Misplaced Pages

User talk:Shot info: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:30, 30 May 2011 editShot info (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,052 edits →FYI re Quackwatch: edit← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:10, 25 November 2018 edit undoShot info (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,052 edits →ArbCom 2018 election voter message 
(29 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:
:::This COI issue with you is only part of a larger picture that involves *many* hostile environment problems for "minorities" in the QW related articles. :::This COI issue with you is only part of a larger picture that involves *many* hostile environment problems for "minorities" in the QW related articles.


:::Shot, I am quite serious about the COI part with you and, besides a number of recognizable hints, have more or less let it alone for most of 6 weeks, especially after your earlier message to me, after I earlier dropped another ,''...nipping at my ankles...(Arthur's, NCAHF talk), '''do you have a special interest here?'''--I'clast 09:46, 14 January 2007''. :::Shot, I am quite serious about the COI part with you and, besides a number of recognizable hints, have more or less let it alone for most of 6 weeks, especially after your earlier message to me, after I earlier dropped another ,''...nipping at my ankles...(Arthur's, NCAHF talk), '''do you have a special interest here?'''--I'clast 09:46, 14 January 2007''.


:::I give all kinds of people *lots* of chances to rehabilitate their editing, make their points, and get things off their chest, even having reasoned with demonstrable, bannable trolls rather than just pounding them with embarrassing documentation and policies. (I have been lucky, one troll finally embarrassed himself enough to abandon that particular account, and me.) :::I give all kinds of people *lots* of chances to rehabilitate their editing, make their points, and get things off their chest, even having reasoned with demonstrable, bannable trolls rather than just pounding them with embarrassing documentation and policies. (I have been lucky, one troll finally embarrassed himself enough to abandon that particular account, and me.)


:::I encourage you to discuss this matter forthrightly.--] 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC) :::I encourage you to discuss this matter forthrightly.--] 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Line 41: Line 41:
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | for your efforts with Australian articles ]] 00:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | for your efforts with Australian articles ]] 00:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
|} |}

== Civility ==

Hi. You said at ]: "''"civil" is almost always in the eye of the offended, not the policy.''" I disagree. Would you be open to discussing this point? -]<sup>(])</sup> 07:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
:Not really, not because I don't wish to discuss, but often I find that such discussions only fossilise our already established positions. However in saying that, the things that different editors find that they are offended over, and pull ] out is amazing. You can see on JzG's RFC who and what get's offended about things that people just shouldn't be offended over. However given that WP is evolving into this oddball social experiment where the #1 policy is not offending people, I suppose it makes sense. A better place to discuss, rather than my talkpage, is . Thanks --] (]) 11:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

== Mercury poisoning ==

Thanks for catching that howler in ]. I made which I hope fixes the immediate problem. The article still needs organizational work but one patch at a time. ] (]) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
:Not a problem ] (]) 02:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

== VU parallels? ==

I'm confused - what's VU? ] (]) 07:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
:Vanished User. It's a codename for the user who was ultimately persecuted by the ArbCom as fallout from the Matthew Hoffman case. ] (]) 07:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
::Ahh. Yeah. That's so confusing, and I don't know what I am supposed to know or not know. Is his original username forgotten as far as Misplaced Pages's collective memory goes? I started off assuming that all of this was common knowledge, but now I don't know any more. I also stopped reading the Hoffman/VU case too early on - I only discovered today that the use of the term "dogs" in the context of of anti-anti-science editors (or maybe just ID-related ones) was related to a comment in an arbcomm ruling. Ugh. ] (]) 08:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

== Word choice ==

I think you mean "credulous" . Also, though I agree that the community needs to do far more to eliminate {{tl|in-universe}} bias, I do not think that that comment will do much to endear a precious uninvolved administrator to the reality-based community. - ] <small>(])</small> 00:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
:Somehow I think the die has already been cast. Sure, with a bit of wishful thinking and hope we could endear a precious uninvolved administrator to the reality-based community. Sadly however the facts of the matter beg to differ. Of course it remains to be seen if I am incorrect, but we have been down this path before... ] (]) 00:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

== July 2008 ==
] This is the '''last warning''' you will receive for your disruptive edits. <br> Your continued joking {{#if:User talk:Badger Drink|&#32;at ]}} is disruptive and considered ]. You '''will''' be ] from editing Misplaced Pages if you continue. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-joke4 --> ''=D'' ] (]) 03:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
:Sorry, couldn't find a template for incivility, but I figured that one was close enough. I get where you're coming from. --] (]) 03:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
WOW - you are right, for all the NOISE that people generate about CIVILity, there is no warning template . That's amazing, although probably just reflective that CIVILity is largely a modern phenomena within Misplaced Pages. Particularly as it moves away from being the ''Encyclopaedia anyone can edit'', to been an exercise in myspacitation, roleplaying, and getting up your edit count. ] (]) 04:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
:Civility is a long standing principle on Misplaced Pages and hardly "largely a modern phenomena within Misplaced Pages". The page existed, was oft-referenced and considered a core principle over four years ago. It was in large part based on ], as well as the "positive" explanation of the inherent principle behind such long-standing policies as ]. Incivility, of varying stripes, was a central point of concern in the majority of the earliest ArbCom cases as well, In the "old old days" of Misplaced Pages, the concept was referred to as "Wikiquette" instead of "civility", but the principle was the same. I'm not looking to enter a debate over the concept itself, but rather just pointing out that the perception it is a recent phenomena is inaccurate.
:In all earnestness, why do you feel so antagonistic towards the civility policy? Why do you feel that it is a detriment to Misplaced Pages? (I apologize if those questions are malformed because I am misunderstanding you.) ] (]) 00:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
::Sorry, didn't see your edit until now. I don't have a problem with civility. I have a problem when it's CIVIL first and only. Sure there are lots of admins who ''claim'' that they regard the other 4 pillars with equal measure, but as a skeptic, you have to ask for the evidence, and the ''evidence'' is that only CIVILity is enforced. And it's judgement is largely arbitrary and capricious as to what is civil to one admin, is the height of a personal attack to another. So what we in the Community see - is admins blocking for basically their own personal feelings (which is probably why so many blocks are overturned).
::In the "old days", the civil pov pusher did not exist as admins weren't paralysed by this "uninvolved" (which actually equates to "uninformed") BS and could block problematic editors. Finally after about 2 years, we now have broad topic bans. However the bans are only implemented largely for CIVILity issues (ie/ he isn't nice...block, as opposed to, he isn't improving the project...block). As has been discussed before CIVIL is a weak and easy way out for admins to do their jobs... ] (])
:::No need for apologies. You're not obligated to satisfy my curiosities. :D Regardless, thank you for such a complete reply. (And, my apologies for misunderstanding your point previously.) I have a much better understanding of where you're coming from now. I would tend to agree it is a problem. I think two of the most serious issues we face is the misuse of sources and stonewalling/beating dead horses/tendacious arguments. What do you think of those issues and their prominence? What do you think are some of the most serious unaddressed concerns we face? ] (]) 03:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

