if both of you could put a stormy history behind you and accept as I believe that you are both working honestly and conscientiously in trying to be fair, however imperfect our efforts are sometimes. "Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine, but many medical doctors are willing to refer their patients to properly qualified chiropractors." Gleng 15:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gleng,

You write:

"There does seem to be a wide spectrum in chiropractic as far as I can see, from (what I would think of as)faith-based nonsense to some who are working close to medicine and within a science based/conventional medicine framework. This spectrum isn't really reflected in the article yet."

You are quite right. Unfortunately User:Steth, User:Levine2112, User:TheDoctorIsIn, and others (likely sock puppets), have consistently removed the only aspect of chiropractic that is openly scientific, which is the reform wing, represented by the NACM. The reform section was larger, but they keep removing it, and have openly claimed that it didn't even deserve mention. So the 2% of chiropractors in the organization (the ACA only has 15%) wouldn't even be allowed representation, if these editors got their way. That would leave the article to voice the views of the outdated (but still largely held) subluxation-based, biotheological, pseudoscientific, and anti-scientific fringe, represented by the ICA and WCA (about the same number as the NACM). That means that any included criticisms that point out this unscientific position are even more justified. They can't have it both ways. They represent the "faith-based nonsense", while the NACM represents those "who are working close to medicine and within a science based/conventional medicine framework. This spectrum isn't really reflected in the article yet." These editors are the reason why the scientific aspect" (a minority position) "isn't being represented in the article. -- Fyslee 20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was editing as you were writing so this is before reading your message PS Just to say that, although we've had honest disagreenments from time to time, I'm deeply appreciative of your commitment and rigor in trying to maintain high standards of verifiability and authority. I have done a check on PubMed; there is a study in Australia that shows that doctors there are more likely to believe that chiropractic is harmful than believe it is likely to be helpful, and other studies showing that in practice doctors do not often refer patients. However probably most doctors have no strong opinion - haven't seen the full texts. However there are also studies that seem to be reasonably strong that indicate that for some conditions chiropractic manipulation is demonstrably beneficial. This fits with what I've been advised - that for some conditions it's effective, but if there's no acute effect then chronic treatment is unlikely to be and might have risks. There is a strong subset within chiropractic trying hard to build on the objective success and develop the practice and understanding while dropping the dogma. So anyway, I think you may be right on some vs many, but please go gently. It's a marathon not a sprint, and we're just runners in a long relay, so don't burn yourself out in anger- you're too valuable an asset for WP for thatGleng 20:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Mccready, this is to let you know that you violated the three-revert rule at Chiropractic, when you reverted other editors' work at 11:44 April 3, and then 00:19, 08:01, and 10:13 on April 4. The 3RR rules says that we're only allowed to revert, in whole or in part (and that can mean as little as restoring or deleting one word) up to three times in 24 hours, or we may be blocked for up to 24 hours. Even if you make other changes at the same time, and even if the material you delete or change is different each time, the edits may still count toward a 3RR violation. I'm leaving this warning just in case no one has mentioned the rule to you before. Cheers, SlimVirgin 02:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC):

similar to your edits on animal rights 3Apr 21.27, 4Apr 1.33, 7.09, 7.15. We should be careful :-) Mccready 07:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Animal rights

Actually, no, you're the one who has been slow to respond, and you're the only one with any objections, which you still haven't listed clearly. Please list your outstanding objections and stop referring me to your previous posts, which I've already told you I didn't understand (e.g. that the names of the sources aren't given in full, when they are). Stop playing games, because people can see through them. Just list your objections and be done with it. SlimVirgin 05:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The validity of the above author's claims can quickly be found wanting on the talk page. Mccready 07:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Some advice ...

...which of course you're free to ignore. Although you signed up for an account some months ago, you only recently started to use it. You've already threatened at least two people with an RfC because they disagreed with you; accused people who revert your edits (and who were right to do so) of vandalism; arrived at articles you've never edited before, on subjects you appear to have little knowledge of, and rewritten them without discussion; engaged in slow revert wars to retain your version, leading to page protection; and you've taken to making personal attacks on talk pages, in edit summaries, and in headers. Your editing is sometimes highly POV and unencyclopedic, such as the unsourced intro you initially wrote for Chiropractic and your unsourced claim that animal-rights activists distinguish between different forms of bacteria. If you continue in this way, you're likely to encounter increasing resistance from other editors, and the chances are high that you'll end up before the arbcom. My advice to you therefore is to adopt a softer approach before you're marked down as a problem editor, and to read our policies carefully before continuing. The most important policies are WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. If you're going to edit biographies, you should read WP:BLP, and WP:RS fleshes out the source policy. WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and WP:AGF might also be helpful. Misplaced Pages is a cooperative project, so I suggest we try to respect each other and respect the policies to make the wheels run smoother. Cheers, SlimVirgin 18:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is gratuitious in the extreme from a POV editor par excellence. My comments on her style are passim in WP. Worst of all she actually edits TALK pages to relfect her POV!! Admins like this should be counselled. Mccready 08:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you calm down, actually. Then you may achieve a proportion of what ideally would be achieved. I see nothing to suggest SlimVirgin is acting other than in good faith. Midgley 13:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Midgely, I'm as calm as can be. I don' know how you formed the opposite conclusion. When you've examined her reversions to the Animal Rights talk page why don't you comment again? Mccready 14:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Acupuncture Article

