| Revision as of 04:19, 15 January 2007 editFigma (talk | contribs)4,015 edits useful conflict?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:28, 23 January 2024 edit undo2603:6081:78f0:7410:c9b:590:c473:bda (talk)No edit summary | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Not around|3=June 2021}} | |||
| {{Archive box|]}} {{Archive box|]}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| {{divbox|blue|Please reply to my comments here, I will reply on your talk page.| }} | |||
| |counter = 10 | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| Anyone want to discuss my edits? Do so on my discussion page. I'll justify why I do what I do. | |||
| |archive = User talk:WLU/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| ] 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="width:100%; height:100px; background:black; color:white; margin: 1em auto 1em auto" border:3px black | |||
| ==Talk== | |||
| I mostly edit for clarity, grammar and good referencing, I'm a new wikipedian, so I'm still learning. | |||
| ] 13:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==SBI/SLE/SUV?== | |||
| Sounds like a bad television show. Seriously, I have had enough - I tried months ago and should have quit while I was ahead. <p> | |||
| What I have ascertained from the studies I've read (and yes there are some that show an increase in connective tissue disease), is that none of the studies consider the long term effects of silicone gel in the body. It has been documented in peer-reviewed studies that silicone does migrate when implants are ruptured. There are no studies documenting the rate of rupture after 10 years, in newer implants (what Oliver calls 3rd and 4th generation), and none on older implants. There are none on the older implants because those implants are not sold anymore, and the manufacturers fund the studies, and funded them for the purpose of obtaining FDA approval on the newer implants. I will note one thing I caught in the article on implants. A statement was made that the rupture rate was 5-8% at 10 years. The authors (of the cited study cited) actually concluded "the rate of rupture increases significantly with age" and "a minimum of 15% rupture can be expected between 3 and 10 years." Another study showed a lower rupture rate (8%) but that excluded implants that had been removed for any reason (including rupture) and that study admitted that its results therefore likely underestimated the rate of rupture. None of the studies showing higher rupture rates were included because they were deemed flawed by the Wiki editor writing this.<p> | |||
| As to SLE -- I would never take cats claw or the like for SLE, because I have seen no studies that suggest it is effective, and the risks of not mediating my illness are too great to chance it. Unfortunately, there are scant peer-reviewed studies on any of these alternative drugs that I know of. The problem with pharmaceutical research is that manufacturers have no financial interest in funding studies on remedies or potential remedies they cannot patent. To complicate matters, increasingly the "peers" who review the studies also have a financial interest in the results. This is true of all medical research, and it is an admitted problem. For decades, for example, the only available "research" on cigarettes was published by the Tobacco Research Institute, funded and controlled by cigarette companies. For a fascinating history of this issue, see <i>Cornered: Big Tobacco at the Bar of Justice</i>. It took 50 years or more to finally expose tobacco "research" as bogus, and it was finally exposed by those dreaded tort lawyers. I will not deny that dedicated doctors did not have a part in exposing this, as well. Not many doctors had a financial interest in tobacco - unlike say, many pharmaceuticals, medical implants and even clinics (which was another exposed conflict-of-interest).<p> | |||
| In the US, anyway, the threat of liability is one deterrent to publishing bogus (or incomplete) studies. Just yesterday, a cholesteral drug was pulled by the manufacturer before it came out of clinical trials and was approved by the FDA. That mfg only had to look at Merck and the recent lawsuits on Vioxx (which was FDA approved) for its motivation to pull the drug. However, there is some precedent now in the US that once drugs are approved by the FDA, an injured consumer is barred from suing. The theory is that the manufacturer relied to its possible detriment on the FDA approval. That also becomes a problem when the FDA does not demand adequate assurance, as it arguably has not done in a number of cases. (The FDA has, in fact, come under highly publicized attack for this.) Unfortunately, research is expensive. The only alternative is government/taxpayer funded research, and that is not likely to happen. | |||
| Therefore, we are stuck with what is available. But some research is better than no research. That does not negate the problem. <p> | |||
| Going back to implants... for years and years there was no published research. Implants were not regulated by any agency, and when the FDA finally began "regulating" medical devices, it grandfathered in these implants. Additionally, plastic surgeons continued to change the design, for various reasons ..to make them more 'natural' in appearance (thus making the shell thinner and rupture more likely), to reduce capsular contracture (using polyurethane or double lumen) etc. For that reason, even when implant manufacturers were required to "study" them, there was no consistent follow-up. <p> | |||