== *That* account ==

Dunno who that IP was - I suspect you're right. Either way, it ''is'' an open proxy, so it's now blocked - ] <sup>]</sup> 23:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
:I agree that we don't know 100%, but we have a very good idea who it was based on their MO. Let's face it, it was only used for a personal attack and was via an open proxy (so more evidence it's from a banned user). So while the account is blocked, the only way that banned users will get the hint is if their vitriolic trolling is purged from Misplaced Pages. Besides, per ] any editor can refactor comments that don't relate to the article - which Davkal's don't. ] (]) 00:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

==AN/I==
I did reply, on the AN/I. I do think it was not attack enough to justify blanking, when the old adage "better to let folks think you a fool than open your mouth and prove it" applies so much more aptly. I support SA's efforts to keep the project clear of Homeopathicruft, but not his behavior at all times. ] (]) 04:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
:Given that admins have blocked him (and others) for much less "offensive" personal attacks, its odd that people are getting offended when SA effectively "takes the law into his own hands". And now is being accused of "edit warring". As I have pointed out above to V, civility is obviously something different to certain admins, depending on who is saying what to whom and where. Arbitary and capricious. ] (]) 04:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

==]==
Shot Info, if you want to file a case at ] or wish to discuss possible ] activities regarding ], let me know. I can be a mediator for this case if you so desire, or I can see if another mediator can head this one up. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 02:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
:An RfM would be a good start, but I'm personally not interested in doing the leg work in getting it off the ground, nor am I interested in watching it crash and burn when somebody pulls out. More interested in seeing admins become better ''informed'' about what is actually happening over in QW land rather than the last 50 edits. How can this be done? Dunno, up to admins to reform their ways. ] (]) 02:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

::Hi, sorry to butt in here but I've been lurking throughout all of this since I gave myself time out from that article do to this kind of behavior. What I am seeing is a group of editors tagging each other from article to article and having a couple of administrators that this groups goes running to. Then amazingly I am seeing just other editors being banished from the articles for a week and now there is conversations going on at SA's talk page suggesting that he not revert at all and one of the editors who was involved in SA and Ronz being blocked coming into the picture again here, . Now to me this is egging on to get SA to react negatively, I know I would which is why I don't edit or even comment anymore in QW land. I got slapped down there even when trying to be polite and find a compromise. Then I have been seeing administrators going there but no one so far has commented on the title, Ronz has been blocked for a week, and I still don't understand the reasoning for that, but yet this was posted on the talk page and Ronz obviously cannot speak in his defense of what is being said there, so what is the point of moving the section with the title to the talk page of QW when it was on the talk page of the editor who put it there? Something wrong is going on here when outsiders can see a 'gang' running together from article to article to help revert to their preferred versions and no one does anything about it yet other editors are banned from speaking their own mind about things. This civility behavior has changed so much in the time I've been here. I like to be civil at all times and leave when I am getting upset, but to be honest, I have find that this group is civil to push their views in a uncivil way that gets the opposing parties removed because others feel they aren't civil enough. I do not think that what SA says here, "Wow, ImperfectlyInformed is so sure that his hatred for Stephen Barret should be codified in his cherry-picked quotes and out-of-context summarizing, I'm not sure that he should be allowed on this page any more. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)" is uncivil at all since the editor her/himself states this on the talk page to begin with. But now there is a threat against SA to take things further again. This, IMHO, is wrong. Sorry to rant on your page Shot, just this has been bugging the heck out of me now. Good day everyone, --]] 11:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

== Who is Davkal... ==

You reverted an anon with the edit summary "more davkal"... could you explain? The anon has only been constructive on that article, which I have been watching for some while. Personally, I added Anthony Kenny's critical review to the article in case you want insight on my own POV.

What is going on? ] (]) 19:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

: I'm sorry, ] obviously; is there any reason to believe this IP is that user? ] (]) 19:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
::Proxy IP, follows SA around and made some edits calling for his blocking/avoiding ArbCom? ] (]) 22:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

::: Fair enough, you're right that he arrived at that article right after SA and his first edit was just to undo that particular action. Of course, talk of ArbCom is not exactly the first thing a new editor would do. I still believe his contributions on that article, especially ], has been helpful. I don't feel strongly about "former biochemist", but I don't really see a reason to delete it either. McGrath is a former biochemist, many reviews of the book compare his background to that of Dawkins.
::: I'm not going to dig into his contributions further because I trust your judgement that this is a sock. Do whatever is needed with the user, but I take full responsibility for the edits to that page. You can of course revert it on the merits of the material, if that's your judgement, but don't revert simply because this was a sock. ] (]) 22:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
::::No problems. Thanks for the goodwill and edit away :-) ] (]) 22:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

==POV tags==
{{tl|Lopsided}} and {{tl|POV-statement}} are the only two that I can find.

