Misplaced Pages

User talk:Abridged/Archive1: 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.
< User talk:Abridged Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:54, 13 July 2007 editAbridged (talk | contribs)1,110 edits →[]← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:54, 19 October 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,020 editsm Fixing Lint errors from Misplaced Pages:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31)Tag: paws [2.2] 
(96 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Ivies ==
'''Welcome!'''


Pardon my interest, but what is it that brings you back, after 6 months of inactivity, to comment on AC's RfC? ]] ] 07:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!&nbsp; ]/<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


:I've been watching the article and topic. When I started, the coverage was very very weak. THe main article, I thought, was a mess. It wasn't well organized into sections that made sense as parts of a coherent whole, it didn't flow, things were repeated all over the place, etc. It was overlong and many articles that should have been subarticles had been deleted and merged into the main article rather than improved.
==Welcome!==
No problem. Let me know if you need any help getting around this <s>jungle</s>... wiki. :) ]/<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


:I thought I could help to improve things. Given my background as a traditionally trained and practicing MD with an editorial background and some knowledge and interest in homeopathy, I thought I could make a contribution to the overall subject area and have some fun with Misplaced Pages at the same time.
==]==
Nominated him for deletion because I hoped it would spur people on to rework the article - it's pretty awful at present, and really stagnant. Also, you're the first to point out his notability in any coherent way =) ] <sup>]</sup> 19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks. Sankaran is actually a pretty big gun in the homeopathic world. :=) ] 20:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


:I did (I think strong) work intially when some biographies of some internationally known homeopaths which were being afded by adam (and a few others)---you can look at the stuff on my user page to see some of the comments I made and edits I did. I found this kind of ironic in an encyclopedia which has extensive pages for individual soccer matches and cartoon show episodes :=), but whatever. I looked up the criteria for notability, improved the articles, and pointed out the criteria on the AFD talk pages.
=={{{header-text|Notability of ]}}}==
A tag has been placed on ], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Misplaced Pages. Under the ], articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please ], and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on ] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.


:It seemed bizarre that most of the editors participating in the homeopathy pages really didn't know much about the actual topic and seemed less interested in learning more about it than in protecting the encyclopedia from it. There was a lot of labeling and warning going on and not much explication and description.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria ], ], ], or ]. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.<!-- Template:Nn-warn --> ] 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


:I stayed away from the main page initially as it was such a minefield, but when I started to make edits on that page I was bashed pretty much immediately. Misplaced Pages doesn't earn my salary, take care of my patients, get me any publications; it is entirely a volunteer pursuit. When this happened, I turned my energies elsewhere. I have a lot to do.
:For the record, this page was up for about 5 minutes before it was deleted. It was a stub. It did indicate how the subject was notable--as an author of reference books that are considered to be standard in Homeopathy. ] 21:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


:ONe of the things which I found particularly troubling was the degree to which AC was using admin tools and editing simultaneously. He was never uncivil, but he seemed to be ignoring accepted standards for administrative behavior. It is problematic in a community project like this when selected individuals feel morally justified in not following the rules set forward for participants on various levels. I have a lot of sympthy for Adam. He is without doubt a very well-intentioned young man with hopefully a promising future in the real world. He has made some great contributions to the encyclopeida. However, it is wrong for him to be so personally involved as an editor in a subject matter while also being one of the most involved admins in the subject matter.
Arr... Actually, there was an old version, which is likely why it got deleted so quickly. The old one was a straight advertising piece. Also made claims about him being the most widely-known teacher of homeopathy that weren't supported by any source or popularity check I could come up with, at least that dealt with him having a relatively common name. ('"Robin Murphy" Homeopathy', with quotes around his name to remove chance hits, gets only 873 hits, for instance. Obviously, google hits aren't everything, but that was the only real assertion of notability) Is he really notable? ] <sup>]</sup> 09:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


:When I noticed that the larger community had noticed this problem, I decided to add my voice to the discussion.
:Adam, I have subsequently learned that you had deleted a previous page on Robin Murphy. I was able to save a since it was deleted while I still was actively working on it and had it in cache. You can look at it and see what you think. ] and the deleting Admin (who has quite a collection of pages on he apparantly does find notable), did not even read the page they speedily deleted because the reason for speedy deletion that ] placed on the page was completely bogus. ] 12:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
::I've undeleted it. Do you want to see the old version that got deleted before you? There may be... something... worth keeping from it. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Thanks and sure. ] 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


They're at ] - I gave two versions - my last version, removing statements that as far as I could tell were unsupported or advertising, and the version before my edits, with a couple comments. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :I hope this satisfies your curiousity. Feel free to contact me with any further quesitons. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


== Note ==
:Well, all I can say is that I agree with your comments wholeheartedly. I think he is actually a well known teacher, but there was a lot of hyperbole and worse. I am not sure there is much there worth saving. I'm not sure where he went to school undergrad. One bio says Michigan State and one says Ann Arbor so I just put "michigan" in the version I did. The Abha Light stuff--who knows? I'll google it. The newspaper interviews are kind of thin. The school thesis and scholarship probably not so relevant to mention, but maybe they should go back. Please add what you feel should be there as well. ] 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
::"Well-known" is a fairly woolly term, and for a given value of "well", he probably fits. But, "one of the most well-known"? No. To be honest, I'm distrustful of anything on that page, and would be more inclined to just make use of the links. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, I completely agree. please go ahead and add the links you want to salvage. I took what I wanted already. ] 18:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Actually, I was looking at the Homeopathic remedies category after it was mentioned on ]. I could see adding a link to the Arnica montana going to a page on the homeopathic remedy, but I don't think that a long list of things it's used to treat is appropriate; it could even verge on inappropriate within the scope of homeopathy, since homeopathy is supposed to be individualised. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
==edit template==
To edit the template, just head on over to ]. Here's another way to link to the template. {{tl|Homoeopathy}} Templates are changed with new stuff, so be sure the content you want to add is important enough to be in the template. ]/<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


:That doesn't support the removal of sourced relevant content. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
== Do you... ==


== Connection? ==
...regularly attack people that agree with you? If anything, I was laughing off the notion of it being a spam article. We are all working together to build a good encyclopedia and throwing around accusations of ] is going to do little to help that cause and, instead, kinda trounces on ]. You are going to win this DRV. Now focus on convincing other users as to why the article should survive a future AfD (if it even comes to be at all) rather than questioning the motivations of great users like ] and cranky gnomish admins like me :) ] <small>(])</small> 22:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
:Also, I go tthe impression from your message that you think that I had not bothered to read your deleted article. I had. Admins can look at deleted content and usually do so before weighing in on any DRV. ] <small>(])</small> 22:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


I don't mean to be rude or anything, but if you're not related to the homeopathy industry, either as a user or producer, in some way, why are all of your edits - or at least the ones I scanned through - about homeopathy? Just a casual interest? ] (]) 21:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
== Merge? ==


Hey, Abridged, do you think it's worth fusing ] and ] (and possibly ], which is a mixture of the Materia Medica and clinical experience, though merging it all into ], which has large sections not on might be a bit far.