| Women now have had implants for 20, 30, 40 years and the likelihood that they are ruptured is very high. These women often do not have the resources to have reoperations, insurance usually does not cover it, and there are plastic surgeons who refuse to remove implants unless the woman agrees to reimplant (yes, it is true). These women who do become ill are told that their illness cannot possibly be caused by implants - that was true even in the adjunct studies, when surgeons were required by the FDA to report such complaints. These women are considered "anecdotes" or are dismissed as crazy, "conspiracy theorists" and the like. Now that the US FDA has approved implants for women 22 years old and older, and plastic surgeons claim that they are the most "studied device in the world" the manufacturers are faced with virutally zero threat of liability. <p> | |||
| As you probably know, lupus is only a shorthand for any one of several types of lupus such as SLE, discoid lupus, etc. Contrary to what one "doctor" implied on the Clin-Med website, this was not a vague "oh i feel bad it must be an immune problem" by the "uneducated", for whom he admitted such antipathy. I have been diagnosed with SLE (systemic) on the basis of many clinical symptoms, and consistently abnormal lab tests which included ANA as well as specific antibodies for lupus, urine tests (testing for possible kidney involvement) etc. I also was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis based on clinical symptoms such as ataxia, numbness, vertigo and also objective tests (all of which were abnormal) such as MRI of the brain, MRI of the cervical spine and a spinal tap. <p> | |||
| So you can see that I was one of those anecdotes. I was not called "crazy" or a "conspiracy theorist" when I became sick. My internist had known me for 10 years, and I never bothered to tell her I had 20 year old implants. I never registered for the class action, or thought about the implants because I was swayed by the reports that the women who sued were probably greedy, hysterical or worse. Besides, I was in graduate school then and my internist had a hard enough time getting me to go see her, let alone a specialist. That changed when I became so sick I could no longer function. Within 6 months, I was diagnosed with mulitple autoimmune diseases - including multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus, autoimmune thyroid disease. <p> | |||
| It was a friend (an MD) who suggested finally I have a breast MRI (which showed rupture). By the time I had my implants removed, I carried an epipen because I had woke up with hives and went into anaphylactic shock. Putting the pieces together after-the-fact, I realize that the implants propably ruptured with a mammogram five years before. The FDA states that mammograms can cause rupture, and I had only had one mammogram. Additionally, my first symptoms (itchy rashes which no dermatologist could figure out) began almost immediately thereafter. I learned to live with those rashes, after spraying Raid everywhere to kill what I thought may be small insects stinging me, and trying every cream and prescription known to man (that probably is an exaggeration, but I tried many). Those rashes that I had for 5 years went away after I had my implants (and the scar tissue around them) removed. Completely. Could it be psychogenic? Sure. Anything can be labeled as pschogenic if you take it to the extreme - and this would be taking it to an extreme, especially since i never befor had considered the implants might be a problem.<p> | |||
| Since surgery, my blood tests returned to normal, and have remained normal. I discontinued interferon for MS, because for me the risks outweighed the benefit. However, my rheumatologist insists that I will need to take immune-mediating drugs for the rest of my life. I do wonder if some women may be more susceptible to an environmental trigger like migrating silicone. And if that is the case, would the lupus be reversible as is drug-induced lupus? I do not know. The problem is that we will never know, because nobody cares enough to research it, and there is no money in it.<p><br> | |||
| -------------- | |||
| BACK to the SLE article---- I don't care if the SLE stays as it is. The statement is true, as far as it goes. I care more about the breast implant article, but have given up on it, since one plastic surgeon has argued for omitting relevant information. A few of the examples include the following: | |||
| # Omission of the FDA recommendation that women with silicone implants have MRIs 3 years after imlantation, and every 2 years thereafter to screen for rupture (which is asymptomatic). He argues that it is not a worldwide standard. It is true that MRIs are expensive (~ $1500 a pop), and probably will not be covered by insurance. MRIs are the most accurate tool (86%) we have to detect rupture. Additionally, mammograms can and do cause rupture. However, most plastic surgeons still tell women to continue having mammograms, regardless of the age of their implants. Of course, the older the implants, the more likely they will rupture. This is the case, despite the fact that there are no long term studies of the effects of rupture, for any style of implant. And it is obvious from this surgeons comments, that most surgeons will not tell women to get MRIs as the FDA recommends.<p> | |||