I probably won't be editing any of the articles under ]. --] (]) 23:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
:Technically those articles are not under an ''ArbCom'' implemented sanction. They are under a sanction implemented by a couple of ''admins'' who have taken it upon ''themselves'' to implement their ''own'' version of the WikiPillars. Mind you if it stops the civil pov pushers it would be a good thing. But as I've argued previously, those admins who aren't interested in editing the encyclopedia are normally only interested in Misplaced Pages being Myspacedia. These admins are more than welcome to the civil pov pushers and will (over time) find their target articles will become nonsense - so good on those admins, they do a great job of making Misplaced Pages a better place for the regular editors. I do find it amusing when these admins are taken to task over their performance and they whine about "shouldn't you be editing" while they don't understand the very irony in their own lack of editing contributions :-) ] (]) 00:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:: The irony abounds. --] (]) 00:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

==Editing restrictions==
Shot info, as I am sure you are aware, the ] article is under ]. The top condition is "No reverts". However, you did exactly that, reverting a tag that had been placed on the article just a few minutes earlier. Please be aware that because of the ], uninvolved administrators are empowered to place additional restrictions on articles or editors, in order to avoid disruption to the project. Please consider this your last warning, that if you take any other disruptive actions, you could be placed under further restrictions such as being banned from the article or topic area, or even from having your account access blocked entirely. So please, try to improve your mode of editing. Don't revert, do stay civil and constructive, and try to help out with positive edits and comments, and there won't be any further need for action. Thanks, ]]] 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:Elonka, get with this thing called editing. The reasons it was removed is quite clearly articulated both in the edit summary and also in the talk page. If you wish to engage in this petty sort of administration, then edit the article yourself. Otherwise please engage on the talkpage and become informed on the reasons editors edit. I note that you still haven't warned Ludwigs over the clear revert he performed - your oversight in this regard was predicted however. ] (]) 22:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

== "Dawkins on Darwin" ==

FYI: "Dawkins on Darwin" to air August 4, 2008

I thought you might be interested in the following:

A July 18, 2008 with Richard Dawkins discussed an upcoming television film entitled, "Dawkins on Darwin", which will air in the UK on Channel 4 from August 4. In the interview, Dawkins specifically states that his film is about Darwinism.

Given Dawkins' high profile in this controversy, it should be informative to watch and see how he currently uses the terms: Darwinism, evolution and natural-selection. Enjoy! - ] (]) 18:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:Well, really regardless of the # of times Dawkins uses the phrase, until there is a source that clearly says (for example, an arguement put forward by Dawkins) the one is the other, we cannot say that one is the other here. Unless it's in popular usage...but even then, there still will be a source that clearly states so. Unfortunately until we have this source, us editors are doing "the work" of equivalising, when Misplaced Pages calls "original research". ] (]) 06:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

==This explains a lot==
] --] (]) 21:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
:A simplier solution would be for certain admins to enforce ] rather than making new guildlines to jusitify ignoring policy :-( ] (]) 23:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
::They're desperately looking for something like 3RR which they can apply simply and easily. I was worried that they were just throwing out NPOV and the like in favor of CIVIL. Now I'm concerned that they're throwing out everything without realizing it. Basically, they're unable to settle with the fact that creating a good encyclopedia is hard work. --] (]) 02:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Also I think they didn't realise that when they <gasp> became admins, it involved them in doing more work than normal. I do enjoy how certain admins whine about the workload required of being an admin, but still like the authority that having the tools entertains. Mind you, if they actually looked at the existing policies, they would find that its easy to implement what they want with them. Only problem is, the admins would have to do some work. I gather the withdrawl of the experts is hurting the admins as now they don't have anybody to blame for their inaction but themselves. Sad really. And avoidable. ] (]) 03:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also know as ]. --] (]) 17:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
:It's also a way for certain editors to say to a consensus "you're a tag team and can be ignored". ] (]) 00:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

== NLP ==

I am proposing deletion of the entire set of articles on ]. See ]. NLP is an extraordinary pseudoscience that is so successful at disguising itself as real science that it had many people fooled for a long time. I'm amazed this has gone on for so long but enough is enough. I would appreciate any help on this as there is bound to be a bitter fight - there are a number of commercial interests involved and there is evidence of some inside support in Misplaced Pages itself. I have a separate file of information if you are interested, but for obvious reasons that cannot go on-wiki. Best. ] (]) 10:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

== Leave it be? ==

Um, what? I didn't do anything to incite the snarky responses I was getting from the user, and politely asked him to stop. He marks it as read and goes back and makes yet another, utterly unnecessary uncivil, condescending remark. How is leaving it alone - an all-too-often ineffective method of problem resolution here in WP - going to get him to either grow up or go away? It certainly didn't work back in April, when he last inserted himself into a conversation and was an utter jerk then, too. So, lend some advice on how to address the issue, Shot. Because I am not sure how a non-admin can justify removing a post from one person to the other person's discussion page. - ] ] 00:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:Don't want a fight (although it looks like your looking for one). You have dropped a note on his talk. He removed it. You readded it and suggest that he needs to reread it? Sure Avb may be snarky but you have done your bit but seem to be trying your best to top his snarkiness. Feel free to revert my deletion if you wish, but it will only seem like your now hasselling the guy. Surely you've been on Misplaced Pages long enough to know that if one guy is "bad" his "badness" can be easily masked from admin oversight by another editor going on a rant rampage? ] (]) 00:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::Wasn't looking for a fight at all. I wasn't looking for Avb to be a jerk, either. Your point is a good one, though. - ] ] 02:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, SI. I think it's best to leave Arcayne alone when he's being a giant pain in the ass, but I refuse to refrain from reverting his edits when they are obviously wrong. ] 11:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

==]==
Thanks for contributing. I've been discussing the reference with Dezignr, who's new. I've copied the discussion to the talk page. --] (]) 01:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

== If it belongs there ==

:(a) You can discuss in talk
:(b) You can move it there

But just deleting for the sake of deleting does not seem to be constructive. ] <small>]</small> 04:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