:back when I signed up for Misplaced Pages, I was looking for a field to edit in. I was exploring an interest in homeopathy and thought that adding content to wikipedia from sources might be a good way to expand my knowledge and also help improve wikipedia at the same time.
I ask mainly because the Materia Medica is a collection of Homeopathic proving reports, so the information about homeopathic proving is necessary to understand it anyway.


:I am a traditionally trained and practicing MD, and have research training and editorial background. I make my living practicing conventional medicine and believe in what I do. I do not have a homeopathic practice, but I have sent a few patients who weren't being helped with the conventional approaches and asked me about alternative approaches to a local homeopath on a consultation basis, as I've referred to other alternative providers when it seemed appropriate and the patient asked me to. Most, quite honestly, were not helped but one or two were helped quite a bit.
Oh, also, I merged ] and ] - we can resplit 'em later, but it made sense to talk about the first homeopathic Materia Medica in the article about them, and M.M.P. was a very short article once you lost the listiness. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


:All in all, I maintain an interest in homeopathy and a skepticism about the field at the same time.
(lost the listiness: It used to have this huge list of links to the articles about the bases for the remedies in it, few of which mentioned homeopathic use anyway. It was removed after some discussion.) ] <sup>]</sup> 23:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


:If you don't believe that I do not have some kind of a commerical conflict of interest, I am happy to share my identity with a bureaucrat off line. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


:: No, I assume good faith. However, if you are truly interested in improving knowledge as opposed to improving the optics of homeopathy on the encyclopedia, perhaps you could branch your editing out to areas of less dispute in addition to your work in defending homeopathy from skeptics. In fact, I'll make a deal with you - for every article you substantially improve that has nothing to do with homeopathy or any other alternative medicine/pseudoscience (by my definition, not yours), I will make equally substantial improvements in an article that has nothing to do with any of my areas of interest. Deal? ] (]) 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
:Hey there Adam, Proving, materia medica, and repertory all are fundamentally different topics each deserving their own article. They are all interrelated (as you note), but should have separate articles. I haven't really looked at them, so I don't know if they are good or not. Totally ok and a good idea to fuse the other two. I was thinking along the same lines, actually. ] 23:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


::: I'm actually really busy (I probably work 60-70 hours a week) and don't have much time to do random stuff so I can't promise that I will edit much. I was reading about homeopathy at the time I was editing, so thought I'd kill two birds with one stone by improving wiki in that area. I am not really interested in proving anything to you, or having you prove any thing to me, but as I said if you are concerned about conflict of interest I'm happy to prove that I don't have one :=) ] <sup>]</sup> 22:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
::Right-o! ] <sup>]</sup> 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


== Personal attack? ==
Hmm. One thought, though: ] will presumably expand and change eventually. Why don't we add in its current, short version to Materia Medica now (keeping it as an article), then let them diverge over time? Good idea or bad? ] <sup>]</sup> 16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
:...On the other hand, it's not a very ''good'' article, is it? (Though I must admit the last paragraph makes me laugh.) ] <sup>]</sup> 16:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


While I apologise for any offense caused, your behaviour in every debate about homeopathy - to the point of objecting to an AfD not because of any good reason, but because you disliked me challenging anything remotely having to do with homeopathy, seems to justify the description. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
:I think it is a bad idea. "Proving" is a basic methodology in homeopathy (and I haven't gotten around to looking at the article and working on it, but I soon will). Materia medica is a collection of description of remedies based on the proving reports and also on observations of patient cases. The place where "proving" and "materia medica" belong together is the larger homeopathy article (with callouts to their own articles), becuase they are part and parcel of the larger homeopathic method. Merging them into one article by themselves just doesn't work. Think merging and article on the "scientific method" with articles on results of various experiments done by using the method. Extreme example, but it just doesn't work. Please don't do it. Consider having some patience and letting the articles improve. I honestly applaud what you are doing to make the articles better, but I think you are going too far to merge and delete. The deletions cause problems when someone comes along to innocently write a new article on the subject and find it is immediately regarded as suspicitious becaue prior article was deleted (recent Robin Murphy situation). ] <sup>]</sup> 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


::OK, I looked at the article. It is pretty stubby, but I don't think is is really bad. It cites two standard texts; that is good. The last paragraph of course needs a cite. In placebo controlled trials of medicaions, the placebo folks will often have a response or side effects similar to the intervention group. This in itself is not interesting without a statistical analysis to see if the groups are sig different. And of course when authors get unexpected results they attempt to figure out why that is happening and explain this in terms that they know and understand. I think this is what the homoepaths are doing. It is a little funny from a standard scientific and medical perspective, however, I'll give you that :=). ] <sup>]</sup> 16:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC) :That is inaccurate!!! You know as well as I do that I participated in many afds by citing notablility criteria to show articles met them. You know I improved many articles to meet criteria. I'll add links in a moment. Your last AFD request on a bio of a homeopath was a bit ill timed as you are the subect of an rfc, and I don't think there was anything wrong with saying that. The AFD in question was successful, but I think that I also said that I thought the subject was notable and the article should be improved rather than deleted. I also don't think there was anything wrong with that. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


::MORE:
==Homeopathy Template==
Sorry, I've been the only one working on it for a while, so I didn't actually realise there was anyone else to talk to about it.


Here are some diffs of discussions I participated in about AFDS. See if any of these justify your insulting and inaccurate description:
Basically, the changes I made were:
*
*
*
*Robin Murphy (click through to see Deletion Review discussion:]


Here are a few articles which were prodded, which I improved:
* Swapped ] for more relevant ]. Materia Medica is only secondarily homeopathy-related.
*Improvements to ] article
* Per a merge and cleanup, removed ]
*Improvements to ] article
* Removed ] as not strongly related to homeopathy.
*Improvement to ]
* A little category name tweaking for appearance reasons.
] <sup>]</sup> 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


::I note you mentioned that this behavior might be appropriate for an RfC/U. I'd be inclined to agree if that is appropriate in light of the ongoing ArbCom matter. &mdash;] (''']''') 22:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
] <sup>]</sup> 23:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


:::I was referring to the Jawahar Shah AfD, but never mind. There really doesn't seem much poitn talking to the two of you at this time. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
:Could we get rid of anthrosopohy? ] 23:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


