Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:41, 27 March 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Abridged, and welcome 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:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  W3stfa11/ 06:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

No problem. Let me know if you need any help getting around this jungle... wiki. :) W3stfa11/ 23:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Rajan Sankaran

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 =) Adam Cuerden 19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sankaran is actually a pretty big gun in the homeopathic world. :=) Abridged 20:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Robin Murphy

A tag has been placed on Robin Murphy, 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 criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page 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.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Hatch68 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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. Abridged 21:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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? Adam Cuerden 09:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam, I have subsequently learned that you had deleted a previous page on Robin Murphy. I was able to save a draft version 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. Hatch68 and the deleting Admin (who has quite a collection of pages on rugby players he apparantly does find notable), did not even read the page they speedily deleted because the reason for speedy deletion that Hatch68 placed on the page was completely bogus. Abridged 12:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

edit template

To edit the template, just head on over to Template:Homoeopathy. Here's another way to link to the template. {{Homoeopathy}} Templates are changed with new stuff, so be sure the content you want to add is important enough to be in the template. W3stfa11/ 15:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you...

...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 biting is going to do little to help that cause and, instead, kinda trounces on WP:AGF. 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 Guy and cranky gnomish admins like me :) youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 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. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

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

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.

Oh, also, I merged Homeopathic Materia Medica and Materia Medica Pura - 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. Adam Cuerden 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(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.) Adam Cuerden 23:32, 27 March 2007 (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. Abridged 23:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

Basically, the changes I made were:

• Swapped Materia Medica for more relevant Homeopathic Materia Medica. Materia Medica is only secondarily homeopathy-related.
• Per a merge and cleanup, removed Materia Medica Pura
• Removed Herbalism as not strongly related to homeopathy.
• A little category name tweaking for appearance reasons.

Adam Cuerden 23:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we get rid of anthrosopohy? Abridged 23:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough

I see where there may have been confusion. 'Round here, people (at least in practice) criticize articles, edits, categorization schemes, etc., but not other eidotrs 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 fatih" 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 reall 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. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)