::Sorry, I assumed that the discussion had reached a logical conclusion and regardless of the consensus, it didn't avoid the problem that it dealt with Barrett specifically not QW. I don't mind it staying in there for additional discussion if you like. ] (]) 05:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

==]==
In case you had missed this, I thought you might want to discuss ] --] (]) 18:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
:If you like. Feel free to drop me an email. ] (]) 23:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

== Revert on ] article. ==

Hi, you recently reverted and installed four tags on the Chris Heimerdinger article. Would you be so kind as to point out which of the 15 or so sentences in this completely rewritten article you feel are needing attention according to these tags? Thank you for your time.
:There is no consensus for their removal on the talk page yet. Feel free to discuss on the talk page of the article and get the acceptance of the editors of the article for your suggested course of action. Until you achieve consensus, you are likely to just engage in an edit war. Also please sign your posts. Thanks ] (]) 03:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
::It has been discussed at length on the talk page. Ronz has yet to specify which of the 15 or so sentences the four tags apply to. This means that the rest of us are unable to address his concerns.

::It's incumbent on you when placing a tag or editing an article to make an informed decision regarding your edits. That is why I've asked you to support your tagging the article as Peacock Words, Verification, Advertisement and Notability. Ronz has actually placed the same tags on a number of related LDS wiki articles. I have no dog in this fight, I don't think I've ever even met a Mormon - I've simply responded to the tags Ronz put there by adding 9 refs and whittling the article down to around 15+ sentences. It's not a great article, but there is no basis at this time for those 4 tags. May I revert your tags? Absent anyone supporting their tags or indicating what exactly they're tagging I believe they have outlived their applicability and should be removed. I only ask that you support or withdraw your edit.] (]) 03:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Ask on the talk page first to achieve ]. Leave it for a few days (it's not going to hurt anybody if they stay up there) and if nobody has any objections, then remove them. At the moment, it seems like an edit war is going on. ] (]) 03:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
::::If I believe that the tags are not appropriate and that rewritting the article and adding 9 refs have met all objections - and if the original tagger is unwilling or unable to support his tags then I need to discuss this with those who are encouraging him and supporting these tags. Again, it is incumbent on you to have a supportable position on ''your'' edit and ''your'' tags. I should mention that it appears that C.Fred has withdrawn his tags at this time.] (]) 03:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::See ] and my edit at Fred's talk. Ta ] (]) 03:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Thanks, I have opened a section on removing the tags on the Heimdinger talk page. I intend to remove them in 36 hours if no one is willing or able to support the tags with specifics.] (]) 03:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Out of interest, have you read ] yet? Also, can I recommend that you get an account? Also are you 70.131.83.95, 76.202.249.62 & 76.217.90.97 as they are in IL as well? ] (]) 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I'm pretty sure I am the only IP of note editing in the article, I think my style is pretty distinctive.] (]) 03:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Those are my IP's, I checked, also .176 at the very least.
::::::::::That's fine, getting an account is easy and it makes the arguements in the talk page MUCH easier to follow, particularly when there are multiple IPs on a talkpage (who may or not be necessarily the same person). Also it's somewhat odd when you post, Ronz answers, then F&F and/or Georgia then respond for you. Much confusion, easily solved with an account :-). Ta ] (]) 03:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
:It actually didn't work that way. Ronz did about a dozen edits after the discussion and completely refactored everything. I reverted him three times on the talk page and then just gave up, he moved several editors posts, copied posts deleted responses added and deleted sections, etc ... it's useless and impossible to follow it now.] (]) 03:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
::Ronz is an editor with vast experience in Misplaced Pages. So what us other editors see, is one experienced editor discussing policy, making recommendations, poking the article along, versus a bunch of IPs, ] and possible ]. In this case you will find that many editors (like myself and Elonka with F&F) will help out and give advise, but actually will not edit the article (as we really don't know what is going on). So on the balance we tend to err on the side of the editor with the most experience, rather than those that don't. This is why I keep encouraging you all to discuss on the talk page. And keep discussing, and if it's still not how you like it, discuss somemore. Remember that articles are a consensus between editors, and Ronz is one of those editors. ] (]) 03:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
:::And get a user account :-) I have a buddy who lives in Aurora out of interest :-) ] (]) 03:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I know Aurora well, what does he do out here? (Here's where I gave up trying to follow along..)] (]) 04:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Could I ask you to section off the sock discussion? It's critical that all editors be given every opportunity to clearly state their reasons for tagging so that the article can be improved. I have asked Ronz at least 10 times now to specify his objections and he has yet state anything specific at all. I'm hoping that maybe he'll finally say what he objects to. Thank you. ] (]) 04:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

==Far more than just sockpuppetry==
I came to the article in response to ]. All the editing seems to got that under control. The only BLP issues we have now are ].

A number of editors have claimed to be editing for Chris_Heimerdinger, and Chris himself has edited the articles heavily with an ip. I assume he's as well. ] doesn't even touch all the coi problems.

Yes, I said "articles": ] and ] where more of the same is occurring. We're making pretty good progress with Chris's article and the series. --] (]) 04:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

:Unfortunately I think there is some socking going on, hence my suggestion on the talk page for editors to have a look at it. At anyrate, there seems to be enough admins <s>stalking</s> watching over things now :-) ] (]) 04:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
::I started working on a sockpuppet report, but couldn't find anything obvious, and not enough to justify a checkuser. Mostly it looks like Chris, one or more people in direct contact with him, a number of fans, and one or more ips that aren't ]s.
:: The WP:NPF problem is going to be hard to resolve. Chris isn't notable outside the LDS community. When we search far and wide for potential sources, a lot of them turn out to be his legal problems. How do we justify keeping those out while keeping positive info from local newspapers? Beats me. Eventually, we're going to have to choose what level of detail we go into without bias.
::Meanwhile, check out the list of barely notable individuals that came up when I started looking for some clarification on WP:N - ]. --] (]) 04:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

