Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:09, 15 February 2007

,

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Quackery

I made some changes on the stuff you brought into the quackery article mostly to try and make it flow. Take a look and make sure it still says what you wanted it to. Feel free to change anything you like! -- Dēmatt (chat) 17:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ... it's looking much much better. We still need to work on the reasons ... they are too POV in my opinion. Ilena 21:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, see ya there. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Cool signature! I noticed that you had an extra < in it that is probably making it hard to change colors.

This is the way it is now: Ilena< (chat)

If you take out the extra "<" it looks like this: Ilena (chat)

Then you can use these numbers to change colors!

Thanks ... I'm still having trouble making the talk link hot. Ilena 18:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You may have realized it already, but the talk link won't work on your own talk page. I checked yours and it works from elsewhere. Loooking goooood - pink for breast cancer;) -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Ilena, I noticed that the time is not being posted with your name.. are you using (4) tildes (-- Dēmatt (chat) 03:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)) or 3? 4 should give the time, too. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena - If you haven't done this already, copy this code <b><font color="999900 face="times new roman,times,serif"">]</font></b> <font color="#FF66CC" size="2">]</font> and paste it under you nickname in my preferences (see the top of this page next to MyTalk). After you do that, click on RAW Signature to put a checkmark in it, then save your settings. Then you can just use the 4~'s to make your signature anywhere. -- Dēmatt (chat) 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's see if it is working now. I tried several times and couldn't get it right. <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#FF66CC" size="2">]</font> 02:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Take the <nowiki> and </nowiki> out and do the same thing again - go to my preferences and paste it into the Signature box and click on Raw signature and save your changes. Then it should work. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK Ilena, we have to get that signature working:) Did it not let you save it right? -- Dēmatt (chat) 22:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! I'm so frustrated. I put it under "signature" and tried it exactly ... then took out the ...several ways and can't figure it out! Very humbling. I'll be very grateful to all of you helping me figure this out. Ilena< (chat)

If this is the color you want, click "edit" and copy this code:

Ilena discuss

and put it is the signature box, then click on Raw signature, then save. Then let me know what happens. -- Dēmatt (chat) 22:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Still stymied. Also, it said, "Invalid raw signature; check HTML tags." This is what I put in exactly:

Ilena discuss

and got this & the "Invalid raw signature; check HTML tags" comment.

<b><font color="999900 face="times new roman,times,serif"">Ilena</font></b> <font color="#FF66CC" size="2">discuss</font> <b><font color="999900 face="times new roman,times,serif"">Ilena</font></b> <font color="#FF66CC" size="2">discuss</font> 22:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you put a check mark in "Raw signature"? -- Dēmatt (chat) 23:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I did. It looks right from the article page ... but still doesn't work. Stymied in the jungles.

I think I got it! There is an extra " in it. I'll take it out and try it again..

Ilena discuss

One more try. <font color=&quot;999900 face=&quot;times new roman,times,serif&quot;&gt;]]] 00:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks

Hey Ilena, I just noticed that you recently reverted some vandalism from my userpage and I just wanted to thank you very much for doing that. I really appreciate it.
By the way, I've noticed that your talk page is often really long...have you thought about having Wernabot archive it? If you ever want to try it and need a hand setting it up, just give me a yell. Thanks again for reverting my page. Cheers, Sarah

My pleasure to help. I would like to assistance in archiving pages ... don't know about Wernabot and am open to the best means.Ilena (Talk)

I set up Werdnabot for you. It will automatically archive sections that haven't been edited for seven days to archive three. You can adjust the parameters if you wish to make it longer or shorter than seven days. If you decide you don't like it, just remove the template at the top of the page and it will stop. Cheers, Sarah 19:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. Ilena discuss

Clayton College

Please assume good faith and be more civil in your edit summary comments when making reversions. Thank you . --Ronz 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making assertions that assume bad faith such as "Barrett's promoters here on Misplaced Pages are attempting to use Wiki as yet another weapon to attack this college and Dr. Clark." Thank you. --Ronz 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making mass reversions of edits that you personally dont like solely because you assert some editors are "Barrett's promoters" . I've spent a great deal of time finding sources independent of Quackwatch that support the Clayton College article. Your removing them with the claim that they come from "Barrett's promoters" is uncivil, assumes bad faith, and is a point-of-view push on your part. Please stop. --Ronz 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ronz. I again disagree with you entirely. Barrett is not a RS, you are others are promoting him. I'm sorry if you disagree with the facts. and you are continuing to use Misplaced Pages to further their concurrent smear campaign. No other article (except QW related ones) list what the subjects of articles are not. You are attempting, with others who promoteBarrett throughout the internet, to make the CC article a repeat of QW's attacks. Ilena 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should find moderation here, since you are accusing me of bad faith and using unreliable sources, and using these accusations to be uncivil and engage in disruptive editing. --Ronz 17:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Clayton College of Natural Health. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. --Ronz 17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena? QW and Barrett are involved in litiation related to CC, what do you mean by "related to". If they are involved with litigation, it might be a problem to have his opinion on the page. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP

Ilena, regarding some of your posts about Stephen Barrett, it might be a good idea to tone down your criticism a little. WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as to articles, and some of your posts arguably violate the policy, particularly accusing him of mounting a smear campaign. If you stick to what reliable, published sources have said about him, you won't go far wrong. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I sure am not Slim nor a Virgin! Please understand, there is a classic legal and smear campaign waged since 2000 by Barrett. The Wiki Clayton article is now an extension of it. I'm sorry that it is't kind, nor is it made up. The article is so biased it is painful to read. I am being as polite as possible, that I thought that Wiki was not to be used to further legal battles, such as Barrett Vs Dr. Hulda Clark and advertise nor was it to advertise his "anti-quackery" business such as being done. This is totally factual, I'm sorry it isn't kind, but it's all verifiable. Ilena< (chat)