Hi Kevin, thanks for your patience on the acu article. I left comments on the Talk page. Haven't been able to find what I was looking for on superseding the WHO list, but I've got time again to work on pruning the article to 32k-ish if you'd like to collaborate on that. best, Jim Butler 04:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

John Bartram

Just added some stuff to the talk page. Looks like we may both be wrong. Peter1968 07:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Your venue shopping

I have denied your request to protect Lauren Slater -- for the second time in two days. There's a good consensus on the talk page, looks like to me. You'll have to swallow your pride and accept it. And please stop using venues like WP:RFP and WP:AN/I to try to get one over on someone with whom you're in a disagreement. That I have never collaborated with you on an article and yet know who you are is telling -- your actions are becoming very tiresome. · Katefan0/poll 18:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the talkpage. FloNight has suggested she has no strong opinions either way. Thus she would accept my view without demur. The standard of adminship on WP leaves a lot to be desired.Mccready 07:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There are still two strong opinions to your one, then, which means you are still outnumbered. Beyond other issues, this is a content dispute, a matter for Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, not for AN/I or RFP or any other venue that needs administrator action. I'll ignore the rest of your trolling comment. · Katefan0/poll 13:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Vit C

I'm not arguing that you're not right, only that the link that you provide doesn't address the question of whether the aboriginal children had scurvy or not. I guess it still doesn't; what I'd like to see is some RS that specifically refutes AK's assertion, if it's unfounded. Claims for the health promoting effects of excess vitamin C are flaky and overblown, but deficiency is something else. As it is, I think your link is a non sequitur as it doesn't suport the key logical issue here.???What u think?Gleng 09:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. The link shows Linus Pauling and vit c flaws as far as science community is concerned. By all means put both points of view, but to remove the link would be wrong - ie it refutes AK. Why not have this discussion on the relevant talkpage? Mccready 08:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Lauren Slater

Something odd happened to one of the refs on your last revision, so I've reverted it. Also, I've left a note on the article talk regarding a quote/source you keep including that does not, in my view, reflect a reliable source. The school may be reliable, but who wrote that quote and with what authority? Please explain fully in the talk (I'll look for your answer there, rather than here). Thanks :) agapetos_angel 09:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Lauren Slater talk page.

Hi Flo, I was, but let me rephrase. Do you agree that the crits I inserted have a role in the crits section? Mccready 07:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, your edits keep getting reverted because the content is not stated well. I will be happy to help you rewrite in a manner that will make it acceptable. For example, you put the 10 line quote below in the article. It is much too long for this article. Also you did not give a proper attribution. When I first saw it, I thought you were stating your opinion as an editor instead of quoting Singer.

Mccready, we also need to carefully consider how much negative criticism to put in the article. The article already spends too much time on this particular book. We need to discuss her entire public life and writing career. I hope these specific remarks are helpful. Perhaps we can rewrite this section together to make it work. regards FloNight 11:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Flo. see you at the talk page. Mccready 08:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

On Websterschools

Slater makes some errors that made me wonder about her accuracy in areas with which I am not familiar. Some of these are minor slips, like placing Roger Fouts in Oregon, not Washington, and misspelling the names of his chimpanzee friend, Washoe, and of the animal rights activist Alex Pacheco. Others are more troubling. When Linda Santo tells her that the Roman Catholic Church is formally investigating her daughter Audrey for possible sainthood, Slater tells her readers that the last time the Catholic Church considered naming someone a saint was in 1983. She obviously hasn't been paying attention to Pope John Paul II's canonization binge -- he has named more than 400 saints since that year. To link Milgram's research with Nazism, Slater writes of Hannah Arendt's thesis on the banality of evil, the bureaucratic Eichmann blindly taking orders, propelled by forces external to him. This misdescribes Arendt's thesis. In Eichmann in Jerusalem she emphasizes his statement that his obedience was justified by Kant's definition of duty, and that he was able to give a broadly correct account of Kant's categorical imperative. In Arendt's view it was Eichmann's considered decision that he ought to obey orders. He was not propelled to do so by anything external to him.

Reply

Hello Mccready : ) I left a reply to your concerns about my RFA here. There is a reason for each comment being removed. If you have further questions, please let me know. regards, FloNight 17:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Emails?

I received six emails from you lately concerning FloNight's RfA, mostly brief. They either consisted of a link to the RfA, or a little more:

Date:	 Sun, 30 Apr 2006 03:18:16 GMT
To:	"Tijuana Brass" <xxx@yyy.com>
Subject:	Misplaced Pages e-mail
From:	"Mccready" <xxx@yyy.au> 
http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:RFA#FloNight
re
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AFloNight&diff=47722313&oldid=47717830

Were you trying to ask or tell me something, or was this some sort of error? Tijuana Brass 09:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)