| # Inclusion of one specific study to quote a low rupture rate at 10 years -- this despite the fact that the authors of that study admitted the rate is likely an underestimate, because women who removed their implants (for whatever reason) were excluded from the study. And the author's statement is deemed too much 'detil' to include. Every other peer-reviewed study suggests a much higher rupture rate. The next study with the lowest rupture rate states "a minimum of 15% at 10 years." But in the article, it is now stated as 8-15% at 10 years. Thankfully, the surgeon did change it to 8-15% after I pointed out that the 5-8% he originally wrote was simply a misquote of the study he cited.<p> | |||
| # The omission of the FDA condition that women be 22 years old or older to have augmentation with silicone implants (reconstruction is approved). That isn't necessary in the article because surgeons can choose to ignore it, as an "off label" use.<p> | |||
| So, this is what is happening. Since a medical doctor is considered more credible than an epidemiologist (who has argued for changes), an internist, another plastic surgeon, or a mere woman who had implants, the BI article will remain as it is, and is even locked this way. Anyone who has disagrees is called "political", a "single purpose editor" (with the implication of deceit) , "uneducated" or worse. Not one doctor who "reviewed" the BI article caught the actual misquotes. And the slanting of the article by omissions or selective choices is accepted since it is not obvious without further investigation, and generally supports established wisdom. <p> | |||
| When I was younger, I trusted doctors because they were doctors. As I grew older, I learned how foolish that was, and so I "trusted but verified". After what I have seen in the last couple of years and most recently on Misplaced Pages, I no longer trust at all. I have seen the very worst of combinations -- arrogance and a closed mind. It is chilling.] 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, it is the same. One more thing about all this. In fact, there are many doctors who are concerned about the long-term effects of rupture, especially the rheumatologists. Why? They have seen many women who have had ruptures, have also seen their health improve after removal, and know there are no long-term studies on rupture or its effects. However, they would be ridiculed if they stated so publicly. Why? Because of the lawsuits in the 90s, and because there is a grain of truth about both the lawsuits and the complaint that some (many) women complain that their general aches and pains are immune problems without a shred of evidence to document it (to quote JFW). There are women who assume any health problem they have is implant-related. And in fact, one category of the "disease settlement" that awards the lowest amount supports this - realistically, any woman over 50 who complains about aches and pains could qualify. It is astonishing, but that was the settlement that the manufacturers and lawyers agreed to. There are hundreds of thousands of women in the settlement, and so there are also many who don't have immune dysfunction. And many who claim that their osteoarthritis, skin cancer, headaches, general muscle aches, irritable bowel etc etc are implant-related. It's really hurt. ] 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)<p> | |||
| I will get you some links, after my dentist's app't. I suspect you should not include them, or you will incur the wrath of Oliver. There is not a breast implant he doesn't like. There is a long history there. The FDA recently approved silicone implants, which was unfortunate, given the lack of long-term studies. There is a huge body of short-term studies, on which they relied. Oliver admitted there are no studies on earlier styles/types of implants (he said it is difficult to make sense of them; truth is they don't exist)<p> | |||
| ::I assume you are in grad school in math or some such related field. The unfotunate thing about the anti-medicine is the anti-statistical support of any of it. There are problems with medical research, as you know, but what is the alternative? We don't know much about what is helpful or harmful about the alternative remedies, most of which are based on 'anecdotal' reports (from thousands of years..lol). Anyway, I have to go - late. I"ll dig something up for you later. By the way, I like math, too - that was my undergrad (math & elec engineering). ] 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)<p> | |||
| Thanks WLU. I will do so - I just got back from the dentist and have a swollen and sore mouth. So if I don't get to it today, I will get you something soon. Someone you might find interesting is Dr. ]. You seem to have similar interests as she. She has been trying to help with the BI article, but it has been a struggle. She is also a delightful person.] 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| My undergrad is, as I said, math & EE. I had some grad work in EE, but then got a law degree. That was before I became so very sick. Now that my health has improved, I am working part time as an attorney.] 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This danged thing is case-sensitive. Try ]. She is both an 'external' person and a Wiki editor. She has edited the BI article, but is new to using Misplaced Pages (as am I, for that matter). You can see her background in the article. | |||
| == Negative behaviour == | |||
| More <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| ==Diana== | |||