Please verify it, or at least stop your disruptive editing until you do so. --Ronz 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you want verified? Ilena 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Wiki Clayton article is now an extension of it (Barrett's smear campaign)" --Ronz 18:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Easy. Read it. It quotes an attack by Barrett (totally non RS) ues his linkspam, although he has long been in lititation with Dr. Clark. Ilena 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that any link to Quackwatch is verification of a smear campaign by Barrett here on Misplaced Pages? --Ronz 18:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you are inaccurate again. Ilena 18:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So can you explain? Only some links to Quackwatch are verification of a smear campaign? Are there things other than links too? --Ronz 18:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of QW's links are attacks ... the one linkspammed in this article for certain. The quote from Barrett, totally an unreliable source and a litigant against Dr. Clark, is a continuation of the attacks on that link being brought to Misplaced Pages in a quote totally inappropriate for an encylopedia. Ilena 18:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying because of Barrett's conflicts with Clark (and his other articles on Clark), the Quackwatch link in the Clayton article is verification of a Barrett smear campaign here on Misplaced Pages? --Ronz 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts???? He has been suing her and everyone close to her for over 6 years. He runs a concurrent smear campaign via his webites, healthfraud list, webring etc. What I said was this: Most of QW's links are attacks ... the one linkspammed in this article for certain. The quote from Barrett, totally an unreliable source and a litigant against Dr. Clark, is a continuation of the attacks on that link being brought to Misplaced Pages in a quote totally inappropriate for an encylopedia.Ilena 19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

<-- OH, that is a good point, Barrett and Clark are in a lawsuit and we have inserted a link with Barrett making comments about Clark. That is probably not a good idea, and potentially libelous I assume. That means we need to at least get rid of the link. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I also don't agree with using Quackwatch as a source, because it appears to be a self-published single-purpose attack site. That aside, we definitely shouldn't use Barrett as a source against anyone he's in litigation with, unless what he says is published by a third-party reliable source i.e. not self-published by Barrett. Contentious material about living persons must use the best possible sources. SlimVirgin 20:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Libellous information needs oversighted ASAP. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, but I don't see any (libelous statements -- information cannot be libelous in the United States) in Quackwatch. Most of that is either opinion or documented. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm going to email the Office about the BLP concerns and let them deal with it. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much. This naturopathic college is not claiming to be anything but what it is and the article is being used to repeat the QW attacks. Ilena 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The libelous statements are Ilena's, claiming that there is a "smear campaign" by Barrett here on Misplaced Pages. Her verification of this "smear campaign" is the existance of links to Quackwatch. --Ronz 01:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ron. I have said nothing libelous. You appear to know as little about as you do about and s as you do about state corporate licensing boards. Virtually nothing. Quackwatch is part of the operations of self-named "the " Stephen Barrett, whose product he markets is "anti-quackery" propaganda via his Healthfraud List, blogs, Chirotalk, webrings and the books he peddles. He solicits donations to this day for a suspended non-profit. Study a bit about suits too. Ignorance of topics is no excuse. And I mean that in the most possible with you. <font color=&quot;999900 face=&quot;times new roman,times,serif&quot;&gt;]]] 02:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The question is this link that was in the Clayton College article, but at the bottom it references Hulda Clark and links to a critical article on her (currently in a libel lawsuit I think). I took it out, better safe than sorry. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Clayton College of Natural Health

Please be careful of 3RR. Also, please stop removing sourced, cited information. It might be one thing to take out the Barret source. Removing the other sources is completely unacceptable. JoshuaZ 17:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The information I removed is not relevant to CC. It is not claiming to be other than what it is. Do we name every state Barrett is no longer licensed in? No. This article is being used to attack Clayton, not be an encylopedia for what it is. It isn't accredited in many things ... nor does it claim to be. I'm sorry, I have spent several months studying articles on Misplaced Pages and this one is just an extension of the attacks Barrett is making against naturopathy and Dr. Clark in the courtroom and on other medium ... now including Misplaced Pages. Perhaps we should take this article to AN.

Can you help get some positive stuff intot he article about CC. I have to run in and out, but I think you can get it in and then we can work with it. Thanks!! -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. Ilena 20:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Please be careful of WP:3RR on Clayton College of Natural Health. JoshuaZ 21:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR block

Ilena, you've been reported for 3RR at Clayton College of Natural Health and have been blocked for 24 hours. Please take the time to review the 3RR policy so you don't violate it in future. Cheers, SlimVirgin 02:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I just noticed that you were involved in litigation with Stephen Barrett, as described in Barrett v. Rosenthal. I'm thinking that this places you in a conflict of interest regarding anything to do with him or Quackwatch on Misplaced Pages, whether in one of those articles specifically or elsewhere. I think your input would be welcome on the talk pages, so long as you don't post anything contentious, but I don't think you should continue to make edits to the encyclopedia that involve Barrett or his organization. I'd welcome your views on that. SlimVirgin 02:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I definitely know alot about his operations and his s. I defeated him in a classic SLAPP suit, and when I read about it on Wiki, it was upside down and backwards. I am in arbitration with fyslee at the moment and will devote some time to showing how QW has a product called "anti-quackery" which they promote on blogs, lists, "quack files" Chirotalk, and also here on Wikpedia, which I believe is against Misplaced Pages rules. Thanks. User:Ilena|Ilena User_talk:Ilena|discuss]] 03:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena, regardless of the ArbCom situation with you and Fyslee, I'm thinking you should not be editing articles related to Barrett, or making edits that involve removing his material. Can you let me know your thoughts on that, please? SlimVirgin 03:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)