== User talk:ScienceApologist ==

I wasn't clear what the purpose of your comment there was. Maybe you can explain it to me. --] (]) 02:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:Easy, have a read of ] ] (]) 03:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
::I was already familiar with it and have just reread it. I am still not getting your point. Maybe you can explain it to me. --] (]) 05:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:::? ] (]) 06:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Ah, so you were pointing out that the warning which SA had already read and deleted should not have been a templated one but hand-crafted. Thanks for the feedback; I do often hand-write warning messages but not all the time. --] (]) 07:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::No worries - a hand warning would help SA as he is already greatly bitter and twisted by admins not slamming those who outed him (while going after Mathsci for doing something similar) and generally coming down on every infaction. But at least he is still pushing pro-science, something a lot of us have given up on. O well. ] (]) 07:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Shot info, could you please try not to refer to other editors as "bitter and twisted"? I'd appreciate if you could refactor your comment. Remember, for best results, please try to comment just on content, and not on other contributors, thanks. --]]] 18:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Elonka, your concern is noted. I will notify SA of this thread and of your concerns and I'm confident that if he feels put out by my comments, I will refactor. What is a greater concern is your inability to let things go. Is SA the new ChrisO? Why do you need to do this to Misplaced Pages editors? ] (]) 22:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

== ==

You think? LOL. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 23:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

==Irresponsible==

Before you undo my edit of the Robert Todd Carroll passage, you must respond to my rebuttal of Carroll on the Sheldrake talk page. Otherwise, your insistence on continuing to undo my edit is irresponsible. If you are not willing to behave in a reasonable and responsible manner, you do not belong in the Misplaced Pages community.

] (]) 18:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
:I have, as have others. Can I recommend that you have a look at ], ] and ]. Some other suggestions would be ] and ]. Thanks ] (]) 22:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

== Barnstar ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For being part of the usual crowd. - ] <small>(])</small> 19:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
|}

==Can it be possible?==
That admins ] (]) 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
:True, the problem is that OM sent the email to arbcom and FT2 responded apparently, now talk about ironic! When is there going to be an end to the protection of special 'clicks'? Whatever, don't forget to vote, this time it is more important so that hopefully the project gets some new blood to make the 'final' decisions. Have you been watching the Shoemaker stuff? or Something need to be done and voting this time around is the only thing I can think of to get heard. I've become very disappointed with the RFC and recall way of doing things. Anyways, just disappointed with what's been going on lately, I should say for awhile now. --]] 12:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

==Has Misplaced Pages come of Age==
Or is it full of analysers with no sense of humour? You choose. ] (]) 04:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
]

== Don't worry ==

Godlovestruth didn't have a page in the first place, so he's not likely to mind. My edit was kind of a message to him- I think he'll like it, and I have no intention of sockpuppeting or whatever. ] (]) 05:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not suggesting that you are a sockpuppet, but rather that you should best be informed of the policy given that particular editor has been blocked for being a sockpuppeter. ] (]) 05:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

==Speedy deletion of ]==
] Thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use ] for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the ] if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> to '''the top of ]''' (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on ''']''' explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for ''speedy'' deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact ] to request that a copy be emailed to you. <!-- Template:Db-test-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> <b>''' ]'''</font><b>]</font></b> 01:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
: Looks like this was just accidentally created in the wrong namespace. I went ahead and moved it ]. --]]] 02:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

::Opps, that will teach me for doing something in a hurry just before lunch. Good catch from Toaster. Feel free to delete it as Elonka has got it spot on and thanks to her for dropping it into the correct location. Ta ] (]) 03:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
::: Done. May I also add a link to your page from {{tl|ACE 2008 guides}}? --]]] 04:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Sure not a problem. ] (]) 04:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
::::: Added. --]]] 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Ta ] (]) 04:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 04:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

== Season's Greetings ==

] (]) 01:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)]]

==]==
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, '''''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''''' 01:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

== Schrandit ==

I'm sorry you had to get involved in this. If you want to just bump this up to ] already, we can do that instead. ] (]) 01:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
:Nah, I'm only going to stick to checking the few articles I have remaining on my watchlist. If you wish to have a chat to an admin, I can recommend ] for advice on the way forward. Ta ] (]) 01:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
::That's fine, thanks. ] (]) 02:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

== Good to see you around ==

Your Elonka comments made me snort my evening glass of wine. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 08:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
:Well, I've noticed that when it comes to "tag-teaming" Elonka likes mixing with her select group of buddies. It's sad as it undermines any authority that she possibly retained following her RfC. ] (]) 08:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
::She had authority? Where? And you're sad about it? Oh wait, maybe there's some sarcasm there? I'm staying out of the wiki-drama, but the close I came to making a comment was in response to Elonka's. But you and Bish did it so much better. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 08:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
:::NEEDZ MOAR DRAMAZ RAHHHHH....ok, bad Biz impersonation :-) ] (]) 08:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

== FYI ==

I would appreciate a comment or two since we are talking about you and your comments in a way. Thanks, --]] 16:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
:Had a look and it seems that the conversation seems to have resolved itself without my input :-) ] (]) 01:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

== Your comment ==

I've stroke-through all my replies to you since Elonka has posted her statement.I'm letting you know that as a courtesy so you can adjust/add/modify your statements as you see fit. - ] &#124; <sup>] / ]</sup> 06:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

I have asked for the Elonka matter to be handled as a full case, and copied over all comments. Please strike any comments no longer relevant. Thank you, ] (]) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

== thank you ==

<center>
{| cellspacing="5" cellpadding="10" valign="top" style="width:60%; vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;border:1px solid #B6B2B2;"
|-
| width="90%" | My RFA ]. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 08:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
| width="10%" | <center>]</center>
|}</center>

==SPA==

Hi Shot info -- I saw this going on before you posted on ANI. I see an extremely aggressive ] with a probable conflict of interest, carrying a big soapbox indeed. He might not know to edit your talk rather than user page, and may not realize he's deleting much of the talk page, when he re-adds his "news release", so I'll extend a bit of good faith, and give him some policy links. I left him a note, as a start. Cheers, ] ] 02:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
:No worries - thanks for this and for the help ] (]) 02:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

==Template==

Now is better ?--] (]) 05:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
:Looking good!!! Thanks ] (]) 06:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

== Take Care ==

Please don't use Science Apologist's talk page to have long and involved discussions with users that are not SA. This has caused problems in the past. Thanks. ] (]) 12:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

==Banning Question==

So I stumbled upon info on ArbCom while looking to find out how to settle dispute (I opted for third party opinion) and came to find out about that case.