::::(from AC user page, deleted with the edit comment "Delete section, no point")
== Fair enough ==
Specifically, I was referencing her comment on ]. I don't think it'd be helpful to say anything more on this subject, since, well, both of you have been showing very thin skins of late. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::I just looked at that discussion, what Abridged wrote was:
::::::"Keep and improve meets notability criteria. please note nominating editor currently subject of RFC Abridged talk 14:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)"
:::::I feel your description of this comment is inaccurate. &mdash;] (''']''') 22:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC) moved here by ] <sup>]</sup> 00:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I'm sorry, Abridged, but over the last few days, you and Whig have been seemingly making huge efforts to feel offended at things. While I'm sorry that you are offended, it's getting to the point where criticism of you and other homeopaths is being met with screams of "Personal Attack!" whatevert the merits - most mnotably where you ignored the attacks on me in the passage that got Peter morrell banned, instead criticising me for saying I thought Peter's bizarre claims were a bit paranoid. If you must do an RfC to get it out of your system, go ahead, but I really don't see how this is at all helpful. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Well, whatever he said to you, you DID attack him by calling him "paranoid", and I did apologize TO YOU for misstating what Peter had said. The thing is you have attacked me and you should aplologize rather than defending your remarks repeatedly. I am pretty irritated. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I see where there may have been confusion. 'Round here, people (at least in practice) criticize articles, edits, categorization schemes, etc., but not other editors personally. Anyone saying that the article was "spammy" (and note that I was joking about the comment at the DRV and not saying that the article was spammy) was criticizing the article and not you as a person or even as a Wikipedian. Sometimes, however, that gets lost on newer users (hell, I've been guilty of getting offended myself). That is why we all spout the "assume good Fatah" mantra, as it is easier to just assume the best possible meaning of a comment and move on rather than tell the person what you really feel about them (which can be oh so tempting at times. Guy, for one, has made me want to pull my hair out at times, but he genuinely has the best interests of the project at heart. As for your article, I will give it a good look as soon as the DRv finishes (it will be restored, I imagine) and give it a spit polishing and offer you constructive criticism. Cheers. ] <small>(])</small> 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
:Sometimes admins go overboard (I'm sure that I have myself). We literally get thousands of new articles from new users every day that are either from people trying to sell their crappy home-published book or that say stuff like "mr roberts is the best teacher and is soooo cool. he also came up with all of the ideas for star wars." In defending the integruity of Misplaced Pages, we clean 'em out with a flamethrower. Sometimes, we go too far and, hence, DRV. I'm just glad that the whole experience hasn't turned you off. We always need bright folks like you to stick around. ] <small>(])</small> 23:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
::Cool. Whenever working on a rticle gets stressful (ie this DRV) try working on something completely opposite fo your usual stuff. I see you like homeopathy, so try working on ] or ] or ] whenever things get too stressful in your usualy field. If you ever have any questions, just give me a yell. ] <small>(])</small> 00:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


==Welcomes==
Hi, noting the point you raised, anyone can add a welcome to a new user, or indeed to an anon. A list of handy templates is given at ], feel free to apply them whenever you think appropriate. Welcome! from ], ] 09:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


:Very well. I'm sorry for offending you, however, I do feel that the article in question, as the only example and not, evidently, having seen much play beyond its frist appearance, is not worthy of inclusion, and think that you should reconsider what "notability" means in this case, and whether notability, even if there, forces the inclusion. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
==Homeopathy Wikiproject==
It looks good, and I believe there's interest. The NPOV'll be the hardest one to maintain, though. Have to watch the pages, as, well, it's not uncommon for someone to go in and weaken some criticism, change wording to remove or diminish the scientific point of view, etc. (For instance, the other day, some anonymous user claimed a homeopathic product ha d been allowed back on the market after having been yanked under advertising standards. Luckily, the Australian governmental webpage in question was very detailed about everything that department was looking into, so I could quickly disprove that as true, but... ] <sup>]</sup> 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


:Yes, it is very important to guard against that kind of stuff. Do you know if Misplaced Pages-wise I have to go through some process to approve it, or can I just stick it up? ] <sup>]</sup> 23:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC) ::What I want you to apologize for is calling me an "uncritical homeopathy promoter". I've done nothing of the sort. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Looking at ], looks like you can go ahead and just do it! ] <sup>]</sup> 23:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC) :::Sometimes when you don't want to be called a ] you have to actually stop acting like a ]. It's not difficult you do realise? ] (]) 05:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


==Dispute resolution==
Thanks for inviting me to be involved. I don't have time and worse still I don't have an appetite to battle with all the pro-science fundamentalist geeks, mostly Americans, who infest wikipedia, who vandalise anything that deviates from their pernicious creed and who wish to purge wikipedia of anything that is not what they think a truly open-minded and neutral science is about. So I will not be joining your project. thank you ] 08:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think a careful read of ] would be helpful for the current situation. While there are many ways to approach such disputes, I'd have used ] because of the incivility issues, though ] would have crossed my mind. I've never found ] to be useful at all, as it's extremely bureaucratic. ] is a much better option, though only if WP:WQA or WP:EAR wasn't usful. More than likely, you'll find editors in suggesting WP:ANI along the way.


I hope you find this at least somewhat helpful. --] (]) 18:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
== Prod Removal ==
:WP:RFC is part of WP:DR. &mdash;] (''']''') 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
::And RfCs tend to be a last option, rather than an initial one. While Abridged may not have the experience with Misplaced Pages to know this, I certainly would expect Whig to know and advise Abridged accordingly. --] (]) 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I believe RfC is appropriate in this case. &mdash;] (''']''') 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I looked at the ] before I did this and it said the main avenue was RFC so I did that. This was only after I wrote to Adam twice and he applied uncivilly with a ] and then just took my comments completely off his user page. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:::: Then in my opinion you have a great deal to learn about dispute resolution. As you see from the RfC, the overwhelming opinion is that this was an improper action, perhaps even grossly improper. --] (]) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Ronz, I don't think it's improper to request comment from uninvolved editors on the behavior at issue. &mdash;] (''']''') 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I am finding it suprising that no one takes ] seriously and everyone defend Adam's right to call me names! ] <sup>]</sup> 22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:You're right, it's policy. &mdash;] (''']''') 23:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


== RfC threaded discussion ==
Fair enough. I'll wait a couple of days before filing AFD's on them, in order to give you a chance to find ] for the articles. In particular I am concerned about ], whose article consists of a single sentence. Also of concern, now that I look at it, is ], which, other than not demonstrating notability, is a pretty clear violation of ], ], and very probably several other policies. Cheers, ] 13:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Would you be willing to move your response in the AC2 RfC to the discussion page (along with my reply)? I didn't want to move your response for you without permission, but I hope to prevent this RfC from becoming disorganized and hard to follow. &mdash;] (''']''') 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah, I totally agree about those articles 100%, but I dont' think there is any need to impose tight deadlines and I feel that adding the prod templates all over the place is a bit confrontational. I am concerned about the deletions becuase of what happened here: ]. I came along an innocently wrote a new article on this guy because I thought he should have one and BAMM! it was deleted in '''3 minutes''' (look at the logs; I'm not even kidding). The former deletion had raised a suspiction about the new article, but the new article was a pefectly reasonable stub. I don't think this really should happen again. Jain probably deserves an article--they are a huge publisher of homeopathic books in India and the books are used internationally, but of course Misplaced Pages shouldn't advertise. Why not take the Jain article down to a stub due to the reasonable concerns you raise rather than asking for the article to be deleted? I'll put some more info on Nash, but have some other items on my agenda as well. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
::I understand your concern about too-speedy deletions - I would never prod an article that was obviously a work in progress, and the ] deletion was clearly an example of overzealousness. The articles I prodded were short, abandoned articles that did not demonstrate notability, and rudimentary googling indicated that there were not reliable sources to be found. I will refrain from setting a timetable for your sources, out of courtesy, but these articles must eventually be improved or deleted. I stubbed ] per your suggestion, hopefully a good article can be made of it. Cheers, ] 14:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm 100% in agreement with you and know you want the best for Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
::::OK, I expanded both articles. ] is still quite short, but comparable in length to articles on other international publishing houses in the category. I think ] is a reasonable stub now. HOpefully someone who knows more will add more material. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