| I don't have any problems with what you edited. Diana did not first write the article on herself - in fact, she didn't want an article. The editor who did start it quoted almost verbatim what the plastic surgeon I so dislike here has said. It was insulting. Diana changed it, understandably. I surely welcome any improvements, and I can't imagine Diana would not as well. She is even newer than I am to Misplaced Pages, so be a little gentle. And thank you for the input. I will also get you some links tomorrow. I have a hearing to prepare for, but I will make some time. ] 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| *For some reason, you reverted to a version of the page with mistakes, inappropriate fansites and deleted categories. Your revert has been reverted. Regards, ] 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == well welcomed == | |||
| As for the EL deletions, oh drat. (RSI and Tendonitis) | |||
| In time, I hope to understand how the other ELs on the pages stayed and my lovely, informative links dissolved, but till then, drat. (slow but steady learner here) | |||
| As for the welcome, oh joy! (sincere tone on that!) | |||
| I feel thoroughly welcomed and instructed and amused (I *did* just read your User page, WLU :D ), and I wish I had a bunch of time. I turn to Misplaced Pages for so many things, and I've suffered on the brink of repetitive strain injury, and I have had to learn a few things that I ... must find the time to write up a bit on these pages. (Time, there's the rub.) | |||
| This is my thank you note. I am delighted to ... almost ... be contributing to Misplaced Pages. | |||
| --] 15:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks for the Muscle== | |||
| Thanks for the sarcomere image for the Muscle contraction article. Any images and improvements are greatly appreciated! The article is really improving.] 18:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hey, that is a great idea to compare shortening velocities of various muscle preps. If you have a table or some info that would be great.] 22:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] external links == | |||
| I will grant you that some of these sites are OK as links. But the behavior of the editor is what led me to treat these contributions as spam. If you look at the speed of the edits, this is not a person reading our article, asking themselves "Will these links add to the information already there?", "Is there any content I can add to the article that will make adding this link unneccessary?". No, they're just spamming, the same conclusion that ] came to looking at this editor's similar contributions on December 12. | |||
| Since you re-added them, let me ask you "What information is contained in these links that doesn't belong in the article itself? See ]: "If the site or page you want to link to includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source first" and "Links should be kept to a minimum." | |||
| Incidentally, I enjoyed your Five stages of Misplaced Pages. Cheers! -- ] | ] 15:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No, the landed gentry bit is fine; I must admit that I didn't check out the enema link. And probably more people read your user page than you think-- I actually had a guy request a photo that I had removed from my page months before-- he'd seen it and came back looking for it. | |||
| :Anyway, feel free to do as you like with these links-- as I said, I can see that they're potentially decent links, though I feel pretty sure that you'll find some whose contents are already well covered in the articles or in pre-existing external links. Happy editing! -- ] | ] 18:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Barnstar Award== | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Original Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| |align="center" |'''Please note that I usually don't do e-mail; if it's about wikipedia use my talk page.''' | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | for your tireless and excellent contribution to ], ], and ]. Feel free to add this to your user page. --] (]) 03:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| |align = "center" bgcolor= indigo| If I judge it requires discretion, I'll contact you. This is tremendously one-sided. I assure you, I feel terrible about it. Really I do. | |||
| |- | |||
| |align="center" bgcolor= red|'''Note that my contributions are down a lot these days, I'm busy with other stuff, but otherwise fine. Also note that for some reason I'm not getting e-mail alerts when this page is edited, so for important issues please send me an e-mail directly.''' | |||
| |} | |} | ||
| {{Archive box | |||
| Sweet! I always wondered how people got these! ] 03:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| | search = yes | |||
| | collapsible = yes | |||
| == Autism and Boys == | |||
| | collapsed = yes | |||
| | image = ] | |||
| I wanted to say "Thanks" for being so kind, about my first entry into the world of Misplaced Pages - and imformative. | |||
| | bot = MiszaBot| | |||
| I hope you'll keep on keeping on, Lizziemac | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| == Merger of Strength Training, Weight Training, Resistance Training == | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| Thanks for clarifying to everyone that the work is done so that they stop voting! :) I went ahead and took it another step and archived all merger discussion from all three pages, so people will really have to go out of their way to screw it up. --] 07:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *]}} | |||
| == Precious anniversary == | |||
| == Bone/Protuberance link == | |||
| {{User QAIbox | |||