Since it sparked my curiosity, could you clarify or direct me to find out about the distinctions for being banned? I'm confused because it says for one year but then indefinitely so it made me wonder if there was another reason or is that just an ArbComm decision? ] (]) 06:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:Have a look at ], specifically the bit on Community Banning. Ta ] (]) 06:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

==Heads up==
You're being discussed ], in regards to that ] articles for deletion. The creator, Spring12, seems bound and determined to belittle and discount anyone who voted delete. ] (]) 04:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
:Sorry if I upset you with any of the comments I made; no harm was meant. ] (]) 15:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

==]==
Is there a problem with ]? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 11:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
:Have you been missing in action with Elonka's attempts to overide and ignore ] with her own version? ] (]) 11:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
::No, I don't follow every twist and turn around here. I gather from the word "attempts" that she did not succeed. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 16:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Really? ] exists and peps are using it. ] (]) 22:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
::::So then what is the problem? Is it Elonka's involvement or just the existence of the essay? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 02:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::The fact that what is a consensus can be howled down (and often was by Elonka) with shrill cries of "Tag Team". ] (]) 03:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

==Userbox==
Hi there, I've reworded that userbox to remove the external link, which would be a rather worrying precedent. ] (]) 18:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

==Opps==
-- ] 06:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

== May I please ask of you ==

Hi Shot info, I saw the box on your user page of ''"A cabal of One"'' and want to use it too. May I steal a copy of it from you? Since I am weirdly accused of being in the cabal I've been interested in a user box for it and saw this one. Thanks in advance, you can respond here or pop over to my page and let me know. There is actually a lot of activity going on at my page since the accusations of cabalism. I've met some very talented and interesting editors. Thanks and be well, --]] 10:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
:Sure - Welcome to the cabal. Remember, when you are the only person who is right, those that are telling you that you are wrong are just members of the Cabal! :-) ] (]) 22:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks going to snag it now. I was very angry at first but with the help of comments like yours I have calmed down. I don't know most of the editors in the list of cabal members so I did a search of the different editors and was surprised at the quality of editors listed. It makes me look like a loser to the project with all that most of them have accomplished that now I feel like I am at least attached to a wonderful group of people. Welcome too to the cabal, do you know the secret handshake and next get together? :) Thanks again, --]] 12:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Welcome aboard. Of course our conversation now will be more "proof" that the Cabal actually exists. But when you are dealing with people who believe that X, Y and Z exist, heck, believing a Cabal exists is just a natural progression :-) ] (]) 22:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

::::Well no proof is needed other than disagreeing with him. I've never even read the ] article nor the other climate articles that have been mentioned as proof to this ridiculous cabal. I am a supposed cabalist because of my opinion in the arbcom fringe case, my vote at ANI and commenting on the case now. This is my only connections to all of this. If the arbitrators don't see thru this garbage I will lose a lot of respect for this project. I came in with an open mind to this from the ANI discussion knowing from comments it was going to be made a case. I have to admit though, I feel sorry for the arbs going through all of this. I am curious though how they manage to come to decisions with all the verbage going on, and there surely is a lot from a lot of editors. WMC is asking a question on my talk, a response from a good soldier is required! LOL! Thanks for playing, it's fun.--]] 12:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

== Homeopathy Politics ==

A recommendation to permanently ban DanaUllman is being recommended by certain members of the Homeopathy editing community . If you have any interest in the matter, you are welcome to participate. The wider the community input, the better. ] (]) 08:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


== Needs a citation or it goes ==
Which bit? The reference from Tehanu or the racial politics line? <small> ] (]) 09:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC) </small>
:The racial politics. It doesn't appear correct. ] (]) 09:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

== LOL! Thanks for the laugh ==

If much more get put on this paqe though I will not be able to download it like I couldn't workshop. Cutting the word up, does it have a friendlier meaning? Thanks, --]] 01:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
:Using a substitution word for a ] is quite common in English. The example used over in ArbCom reminds me of a saying - ''A turd by any another name is still a turd'' - which is why I'm sure it still is being used. ] (]) 02:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
::It's a classic case of Basically Useless Lengthy Litigation Sustained by Heatedly Insistent Tendentiousness. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 02:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
::: Or ] always helps - ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 17:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I just wonder if the above is now proof that teh supa sekrit cab actually does exist...pinkey handshakes people!!! ] (]) 00:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

== LOL ==

Thanks for the laugh re your "who is this person" section on your userpage. I have seen a few rather odd and amusing ones relating to myself and other editors I directly know, nearly always from random trolls. Always good for a laugh. ] 02:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
:Hi OiC, yeah for some reason certain people have this problem with other people disagreeing with them. :-) O well. Ta for wading in over at that article. I don't know why I bothered to help out to be honest, I managed to successfully get of the Wiki-crack only to go somehow get involved in some stupid article about some stupid organisation that nobody has heard of....maybe I should just stick to my gut and prod things like that in the future... ] (]) 23:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

==Time to prepare the multiple 2c==
It's ArbCom Election time again...woot ]. ] (]) 06:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

== Per the "Nazi Party" Article ==

You might want to know that I made the "]" article more neutral and current. For example, the ] is no longer classified as either ] or ]; but rather just "]" and unclassifiable in regards to the ] (given its ], ], and ] ideology). ] (]) 10:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
:Err, you need (like what the talk page says over and over again) RS' to support that it was "socialist" in the sense of the ] article per the ]. I am aware that there is a push in the US at the moment to make "nazi" > "leftwing" > "Obama" and hence we (ie Misplaced Pages) cannot proceed without RS' to support the standing. At the moment, there are RS' in the article that state it's right wing agenda. ] (]) 22:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

== N21 and Insider201283 ==
Hi, fairly new to WP editing, and want to make sure I'm doing the right thing, request your assistance on ], Insider201283 seems to be heavily biasing the article, and constant reverting again.
] (]) 03:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


== You are now a Reviewer == == You are now a Reviewer ==


] ]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "<tt>reviewer<tt>" userright, allowing you to ] on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a ] scheduled to end 15 August 2010. Hello. Your account has been granted the "{{mono|reviewer}}" userright, allowing you to ] on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a ] scheduled to end 15 August 2010.


Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not ] to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only ], similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at ]. Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not ] to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only ], similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at ].
Line 390: Line 53:
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. <!-- Template:Reviewer-notice --> ] (]) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC) If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. <!-- Template:Reviewer-notice --> ] (]) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2017 election voter message ==
== NCAHF backstory ==

Shot, I'm aware of the history regarding NCAHF, and Barrett and Rosenthal and lawsuits and libel and Arbcom... but I don't know what you think should happen regarding adding verifiably sourced content to articles. If it's perceived as some kind attack on Barrett, I merely see a topic that for some reason is not as comprehensively covered as others, and it seems there is a strong group of editors who are responsible for it staying that way. I don't think the BLP/Libel issues are trivial, I just don't see them in the actual court rulings. As for explaining things thoroughly, you can continue to antagonize on that point, but I don't think it's particularly relevant to the discussion. ] (]) 12:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
:I didn't quite find much of what you were getting at in the talk pages. Roughly, in reverse chronological order: gigibutterfly likes criticism but only if it's notable and not excessive/pbs had some show which was criticized and the criticism rebutted/is it in mass? who knows, kind of OR, it's a corporation unless proven otherwise/jance thinks court rulings are not POV, curtis wasn't saying otherwise but wants links to quotes, jance thinks raw citations are enough, arthur agrees/something about fillings and copyright/is it a real corporation, yes/ilena has a problem with barrett and ncahf-quackwatch, wants to not be censored, called disruptive/Fyslee and Ilena duke it out, both emphatically, winds up at ANI/should articles correct misconceptions about lawsuits, maybe with a small compromise over the defamation ruling in BvR/more mass incorporation discussion.

:So that's 5 pages of stuff, and though I haven't covered all the AN/I threads or arbcom evidence pages, I still don't see the connection. People in the past have been sued for libel against Barrett and related organizations. Some of them edited here. Some of them or people who edited in the same direction, wound up blocked.

:As for COIs, the Arbcom case shows how that became a trickier issue for these topics, but my intention for bringing it up was not to silence QG or anyone from editing but to get a sense of why the Libel claim was coming up w/r/t to the court decisions themselves. (Generally anyway, I think COI editors should be allowed to edit on Wiki like anyone else). But I don't see how any of that has to do with reporting the sourced findings of notable court rulings? This area is contentious but it's not voodoo. Sources are sources, and if we have them and they are sufficient we use them. Is there something else?] (]) 13:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

== AN/I notice ==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. --] (]) 11:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

== AN/I notice...Aspartame ==

A complaint has been filed at AN/I . Since only two editors were notified, I'm placing a notice on the pages of all editors who have commented at ] in recent history. -- ] (]) 22:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

== Help needed ==

Back in December, you were one of the people who supported ] when ] was proposed. There are once again serious disputes involving this editor. Please consider helping to resolve the current dispute at ]. I am hoping that since you are one of the few editors on record as supporting his involvement, that he will be inclined to listen to what you have to say. ] (]) 04:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
:Just remember, you don't need to have 100% of editors on board before a ] is reached. Ask him to put his editors (or yours or whoevers) to a vote to guage people's opinions then act on that consensus. ] (]) 09:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

::I doubt that a straw poll is appropriate or that it would be agreeable to him, but I suggest that you make your suggestions yourself. ] (]) 16:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

:::It's not about him, it's about consensus. 1 editor doesn't make for a consensus. He is aware of that and when its made obvious to him he backs down. But the key is to obtain the consensus - often it isn't achieved regardless of QGs view and opinions. ] (]) 21:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

== David Horrobin ==
FYI, I mentioned your name in a comment , where a single-purpose editor insists on placing a POV tag. I feel that all tags should be removed, but if the POV tag is placed by a personal associate of Horrobin, a COI tag should also be in place to alert the reader to the status of the page as a magnet for single-purpose editors (Beechnut, Noncarborundum77, Brigantian, etc.). Cheers. ] (]) 19:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

==Barret and quackwatch==
Could you please point me to where I can read on consensus that is Barrett is non-self-published a reliable source for BLP information? I can't find it--] (]) 23:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
:Barrett, (as in ]) is a chairman of an organisation called ]. For you to suggest that it's ] isn't in line with SPS, or else I trust you will be arguing that articles published by newspapers who employ journalists are also SPS. Hence why you are finding issues with getting traction for this (either on the article nor with BLP/N nor with admins, of which Alison is unimpressed with your efforts). Can I recommend that you abid by the consensus that you have established here (even though you don't agree with it)? Take it on the chin that you've lost this one (for a given value of "lost") and move onto the next article? ] (]) 23:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

== FYI re Quackwatch ==

You claim that Quackwatch is not self-published by Barrett. Quoting verbatim from the Quackwatch site :

::</blockquote> '''Who Funds Quackwatch?'''

::'''Stephen Barrett, M.D.'''

Quackwatch is an international network of people concerned about health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies. The primary focus of our Web sites is on quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere. The organization was founded in 1969 as the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud and was incorporated in 1970. In 1997, it assumed its current name and began developing a worldwide network of volunteers and expert advisors.