:Please feel free to move stuff around. The admin on that page is saying that we didn't meet the two person minimum for certification anyway and he's going to delete the page in 48 hours so it is probably a moot point. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
==An Automated Message from ]==


::I'll be happy to correct any defects that I made as soon as I understand what needs to be done. &mdash;] (''']''') 21:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should ] by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button ] located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! ] 14:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)<!-- HagermanBot Auto-Tilde -->


::::I moved it. Fill just wrote that action should be brought against me for starting the RFC. This is bizarre. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
== format ==


:::::Don't worry about the return fire, for now. Just respond if appropriate in the discussion area. &mdash;] (''']''') 21:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know: when you make a redirect, don't include a space at the beginning. That breaks it. I've fixed the one you made a few minutes ago. ] 14:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Back to the main page, could you put the evidence in strictly linear time order? I'd like to add some items and rather than making a separate section, it would be easier to make insertions where appropriate. For instance, I feel is highly important. You could add it in yourself when you're reorganizing or I can add it when I don't have to edit your text too much. &mdash;] (''']''') 22:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for your help. I could not figure out why it wasn't working. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


:You have my complete permission to reorder and edit in any way you like. I think that is important too. Adam completely misrepresented what I said. And you called him on it, which I appreciate. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
== Images in articles ==


::It will be a few hours before I can get to it, if you'd like to go ahead and make additions in the meantime go ahead, I will check all links and make sure that I agree with everything ''de novo'' and add my own statement later. We have 48 hours since you opened the RfC to correct any defects, lets make the best of that and clarify this entire issue fully. I know you feel the personal attack more strongly, I don't see that as being very important compared to the misrepresentations and I'd like that emphasized. &mdash;] (''']''') 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I do some research into family members then call them and ask them to release them with a cc-by-2.5 license. I use the census and obituaries to track the people down then start making phone calls. I am always surprised how generous people are. --] 02:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


Look, I'm not writing anything else on it. They are now calling for a community ban against me (and also you) for bringing the RFC in the first place. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


:I see what you mean. I'll make the change in a bit. I don't want it to be decertified, and I'm not worried about the community ban threat personally. 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Thanks ==


==Suggestion==
Thanks for your invitation. One thing I would like to bring in your notice that kindly guide me, when I will seek your opinion.
It appears you made the Rfc in good faith, not realizing that it was overkill for the situation, and inappropriate given that there is a current Rfc on Adam. I suggest you withdraw the Rfc and simply re-state that you thought it was an appropriate step in dispute resolution for this situation. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:I will be happy to do that if Adam will strike his personal attack against me and also strike the associated misrepresentations he has made concerning me. Could you talk to him about maybe doing that? If that can't happen I am OK being banned if that is the way things are done here. I would rather have my name cleared first. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::You're calling his assertion that you are an "uncritical promoter of homeopathy" a personal attack, yes? That's not a personal attack. It may be an erroneous assertion, but its not an attack. A personal attack usuallty looks a little more like . I think you'll agree that Adam's assertion does not come close. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Thats certainly profanity, but I think your definition of ] is a bit narrower than what the policy states. Adam uses his perceived notion of me as "prohomeopathy" to dismiss and discredit my views. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


I've had ] with Ryan Postlethwaite, who thinks it would not be helpful for me to add more complete details to this RfC. I'm not really sure what to do at this point but it may be helpful to place this into evidence in the Matthew Hoffman case and let the ArbCom consider it. &mdash;] (''']''') 02:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
], 05 April 2007, 07:05 IST
:By the way, I saw you might be thinking of leaving. I hope you'll reconsider. We need more editors willing to stay and work for NPOV. &mdash;] (''']''') 03:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


Anthon, you are right that it was an attack. However, it wasn't the level of attack for which anyone gets anything on WP. There are other ways to stand up for your rights than to continue this RfC. About the request to get you and whig banned at AN/I, in point of fact I believe you will not be banned there, or blocked. You did what you did in good faith. There is really something you need, which would have helped diffuse this situation, just for one: email. Could you get an address, even create a different account from your regular one so that people can contact you off WP? ——''']''' ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 05:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
== Special stub for homopath/doctor ==


:Another suggestion: check the block log of anyone who offers you advice, and don't take the advice of those who have problematic histories or are under ArbCom restrictions themselves - their advice is likely to be bad. Example of checking a block log: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Abridged - change the user to whoever you're checking. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there isn't a special stub for those types of articles. You can look ] for a list of all the stub categories. However, there are many health stubs (look ]) that you can use, such as <nowiki>{{health-stub}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{med-stub}}</nowiki>. — ] 05:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
::OK, I set up the email and will keep this so I know how to check block logs. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


== invitaton to wikiproect == == Difficult compromise examples ==
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
| ]
|
You are invited to join the ''']''',
a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Homeopathy. Please visit the ], where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Don't delay---the first 25 members will receive this beautfiul toaster ] <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
|}
== Rajesh Shah ==
Hi Abridged -


What compromises have you made with respect to this issue? ] (]) 20:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Wondering if you had any thoughts on ]. I'm unclear what qualifications this homeopath has. I'm also unsure if you take away the world record business he's unlikely to be notable enough for WP inclusion? Thoughts?


:I haven't edited the main homeopathy article since July, when I was run off of it. Recently, on arnica, someone said the bit about homeopathy read like a "how to" so I shortened it considerably. That bit is gone now becuase others would not respect a source from 1993 (not this decade), or a homeopath MD authored book because not written by a "plant expert". YOu can look through the edit history on that article to find my contributions. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
] 07:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


:: So what is your prefered version of the article that you made "difficult compromises" to get away from? ] (]) 20:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:Good questions. I'll look into both issues. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::OK, I looked over this briefly and weighed in the the talk page of the article, see ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


:::I don't have a "preferred version". Look, what is your point? Are you trying to bait me? ] <sup>]</sup> 20:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have little knowledge about Homeopathy. Will try to improve the article when I get some time <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">]</font></span> 04:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


:::: No. I'm trying to figure out what kind of compromises you are talking about. You stated that you compromised on one article, but, in fact, your only edits to that article were to insert more and more homeopathic content. I don't see how that was substantially "difficult" for you. Perhaps I missed something, though, because I was of the impression you were still dissatisfied with the Arnica article. If you have agreed with the editors who oppose inclusion of homeopathic information on that article, you could have said something. ] (]) 20:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Abridged and friends, I am not sure how to edit this page. There is a question about Dr Rajesh Shah and his qualification. I have known Rajesh since over 15 years, as he was a professor where I did my medical graduation. In India, there is M.D. degree in Homeopathy; which Dr Shah has. He is a renowned homeopath and a researcher.