| What's so wrong with the protuberance link on the 'Bone' article..? ] 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| | title = Three years ago ... | |||
| | image = Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg | |||
| | image_upright = 0.5 | |||
| | bold = fringe topics | |||
| | normal = ... you were recipient<br /> no. ''']''' of ],<br /> a prize of QAI! | |||
| }} | |||
| It's five years now! --] (]) 06:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ... and six! --] (]) 07:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ... and seven --] (]) 06:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Ritual Abuse == | ||
| Dear WLU, | |||
| First off this interview? Its been posted many times. so... you don't like it ~shrugs~ so what... we personally love it. Secondly calling anyone a moron, let alone a world renown New York Times #1 best selling author is POV, and an attack meant to provoke a flame war and is unacceptable behavior. | |||
| is my assumption correct that your of the opinion that faith based abuse doesn't occur? And why exactly would you come to that conclusion given the number of media reports, police investigations and court cases? As described in ] this type of abuse occurs in many communities. Subsets of the Nigerian community for example. I would just be very interested as to why it is that you want to present the topic in that manner. I would be very interested in talking to you or communicating via e-mail on this topic. Let me know if that would be of interest.--'''] ]''' 09:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| It violates Wiki policy {{ ]<br/>]}} | |||
| I did also link the article ] for disambiguation in the article Ritual abuse, that you wrote 68 % of.--'''] ]''' 09:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Namely with regard to you calling anyone let alone Terry Goodkind a Moron. While I grin at your inability to be civil and post with honor, it just proves my point. You cannot act in a mature but have to attempt to slant peoples views not letting them think for themselves. No you must slander someone as a weak attempt to validate an opinion you formed while having no actual knowledge of the content of the series. You obviously feel that in order to make yourself feel good about your lack of abilities, you must lower yourself to personal attacks and name-calling. Rather than allowing people to either approve or disapprove on their own. Tells us a great deal about you. | |||
| :I have no opinion on faith-based abuse. The satanic ritual abuse moral panic was a moral panic, and the few "real" cases were people dressing up in robes while raping children - not an organized satanic cult. In other words, the "ritual" aspects were secondary to the rape. | |||
| You dislike the series or Goodkind cool I've no problem with that at all. You calling Goodkind and his works bad after openly admitting that you have never even read them shows the problem. That is your opinion, HOWEVER you are not above Wiki-policy of No Personal attacks and committing Libel and slander on her user page or any other page. | |||
| :I am not interested in communicating on this further. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 13:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Regards] 02:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's a bit premature to say ''welcome back'' but, hey, I have to work with I've got, so '''welcome back!''' ] (]) 23:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Definitely not "welcome back", which is a pity. For wikipedia. Because I'm amazing. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 15:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It wasn't my intention to emphasise the "ritual" aspect of this. From what I understand mostly this has nothing to do with any kind of faith but rather with organised crime and power. However when it does occur that groups get to gather and in organised ways rape, torture and kill children and adults then the victims (if they survive) are often not believed because people find the article on ritual abuse and come to the conclusion that everything is made up. This is absolutely not fair and horrible for the victims and makes it hard to stop these crimes from going on... That is all I wanted to say. I would really like to collaborate on having an article next to satanic ritual abuse that described actual cases of extreme organised sexual absue, for which much evidence can be found in different countries and cultures from all over the world. I'll if I'll find someone else to work on that with then...--'''] ]''' 17:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My concern is that, while the ritual abuse moral panic is a distinct "thing", a social phenomena that is written about in a coherent manner in the scholarly literature. The ] page, in addition to its capitalization problems, seems to trip over two aspects of ], specifically ] and ]. As for being original research, a quick skim of the references, for instance, seem to be closer to the ] page than anything else (McFadyen 1993, Richardson, 2015, and Scott, 2001 are, from my recall, about the satanic ritual abuse moral panic, though from an uncritical believer perspective) and would likely be better placed there. The rest is just kind of a list of cultural practices that have no real link to each other. Are the lip plates of the Mursi tribe actually a form of "ritual child abuse"? Certainly tattooing young girls in the Apatani tribe so they would not be abducted doesn't strike me as even close to "ritual" abuse. And the definition of "abuse" is very culturally determined, since within a specific cultural context it might be seen as abusive to '''not''' give a child ritual tattoos, lip extenders, and neck rings. While I personally consider such practices distasteful, within the culture it's considered beautifying. Breast flattening is another example where it causes harm, but is done to preserve chastity. Where is the "ritual"? An overall comment or question would be, where is the ] that labels these things to be "ritual child abuse" rather than "cosmetic mutilation"? Right now it seems like it is the wikipedia editors who are putting these items into a bucket, when it should be the ''sources'' that do so. | |||