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Shot info. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
Quackwatch has no salaried employees. It operates with minimal expense, funded mainly by small individual donations, commissions from sales on other sites to which we refer, sponsored links, and profits from the sale of publications. Money donated to Quackwatch supports research, writing, and legal actions that can protect many people from being misled.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Many people wonder whether Quackwatch is a "front" for the American Medical Association, the pharmaceutical industry, the "medical establishment," or whomever else they might not like. Nearly every week I get e-mails accusing me of this—and worse. Quite frankly, the idea is preposterous.


If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
* I have no financial tie to any commercial or industrial organization.
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
* My viewpoints are not for hire. Even if they were, none of my imaginary funders would actually have a reason to hire me.
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/10&oldid=813413927 -->
* Standard medicine and "alternative medicine" do not actually compete for patient dollars. Well-designed studies have shown that most "alternative" methods are used in addition to—rather than instead of—standard methods.
* The total cost of operating our many Web sites is approximately $7,000 per year. If donations fall below what is needed, the rest comes out of my pocket.


== ArbCom 2018 election voter message ==
'''Online Contributions'''
Online donation can be made conveniently through PayPal. If you have a PayPal account, you can transfer money to us. If you don't have an account, you can pay with a credit card.</blockquote>


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Shot info. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
------------------------------------


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
So:
In what way does this not qualify as a self-published site?
* Barrett runs it
* Although it's incorporated, he funds it, if necessary with his private funds
* Barrett writes a lot, but seemingly not all, of it. If he weren't there, it would no doubt fold.


If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Do we take the legalistic view and say "it's incorporated, so it's not self-published" or the common-sense view that it's his baby and he keeps it afloat? --] (]) 23:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/10&oldid=866998363 -->


:Egads - I voted. Some familiar people there, anybody'd think that nothing has happened in WP land for a decade...which is probably the truth ] (]) 12:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
:Sure, keep up your "]" or follow SPS where it talks quite clearly about what constitutes SPS'. Naturally I look forward to you editing the ] article and removing all the pertinent links where it is considered to be highly respected and outstanding in its field. Of course your arguement has been used before (mainly in ] articles, woo articles, medical articles and the like) so in Misplaced Pages terms it's rather unorginal but it's novel seeing the tactic applied to the "MLM" topic. I look forward to an overeager admin extending the Pseudoscience topic ban over into MLM related articles (or into product articles like Juice Plus). So please, let me insist that you keep arguing this POV. ] (]) 23:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:10, 25 November 2018


Warnings

It's weird

that some editors think that Wikipeida is not about an encyclopedia ,

And some editors need more and more WP:TROUT applied: .

Several applications are obviously required...

I'clast harassment

Given that others have made the accusations, I'm going to stay out of I'clast's attempt at a cover for Ilena's ArbCom until such time they (whoever "they" are) go through the appropriate channels (which I have pointed out to Levine and Ilena above). I don't see that there are any issues on my part per se however I am happy to deal with you as a neutral editor should Ilena and/or the others decide to actually substantiate their claims. Until they do that, as I have pointed out previously, "I for one will not bother with a rebuttal." Shot info 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This COI issue with you is only part of a larger picture that involves *many* hostile environment problems for "minorities" in the QW related articles.
Shot, I am quite serious about the COI part with you and, besides a number of recognizable hints, have more or less let it alone for most of 6 weeks, especially after your earlier message to me, after I earlier dropped another hint,...nipping at my ankles...(Arthur's, NCAHF talk), do you have a special interest here?--I'clast 09:46, 14 January 2007.
I give all kinds of people *lots* of chances to rehabilitate their editing, make their points, and get things off their chest, even having reasoned with demonstrable, bannable trolls rather than just pounding them with embarrassing documentation and policies. (I have been lucky, one troll finally embarrassed himself enough to abandon that particular account, and me.)
I encourage you to discuss this matter forthrightly.--I'clast 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'klast, you need to go and ask yourself what value any answer I give will make to the "debate". You also need to ask yourself why you are performing such obscuration and making such baseless accusations. If you and other editors have problems, there are WP channels to put this through (as noted above). I note that you still haven't elected to do this, but brings it up as a smokescreen to defend your POV warriors who you have defended in the past. Of course outside of an ArbCom, WP would consider this unacceptable behaviour, and I for one will not bother with a rebuttal. Shot info 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The primary value is to help clear the air here and in the future.
The other value of forthright is for you, it should be less painful and less crippling. I've had substantial capability to go to COI for weeks and I do think COI would be unpleasant, for you. Many people would like my "cooperation". Well, I want theirs. I am sick of suffering in partial silence as a minority when I am being messed with, either COI or trolls, because of a slanted field and I have some capabilities. Now if that means trampling every kind of COI, troll or less literate, that probably means I will be one of the survivors. Even at the brink of a pitched confrontation, I am quite capable of achieving collaboration, I recognize merit. Some very pro-QW editors who know me well, could attest to that. I prefer to miss the confrontation part. In many ways I have tried to recognize your merits. If I thought you had little merit, I would have skipped some dialogue, grace period & hints and just let you have exactly what you are asking for.
I am not blowing smoke, I've been forebearing. There is far more organizational astroturfing and "skeptical" trolling going on all over altmed related topics than is generally recognized (I sometimes know who is who), some that genuinely scare me. I simply am not in a position to trust so many counterparts enough to deal promptly with these problems when I would like (I sometimes have to wait 6+ months to clear up other problems first). Your COI issue is one that I expect to have acknowledgement of, now, even if others' issues have to be redressed later. Ultimately this is all part of clearing the air, one serialized step at a time. In fairness for the current RfArb, it needs to be done now. You-all want *more* help dealing with POV warring? Sure, when the field is a little more level and demining is not needed first.
"Baseless"? Do you feel lucky?--I'clast 10:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Aust Barnstar

The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
for your efforts with Australian articles Gnangarra 00:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Shot info. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Shot info. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Egads - I voted. Some familiar people there, anybody'd think that nothing has happened in WP land for a decade...which is probably the truth Shot info (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)