(unindent) Your characterization above is untrue. Look back from . You'll see I took some content out and did a rewrite. Now even the little sentence I had put in has been completely removed. This plant is used to make one of the major homeopathic remedies, and I referenced from one of the major homeopathic ref books. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
==Copied from ]==


That diff shows you adding homeopathic content - adding less content than you first added, but still adding homeopathic content. "Difficult compromise" would be where you did something you otherwise would not have done. Is there an example of this, or is your statement that difficult compromise will be required one that is forward looking? ] (]) 20:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
<blockquote>I have never defined or interpreted EBM for you. In the analysis of RCTs, or observational studies where appropriate statistical comparisons are made, "treatment groups" are compared to placebo. This would be an apropriate way to study homeopathy. If I've said anything different from this, then please feel free to point it out to me. You might start collaborating here and stop assuming that others don't know what they are taking about, especially since you don't have a relevant degree or experience. ] <sup>]</sup>
</blockquote>


:So "homeopathic content" is per se evidence of non-compromise? Is your idea of compromise to be removing all "homeopathic content" from Misplaced Pages? &mdash;] (''']''') 20:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate it if you did not make unwarranted assumptions about my education or background. I'm not going to go into specifics, but I have a master's degree in biochemistry and have done clinical research in both academic and industrial settings. I've been more than fair in allowing some very marginal articles related to homeopathy to pass without an AFD, and I've collaborated on the talk page for homeopathy by providing sources and respecting consensus. I was attempting to get you to clarify remarks you had made about EBM and testing homeopathy thereof, and I've clearly misunderstood you. ] 22:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


:: I am not the one who believes there is a need for "difficult compromise." I will have no difficulty writing the relevent bits about homeopathy unfettered. ] (]) 20:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:*If you are attempting to clarify, why not ask clarifying questions directly rather than take a confrontational tone which makes assumptions that other editors don't know what they are talking about??? Why assume that when I said the word "clinical trials" in reference to homeopathy, I mean some poorly designed uncontrolled affair? And honestly, in terms of your degree or expertise, a master's degree with clinical trial experience does not buy you clinical perspective. A masters degree with some clinical trial experience also doesn't buy you the kind of research perspective in issues of study design that a PhD an relevant post doctoral experience would provide. The fact is that it is only in the last ten years or so that there has been any funding available to study alt medicine. The homeopathic process is different enough from the conventional process that it is difficult to design studies that can measure outcomes in this field.
:*Regarding your statement on AFDs, I'm not sure what you mean by "more than fair." You and another editor tagged most of the articles on homeopathy in the encyclopedia with "prod" tags, proposed AFD, or merged about a month ago. I completely agree that the quality of most of these articles (except for one well done little bio article) wasn't great and they needed to be improved, so I'm assuming a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia rather than assuming you and he were on a crusade to make Misplaced Pages your soapbox ] by ridding it of coverage of homeopathy outside of the main article. However, all of the articles you tagged were on perfectly reasonable subjects for articles in WP, and if I hadn't accidently come along in the midst of the crusade and improved the articles they would have been gone. The quality of all of the articles now is fine. If there are any you feel are still deserving of AFD then why not join ] and collaboratively work to improve the articles or list them there to bring them to the attention of interested editors rather than making semi-threatening statements that you are "allowing them to pass"?
:*I appreciate your statement that you've misunderstood me. I've really been trying not to misunderstand you. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


::Someone had taken out the entire section that I had written previously. When they expressed their concerns about what they found troublesome about the section, I was able to respond by putting content back in a shortened form which addressed their concerns and left some content there at the same time. That is an example of ]. I do not really understand your example. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
== homeopathy template ==


::: So you believe that what is needed is back-and-forth edit warring where you settle for less and less of what you want and others settle for less and less of what they want, but you and your cohort remain dissatisfied and so when a new editor shows up, as opposed to stopping them from fighting the prior "consensus," instead you ignore their constant attempts to push more and more homeopathic material into the mainstream and hope that that tilts the article your way just a little more? Is that what "difficult compromise" means? Doesn't work for me. You'll have to demonstrate some good faith by taking the first move to remove some homeopathic content from an article where you feel it doesn't belong. When you've done so I'll review where it might. ] (]) 20:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nadav1, Please let me know exactly what you mean about the homeopathy template so we can do it. Abridged talk 12:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


::::That wasn't an edit war, that was an example of a few editors interacting rather civilly to reach a common ground which was better than either starting position. And by the way, the wikipedia policy is ASSUME good faith, not DEMAND that others DEMONSTRATE it. ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, I was requesting that ] have a template message of the form ] or ], like other wikiprojects, which can easily be remmbered and inserted into article talk pages. The specific reason that I requested this was that I was running into weird technical errors when I tried pasting in the code you give now instead of a template. ] 14:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


::::: I assume you are acting in good faith, as I assume you assume I am doing the same (]). However, I don't think you are able to understand that other people think your homeopathic additions damage the encyclopedia - and this fundamental disconnect is '''your''' problem, because I'm well aware you think that my removal of homeopathic content damages the encyclopedia (I just think you're wrong). Remidy that by showing you have some balance here by doing something, anything, against your "side" and I'll reciprocate. ] (]) 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::Ok, I did that, see . ] <sup>]</sup> 18:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


:::::: Demanding Abridged remove homeopathic content is absurd, especially since PouponOnToast and his/her cohort would already have removed any such content that did not belong in Misplaced Pages along with much RS/V content that does belong here. &mdash;] (''']''') 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
== it's okay ==


:::::::: So you believe every single pro-homeopathic statement added to the encyclopedia at the current time is acceptable? Every one? ] (]) 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
it's oaby about the pocket book I'll put up another one and stop it from being deleted the reason it was befcause some peope here do not like homeopathy and try to delete anything about it aeven if it is notable and has good soruces. ill write an article betetr than that aold one and make it not do everything they saying about the old one. ] 20:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


(unindent) Look, above you said, you'll have to demonstrate some good faith...". That's why I said that good faith should be assumed not DEMANDED. Look, I am demonstrating good faith by even answering you. Last time you came here it was to insinuate that I had conflicts of interest. I still haven't figured out exactly what your point is this time...


:Now for this last question. How could I possibly know the entire content of wikipedia on this topic at this moment??? Also, I don't think in terms of proH or antiH. It is about accurate or inaccurate description for me. That is the job of an encyclopedia, to describe, accurately. I don't think this is served by going around deleting any reference to homeopathy. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
==Notable?==


Hey, Abridged, is ] really notable? I'm kind of inclined to put it up for AfD, but I keep running up against disagreement about what's notable, so... ] <sup>]</sup> 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


== Homeopathy article probation notification ==
:About as notable as many of the other publishers with wikipages. You would improve your credibility if you would afd some non-homeopathy related stuff once in awhile. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from ] and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be ''especially'' mindful of content policies, such as ], and interaction policies, such as ], ], ], and ]. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at ], and may be appealed to the ]. I am making you aware of this due to your recent edits of ]. Thanks! --] (]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 17:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::As would Skinwalker. I see he has started on another purge. I have a suggestion. GET a LIFE!!!! ] <sup>]</sup> 04:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


==Note==
== About your controversial example of junk science in the homeopathy talk page ==
I see this response to your comment. Just curious as to how that is done as I am being asked to walk away from a similar problem. ] (]) 06:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