| ::::And where do dowries come into it? Where is the ritual? Dowries are at least an economic issue more than they would seem to be a ritual practice. Why bring up fire-related deaths? | |||
| ::::Overall the article strikes me as extremely problematic and based more on the beliefs of the editors writing the page rather than the consensus, or even disagreement, of relevant scholars. I don't see why there should be a page where all of these items are listed in a hodge-podge, rather than the information now found on the page simply being part of a section in a main article. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 15:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd notice --> ] (]) 02:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Well as I said....lol... you show your ignorance more and more. You will note we do not use that chat as any means of verification of content. The inchoatus thing is just an opinion of a simple minded person (I feel sorry for his lack of abilities and perception). And as Runch has pointed out it has no merit. It is only a blog designed to attack Goodkind and his opinion. Which as I might add is against Wiki policy...but then you already know that :) | |||
| As I've said in the past, you really have no idea about the books or what Goodkind is saying due to the fact that you haven't read them. What we do see is your personal opinion coloring your abilities. You think you dislike him and his works, so you will do anything you can to smear him. Most assuredly not NPOV are you.... Your history contribs attacking me and Goodkind speak for themselves. You just cannot be unbiased. | |||
| == Precious anniversary == | |||
| And as for the Webmaster being embarrassed...lmao hardly... It is a great interview full of insight, truth and pertinent content to societies Ills today. No we all love the chats, that one especially. It has gotten more good press than you'll ever know. AND it brings people into the site and discussion agreeing with his point of views. Again how sad for you my dear. Still unable to be honorable] 03:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{User QAIbox/auto|years=Nine}} --] (]) 08:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Michelle Remembers.jpg== | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 17:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Do either of you guys want to end this invective-filled wrestling match you're in or do you think it serves some useful purpose to Misplaced Pages? Agree to (strongly) disagree or take it outside, I say. Thanks for all you've done to improve the wiki. Wishing you both well, ] 04:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:28, 23 January 2024
 | This user may have left Misplaced Pages. WLU has not edited Misplaced Pages since June 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
| Please note that I usually don't do e-mail; if it's about wikipedia use my talk page. |
| If I judge it requires discretion, I'll contact you. This is tremendously one-sided. I assure you, I feel terrible about it. Really I do. |
| Note that my contributions are down a lot these days, I'm busy with other stuff, but otherwise fine. Also note that for some reason I'm not getting e-mail alerts when this page is edited, so for important issues please send me an e-mail directly. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Precious anniversary
 | |
| fringe topics | |
|---|---|
| ... you were recipient no. 356 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
It's five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
... and six! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
... and seven --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Ritual Abuse
Dear WLU, is my assumption correct that your of the opinion that faith based abuse doesn't occur? And why exactly would you come to that conclusion given the number of media reports, police investigations and court cases? As described in Ritual Child Abuse this type of abuse occurs in many communities. Subsets of the Nigerian community for example. I would just be very interested as to why it is that you want to present the topic in that manner. I would be very interested in talking to you or communicating via e-mail on this topic. Let me know if that would be of interest.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 09:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC) I did also link the article Ritual child abuse for disambiguation in the article Ritual abuse, that you wrote 68 % of.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 09:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on faith-based abuse. The satanic ritual abuse moral panic was a moral panic, and the few "real" cases were people dressing up in robes while raping children - not an organized satanic cult. In other words, the "ritual" aspects were secondary to the rape.