:It really irritates me to be characterized as a "combatant" subject to "enforcement" when I haven't done anything wrong and am bring up what I think is a reasonable point in a reasonable way. This is sort of an adolescent boy environment with adolescent boy methods and values. Last week, a number of people, many of them admins, voted to community ban me from Misplaced Pages because I took exception with being called an "uncritical promoter of homoepathy". It is screwed up. I left before, might leave again. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Quoting from you: ''"Junk science" is a term which could have been applied to notions that the earth was round or orbited around the sun at a different point in time than our own''.<br />
What do you mean?? I suggest that to discuss about what junk science is you first should reconsider your own understanding of the meaning of science, because yours is the most utterly inaccurate example of junk science I have ever heard of. Eratosthenes measured the Earth's circumference with impressive accuracy (and most of all with an absolutely correct method) more than 200 BC. Even before that, Aristarchus apparently argued that the Earth is revolving around the Sun. Their method comprised careful observation, systematic measurement and deductive extrapolation. That is, science in its purest sense. I have never heard before of a suggestion that theirs was junk science rather than science thousands of years ahead of time. A suggestion based on what? On a majority consensus at the various times? This comment does not play in your favor in this overall discussion. The scientific validity of investigations has nothing to do with when the investigation and the deduction are carried out, nor with popular acceptance, but solely with the method employed. Popular or majority consensus are irrelevant, today as at any moment in the past, and hopefully in the future. --] 16:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


== Your shiny new archive. ==
==]==
If you want to have a separate article, or even any article that is remotely readable, you are going to have to deal with a certain amount of disclaimer. That current stuff might be eventually be replaced with a historical section on controversy, but believe me, it will not fly without it. Please do not start an edit war on this. I know what I am talking about. I have over 15000 edits here.--] 16:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Yup, fine. You now have a choice of moving any conversations - once they are old/redundant enough - into this archive using cut and paste, or after a while you can move a batch of subjects into a new archive using the same method. It really depends on how busy your page gets. ] (]) 20:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
:Go ahead, but please make it shorter and more apropos to the topic ratgher than boilerplate as you had it. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

== Vanishing a user ==

Would you like me to do the same replacement I did in my own talk and archives? &mdash;] (''']''') 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

:Hey thanks Whig, but I'm sure this will go through channels and turn out ok and there will be some way worked out to let him properly vanish. Although most of my talk page is made of of people attacking me, I didn't feel it was right for anyone to delete most of it by fiat. It was also symptomatic of the general way "vanished user" tended to wield his adminship. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

::Yes, I agree with you, however I am seeking to reduce or end conflict if that is possible and the user would apparently like to be vanished as quickly as possible. While that may be a very rude request, I figured I'd honor the spirit of it by doing , just omitting the vanished user's real name. &mdash;] (''']''') 21:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Well that shows that you really are a gentleman. I have gone through the archive and replaced the name with initials. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Thanks for doing that. There are a few AC's with a wikilink to the vanished user, I'd be grateful if you could consider removing the piped links. Thanks again, .. ], ] 10:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::OK, I did it. No more wikilinks. If AC had asked me to do this nicely originally I would have done it then. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::That's very much appreciated, thanks for sorting that out. .. ], ] 16:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:54, 19 October 2024

Ivies

Pardon my interest, but what is it that brings you back, after 6 months of inactivity, to comment on AC's RfC? Antelan 07:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching the article and topic. When I started, the coverage was very very weak. THe main article, I thought, was a mess. It wasn't well organized into sections that made sense as parts of a coherent whole, it didn't flow, things were repeated all over the place, etc. It was overlong and many articles that should have been subarticles had been deleted and merged into the main article rather than improved.
I thought I could help to improve things. Given my background as a traditionally trained and practicing MD with an editorial background and some knowledge and interest in homeopathy, I thought I could make a contribution to the overall subject area and have some fun with Misplaced Pages at the same time.
I did (I think strong) work intially when some biographies of some internationally known homeopaths which were being afded by adam (and a few others)---you can look at the stuff on my user page to see some of the comments I made and edits I did. I found this kind of ironic in an encyclopedia which has extensive pages for individual soccer matches and cartoon show episodes :=), but whatever. I looked up the criteria for notability, improved the articles, and pointed out the criteria on the AFD talk pages.
It seemed bizarre that most of the editors participating in the homeopathy pages really didn't know much about the actual topic and seemed less interested in learning more about it than in protecting the encyclopedia from it. There was a lot of labeling and warning going on and not much explication and description.
I stayed away from the main page initially as it was such a minefield, but when I started to make edits on that page I was bashed pretty much immediately. Misplaced Pages doesn't earn my salary, take care of my patients, get me any publications; it is entirely a volunteer pursuit. When this happened, I turned my energies elsewhere. I have a lot to do.
ONe of the things which I found particularly troubling was the degree to which AC was using admin tools and editing simultaneously. He was never uncivil, but he seemed to be ignoring accepted standards for administrative behavior. It is problematic in a community project like this when selected individuals feel morally justified in not following the rules set forward for participants on various levels. I have a lot of sympthy for Adam. He is without doubt a very well-intentioned young man with hopefully a promising future in the real world. He has made some great contributions to the encyclopeida. However, it is wrong for him to be so personally involved as an editor in a subject matter while also being one of the most involved admins in the subject matter.
When I noticed that the larger community had noticed this problem, I decided to add my voice to the discussion.
I hope this satisfies your curiousity. Feel free to contact me with any further quesitons. Abridged 14:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

Actually, I was looking at the Homeopathic remedies category after it was mentioned on Talk:Potassium dichromate. I could see adding a link to the Arnica montana going to a page on the homeopathic remedy, but I don't think that a long list of things it's used to treat is appropriate; it could even verge on inappropriate within the scope of homeopathy, since homeopathy is supposed to be individualised. ] 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't support the removal of sourced relevant content. Abridged 18:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Connection?

I don't mean to be rude or anything, but if you're not related to the homeopathy industry, either as a user or producer, in some way, why are all of your edits - or at least the ones I scanned through - about homeopathy? Just a casual interest? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


back when I signed up for Misplaced Pages, I was looking for a field to edit in. I was exploring an interest in homeopathy and thought that adding content to wikipedia from sources might be a good way to expand my knowledge and also help improve wikipedia at the same time.
I am a traditionally trained and practicing MD, and have research training and editorial background. I make my living practicing conventional medicine and believe in what I do. I do not have a homeopathic practice, but I have sent a few patients who weren't being helped with the conventional approaches and asked me about alternative approaches to a local homeopath on a consultation basis, as I've referred to other alternative providers when it seemed appropriate and the patient asked me to. Most, quite honestly, were not helped but one or two were helped quite a bit.
All in all, I maintain an interest in homeopathy and a skepticism about the field at the same time.
If you don't believe that I do not have some kind of a commerical conflict of interest, I am happy to share my identity with a bureaucrat off line. Abridged 22:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I assume good faith. However, if you are truly interested in improving knowledge as opposed to improving the optics of homeopathy on the encyclopedia, perhaps you could branch your editing out to areas of less dispute in addition to your work in defending homeopathy from skeptics. In fact, I'll make a deal with you - for every article you substantially improve that has nothing to do with homeopathy or any other alternative medicine/pseudoscience (by my definition, not yours), I will make equally substantial improvements in an article that has nothing to do with any of my areas of interest. Deal? PouponOnToast (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually really busy (I probably work 60-70 hours a week) and don't have much time to do random stuff so I can't promise that I will edit much. I was reading about homeopathy at the time I was editing, so thought I'd kill two birds with one stone by improving wiki in that area. I am not really interested in proving anything to you, or having you prove any thing to me, but as I said if you are concerned about conflict of interest I'm happy to prove that I don't have one :=) Abridged 22:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack?

While I apologise for any offense caused, your behaviour in every debate about homeopathy - to the point of objecting to an AfD not because of any good reason, but because you disliked me challenging anything remotely having to do with homeopathy, seems to justify the description. ] 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That is inaccurate!!! You know as well as I do that I participated in many afds by citing notablility criteria to show articles met them. You know I improved many articles to meet criteria. I'll add links in a moment. Your last AFD request on a bio of a homeopath was a bit ill timed as you are the subect of an rfc, and I don't think there was anything wrong with saying that. The AFD in question was successful, but I think that I also said that I thought the subject was notable and the article should be improved rather than deleted. I also don't think there was anything wrong with that. Abridged 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
MORE:

Here are some diffs of discussions I participated in about AFDS. See if any of these justify your insulting and inaccurate description:

Here are a few articles which were prodded, which I improved:

Abridged 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I note you mentioned that this behavior might be appropriate for an RfC/U. I'd be inclined to agree if that is appropriate in light of the ongoing ArbCom matter. —Whig (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the Jawahar Shah AfD, but never mind. There really doesn't seem much poitn talking to the two of you at this time. ] 23:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
(from AC user page, deleted with the edit comment "Delete section, no point")

Specifically, I was referencing her comment on Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Jawahar_Shah. I don't think it'd be helpful to say anything more on this subject, since, well, both of you have been showing very thin skins of late. ] 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at that discussion, what Abridged wrote was:
"Keep and improve meets notability criteria. please note nominating editor currently subject of RFC Abridged talk 14:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)"
I feel your description of this comment is inaccurate. —Whig (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC) moved here by Abridged 00:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Abridged, but over the last few days, you and Whig have been seemingly making huge efforts to feel offended at things. While I'm sorry that you are offended, it's getting to the point where criticism of you and other homeopaths is being met with screams of "Personal Attack!" whatevert the merits - most mnotably where you ignored the attacks on me in the passage that got Peter morrell banned, instead criticising me for saying I thought Peter's bizarre claims were a bit paranoid. If you must do an RfC to get it out of your system, go ahead, but I really don't see how this is at all helpful. ] 01:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever he said to you, you DID attack him by calling him "paranoid", and I did apologize TO YOU for misstating what Peter had said. The thing is you have attacked me and you should aplologize rather than defending your remarks repeatedly. I am pretty irritated. Abridged 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Very well. I'm sorry for offending you, however, I do feel that the article in question, as the only example and not, evidently, having seen much play beyond its frist appearance, is not worthy of inclusion, and think that you should reconsider what "notability" means in this case, and whether notability, even if there, forces the inclusion. ] 01:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
What I want you to apologize for is calling me an "uncritical homeopathy promoter". I've done nothing of the sort. Abridged 01:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes when you don't want to be called a WP:SPADE you have to actually stop acting like a WP:SPADE. It's not difficult you do realise? Shot info (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I think a careful read of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution would be helpful for the current situation. While there are many ways to approach such disputes, I'd have used WP:WQA because of the incivility issues, though WP:EAR would have crossed my mind. I've never found WP:RfC/U to be useful at all, as it's extremely bureaucratic. WP:ANI is a much better option, though only if WP:WQA or WP:EAR wasn't usful. More than likely, you'll find editors in suggesting WP:ANI along the way.

I hope you find this at least somewhat helpful. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFC is part of WP:DR. —Whig (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
And RfCs tend to be a last option, rather than an initial one. While Abridged may not have the experience with Misplaced Pages to know this, I certainly would expect Whig to know and advise Abridged accordingly. --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe RfC is appropriate in this case. —Whig (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution before I did this and it said the main avenue was RFC so I did that. This was only after I wrote to Adam twice and he applied uncivilly with a non-apology apology and then just took my comments completely off his user page. Abridged 22:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Then in my opinion you have a great deal to learn about dispute resolution. As you see from the RfC, the overwhelming opinion is that this was an improper action, perhaps even grossly improper. --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Ronz, I don't think it's improper to request comment from uninvolved editors on the behavior at issue. —Whig (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I am finding it suprising that no one takes WP:NPA seriously and everyone defend Adam's right to call me names! Abridged 22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's policy. —Whig (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC threaded discussion

Would you be willing to move your response in the AC2 RfC to the discussion page (along with my reply)? I didn't want to move your response for you without permission, but I hope to prevent this RfC from becoming disorganized and hard to follow. —Whig (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to move stuff around. The admin on that page is saying that we didn't meet the two person minimum for certification anyway and he's going to delete the page in 48 hours so it is probably a moot point. Abridged 21:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll be happy to correct any defects that I made as soon as I understand what needs to be done. —Whig (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I moved it. Fill just wrote that action should be brought against me for starting the RFC. This is bizarre. Abridged 21:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about the return fire, for now. Just respond if appropriate in the discussion area. —Whig (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to the main page, could you put the evidence in strictly linear time order? I'd like to add some items and rather than making a separate section, it would be easier to make insertions where appropriate. For instance, I feel this is highly important. You could add it in yourself when you're reorganizing or I can add it when I don't have to edit your text too much. —Whig (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You have my complete permission to reorder and edit in any way you like. I think that is important too. Adam completely misrepresented what I said. And you called him on it, which I appreciate. Abridged 22:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It will be a few hours before I can get to it, if you'd like to go ahead and make additions in the meantime go ahead, I will check all links and make sure that I agree with everything de novo and add my own statement later. We have 48 hours since you opened the RfC to correct any defects, lets make the best of that and clarify this entire issue fully. I know you feel the personal attack more strongly, I don't see that as being very important compared to the misrepresentations and I'd like that emphasized. —Whig (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not writing anything else on it. They are now calling for a community ban against me (and also you) for bringing the RFC in the first place. Abridged 00:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'll make the change in a bit. I don't want it to be decertified, and I'm not worried about the community ban threat personally. 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whig (talk • contribs)

Suggestion

It appears you made the Rfc in good faith, not realizing that it was overkill for the situation, and inappropriate given that there is a current Rfc on Adam. I suggest you withdraw the Rfc and simply re-state that you thought it was an appropriate step in dispute resolution for this situation. KillerChihuahua 01:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I will be happy to do that if Adam will strike his personal attack against me and also strike the associated misrepresentations he has made concerning me. Could you talk to him about maybe doing that? If that can't happen I am OK being banned if that is the way things are done here. I would rather have my name cleared first. Abridged 01:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You're calling his assertion that you are an "uncritical promoter of homeopathy" a personal attack, yes? That's not a personal attack. It may be an erroneous assertion, but its not an attack. A personal attack usuallty looks a little more like this. I think you'll agree that Adam's assertion does not come close. KillerChihuahua 01:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thats certainly profanity, but I think your definition of personal attack is a bit narrower than what the policy states. Adam uses his perceived notion of me as "prohomeopathy" to dismiss and discredit my views. Abridged 02:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had some follow-up conversation with Ryan Postlethwaite, who thinks it would not be helpful for me to add more complete details to this RfC. I'm not really sure what to do at this point but it may be helpful to place this into evidence in the Matthew Hoffman case and let the ArbCom consider it. —Whig (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I saw you might be thinking of leaving. I hope you'll reconsider. We need more editors willing to stay and work for NPOV. —Whig (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon, you are right that it was an attack. However, it wasn't the level of attack for which anyone gets anything on WP. There are other ways to stand up for your rights than to continue this RfC. About the request to get you and whig banned at AN/I, in point of fact I believe you will not be banned there, or blocked. You did what you did in good faith. There is really something you need, which would have helped diffuse this situation, just for one: email. Could you get an address, even create a different account from your regular one so that people can contact you off WP? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion: check the block log of anyone who offers you advice, and don't take the advice of those who have problematic histories or are under ArbCom restrictions themselves - their advice is likely to be bad. Example of checking a block log: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Abridged - change the user to whoever you're checking. KillerChihuahua 13:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I set up the email and will keep this so I know how to check block logs. Abridged 17:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Difficult compromise examples

What compromises have you made with respect to this issue? PouponOnToast (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't edited the main homeopathy article since July, when I was run off of it. Recently, on arnica, someone said the bit about homeopathy read like a "how to" so I shortened it considerably. That bit is gone now becuase others would not respect a source from 1993 (not this decade), or a homeopath MD authored book because not written by a "plant expert". YOu can look through the edit history on that article to find my contributions. Abridged 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
So what is your prefered version of the article that you made "difficult compromises" to get away from? PouponOnToast (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a "preferred version". Look, what is your point? Are you trying to bait me? Abridged 20:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No. I'm trying to figure out what kind of compromises you are talking about. You stated that you compromised on one article, but, in fact, your only edits to that article were to insert more and more homeopathic content. I don't see how that was substantially "difficult" for you. Perhaps I missed something, though, because I was of the impression you were still dissatisfied with the Arnica article. If you have agreed with the editors who oppose inclusion of homeopathic information on that article, you could have said something. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Your characterization above is untrue. Look back from here. You'll see I took some content out and did a rewrite. Now even the little sentence I had put in has been completely removed. This plant is used to make one of the major homeopathic remedies, and I referenced from one of the major homeopathic ref books. Abridged 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That diff shows you adding homeopathic content - adding less content than you first added, but still adding homeopathic content. "Difficult compromise" would be where you did something you otherwise would not have done. Is there an example of this, or is your statement that difficult compromise will be required one that is forward looking? PouponOnToast (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So "homeopathic content" is per se evidence of non-compromise? Is your idea of compromise to be removing all "homeopathic content" from Misplaced Pages? —Whig (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not the one who believes there is a need for "difficult compromise." I will have no difficulty writing the relevent bits about homeopathy unfettered. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone had taken out the entire section that I had written previously. When they expressed their concerns about what they found troublesome about the section, I was able to respond by putting content back in a shortened form which addressed their concerns and left some content there at the same time. That is an example of compromise. I do not really understand your example. Abridged 20:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
So you believe that what is needed is back-and-forth edit warring where you settle for less and less of what you want and others settle for less and less of what they want, but you and your cohort remain dissatisfied and so when a new editor shows up, as opposed to stopping them from fighting the prior "consensus," instead you ignore their constant attempts to push more and more homeopathic material into the mainstream and hope that that tilts the article your way just a little more? Is that what "difficult compromise" means? Doesn't work for me. You'll have to demonstrate some good faith by taking the first move to remove some homeopathic content from an article where you feel it doesn't belong. When you've done so I'll review where it might. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't an edit war, that was an example of a few editors interacting rather civilly to reach a common ground which was better than either starting position. And by the way, the wikipedia policy is ASSUME good faith, not DEMAND that others DEMONSTRATE it. wp:agf. Abridged 21:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I assume you are acting in good faith, as I assume you assume I am doing the same (WP:AAGF). However, I don't think you are able to understand that other people think your homeopathic additions damage the encyclopedia - and this fundamental disconnect is your problem, because I'm well aware you think that my removal of homeopathic content damages the encyclopedia (I just think you're wrong). Remidy that by showing you have some balance here by doing something, anything, against your "side" and I'll reciprocate. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Demanding Abridged remove homeopathic content is absurd, especially since PouponOnToast and his/her cohort would already have removed any such content that did not belong in Misplaced Pages along with much RS/V content that does belong here. —Whig (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
So you believe every single pro-homeopathic statement added to the encyclopedia at the current time is acceptable? Every one? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Look, above you said, you'll have to demonstrate some good faith...". That's why I said that good faith should be assumed not DEMANDED. Look, I am demonstrating good faith by even answering you. Last time you came here it was to insinuate that I had conflicts of interest. I still haven't figured out exactly what your point is this time...

Now for this last question. How could I possibly know the entire content of wikipedia on this topic at this moment??? Also, I don't think in terms of proH or antiH. It is about accurate or inaccurate description for me. That is the job of an encyclopedia, to describe, accurately. I don't think this is served by going around deleting any reference to homeopathy. Abridged 21:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Homeopathy article probation notification

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. I am making you aware of this due to your recent edits of Dana Ullman. Thanks! --DrEightyEight (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

I see this response to your comment. Just curious as to how that is done as I am being asked to walk away from a similar problem. Anthon01 (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It really irritates me to be characterized as a "combatant" subject to "enforcement" when I haven't done anything wrong and am bring up what I think is a reasonable point in a reasonable way. This is sort of an adolescent boy environment with adolescent boy methods and values. Last week, a number of people, many of them admins, voted to community ban me from Misplaced Pages because I took exception with being called an "uncritical promoter of homoepathy". It is screwed up. I left before, might leave again. Abridged 16:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Your shiny new archive.

Yup, fine. You now have a choice of moving any conversations - once they are old/redundant enough - into this archive using cut and paste, or after a while you can move a batch of subjects into a new archive using the same method. It really depends on how busy your page gets. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Vanishing a user

Would you like me to do the same replacement I did in my own talk and archives? —Whig (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks Whig, but I'm sure this will go through channels and turn out ok and there will be some way worked out to let him properly vanish. Although most of my talk page is made of of people attacking me, I didn't feel it was right for anyone to delete most of it by fiat. It was also symptomatic of the general way "vanished user" tended to wield his adminship. Abridged 21:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you, however I am seeking to reduce or end conflict if that is possible and the user would apparently like to be vanished as quickly as possible. While that may be a very rude request, I figured I'd honor the spirit of it by doing a replacement that preserves the conversations intact, just omitting the vanished user's real name. —Whig (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Well that shows that you really are a gentleman. I have gone through the archive and replaced the name with initials. Abridged 00:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. There are a few AC's with a wikilink to the vanished user, I'd be grateful if you could consider removing the piped links. Thanks again, .. dave souza, talk 10:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I did it. No more wikilinks. If AC had asked me to do this nicely originally I would have done it then. Abridged 16:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That's very much appreciated, thanks for sorting that out. .. dave souza, talk 16:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)