- I am not interested in communicating on this further. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 13:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's a bit premature to say welcome back but, hey, I have to work with I've got, so welcome back! Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Definitely not "welcome back", which is a pity. For wikipedia. Because I'm amazing. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 15:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- It's a bit premature to say welcome back but, hey, I have to work with I've got, so welcome back! Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- It wasn't my intention to emphasise the "ritual" aspect of this. From what I understand mostly this has nothing to do with any kind of faith but rather with organised crime and power. However when it does occur that groups get to gather and in organised ways rape, torture and kill children and adults then the victims (if they survive) are often not believed because people find the article on ritual abuse and come to the conclusion that everything is made up. This is absolutely not fair and horrible for the victims and makes it hard to stop these crimes from going on... That is all I wanted to say. I would really like to collaborate on having an article next to satanic ritual abuse that described actual cases of extreme organised sexual absue, for which much evidence can be found in different countries and cultures from all over the world. I'll if I'll find someone else to work on that with then...--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 17:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- My concern is that, while the ritual abuse moral panic is a distinct "thing", a social phenomena that is written about in a coherent manner in the scholarly literature. The Ritual Child Abuse page, in addition to its capitalization problems, seems to trip over two aspects of WP:NOT, specifically WP:OR and WP:NOTDIR. As for being original research, a quick skim of the references, for instance, seem to be closer to the satanic ritual abuse page than anything else (McFadyen 1993, Richardson, 2015, and Scott, 2001 are, from my recall, about the satanic ritual abuse moral panic, though from an uncritical believer perspective) and would likely be better placed there. The rest is just kind of a list of cultural practices that have no real link to each other. Are the lip plates of the Mursi tribe actually a form of "ritual child abuse"? Certainly tattooing young girls in the Apatani tribe so they would not be abducted doesn't strike me as even close to "ritual" abuse. And the definition of "abuse" is very culturally determined, since within a specific cultural context it might be seen as abusive to not give a child ritual tattoos, lip extenders, and neck rings. While I personally consider such practices distasteful, within the culture it's considered beautifying. Breast flattening is another example where it causes harm, but is done to preserve chastity. Where is the "ritual"? An overall comment or question would be, where is the reliable source that labels these things to be "ritual child abuse" rather than "cosmetic mutilation"? Right now it seems like it is the wikipedia editors who are putting these items into a bucket, when it should be the sources that do so.
- And where do dowries come into it? Where is the ritual? Dowries are at least an economic issue more than they would seem to be a ritual practice. Why bring up fire-related deaths?
- Overall the article strikes me as extremely problematic and based more on the beliefs of the editors writing the page rather than the consensus, or even disagreement, of relevant scholars. I don't see why there should be a page where all of these items are listed in a hodge-podge, rather than the information now found on the page simply being part of a section in a main article. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 15:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- It wasn't my intention to emphasise the "ritual" aspect of this. From what I understand mostly this has nothing to do with any kind of faith but rather with organised crime and power. However when it does occur that groups get to gather and in organised ways rape, torture and kill children and adults then the victims (if they survive) are often not believed because people find the article on ritual abuse and come to the conclusion that everything is made up. This is absolutely not fair and horrible for the victims and makes it hard to stop these crimes from going on... That is all I wanted to say. I would really like to collaborate on having an article next to satanic ritual abuse that described actual cases of extreme organised sexual absue, for which much evidence can be found in different countries and cultures from all over the world. I'll if I'll find someone else to work on that with then...--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 17:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Mumps outbreaks in the 21st century for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mumps outbreaks in the 21st century is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mumps outbreaks in the 21st century until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Velayinosu (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
| |
| Nine years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Michelle Remembers.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Michelle Remembers.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Categories: