Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:02, 22 June 2007

${\displaystyle \star }$  Some principles governing this talk page  ${\displaystyle \star }$ Please observe Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette here. This talk page is my territory, and I assume janitorial responsibility for it. I may, without notice, refactor comments to put like with like, correct indents, or retitle sections to reflect their contents more clearly. While I reserve the right to delete comments, I am normally opposed to doing so and use archives instead. If I inadvertently change the meaning, please contact me! When all else fails, check the edit history. -- Fyslee (collaborate)

${\displaystyle \star }$  Regarding posting (or reposting) of my personal info at Misplaced Pages  ${\displaystyle \star }$ ${\displaystyle \star }$  DON'T DO IT!!  ${\displaystyle \star }$ Lately I have become more sensitive to the posting of personal information about myself here at Misplaced Pages. I am the target of cyberstalking and hate mail from some pretty unbalanced people and regularly receive threats (including occasional death threats). While I don't normally have any reason to hide my true identity, any past revealings by myself should not be construed by others as license to do it here at Misplaced Pages, where only my "Fyslee" tag should be used. While such revealings here have often been done innocently, I still reserve the right to delete such personal information posted here at Misplaced Pages by others. My own and my family's security is at stake here, and I would appreciate support in this matter. Thanks. -- Fyslee (collaborate)

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,

Mixed up edit summary

Oh geez, I'm sorry! I must gotten mixed up in the head when I wrote that edit summary -- it's clear from looking at the diff that it was the anonymous IP editor, not you, who removed that period. Please accept my apologies. --Yksin 23:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Da nada! Welcome to the club of humans. We're all imperfect. I was just wondering if I had missed something. -- Fyslee/talk 06:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rudolphdvd.jpg

Hello Fyslee, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Rudolphdvd.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Fyslee/Unidentified Flying Reindeer. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sako.jpg

Hello Fyslee, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Sako.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Fyslee/Unidentified Flying Reindeer. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Quackery definitions throughout history

Workshop:

• Quackery definitions throughout history

-- Fyslee/talk 16:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Schools in North America

Not that it should matter, but the person whose comments influenced your vote change was a meat puppet (one of six) requested by the creator of the article who are all tied to this questionable type of "medicine." The creator of the article is a student at one of the two wiki article schools of Naturopathic medicine. Arbustoo 23:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I happen to be a skeptic, also about naturopathy, and share your concerns in that regard, but.....THAT fact should not have anything to do with our decision. The rules here apply to all forms of knowledge, and articles and lists often include information about erroneous POV, but fortunately NPOV requires that opposing POV also be presented so the subject gets covered from all angles. I really don't care how MastCell arrived at the vote. He is a highly respected editor, MD, and administrator here. We must not allow our own personal POV about naturopathy to cause us to get involved in POV suppression. That works both ways and is very unwikipedian. -- Fyslee/talk 05:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Copy-edit

Hi there, I'm a bit snowed under with re-writing the Evolution page at the moment. I'll try to get around to this, but if it needs done rapidly, you'd be best off asking somebody else. Sorry! TimVickers 23:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand. -- Fyslee/talk 05:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greenland

Thank you for your email of April 13, 2007. I'm sorry I didn't see it until today - I'd forgotten I'd directed my WP email to another address and hadn't logged in there for a while. I'd love to have the energy and time to help you, but am dealing with some job struggles right now. Also, of the topics you mention, hunting and better representation of Greenlandic fauna, I'd have to leave the hunting to you! A special interest I have is Greenland's postage stamps. I've visited Iceland (loved it!) but have not yet been to Greenland. Please keep me informed, and I'll be more available at some point, I hope. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 20:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

New signature and question

How do you like my new signature given to me as a gift from another editor? I like it. Also, on the Talk Stephan Barrett page, should the confict between Shot and I'clast be removed from the talk page and moved to the individual talk page? Thanks, hope all is well----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 15:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's quite the beautiful sig there! As far as my message, it should stay there. That battle has been waged on all those pages many times, and it has been a public matter for a long time. I'clast shouldn't be allowed to hide it away (not that he's doing it now). -- Fyslee/talk 15:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Image gallery help

I'm trying to limit the width of the gallery on my user page. How would I do that? Cornell Rockey 03:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You can try following my instructions here and see if that helps. That page has some good info. You can choose to have one, two, three, or the default four width. Four is apparently too much for your user page, so make multiple galleries with only three in each and see if that works for you. Here is an example using three, two, three:

I'm currently working on this page with multiple galleries: Greenland nature galleries, and will use images from it to illustrate:

I choose to center my galleries and have added <br> codes to force extra space before and after, and have added a centered heading between that last two galleries. You can do whatever you want. I hope that helps. -- Fyslee/talk 06:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a very simple solution. Thanks so much! Cornell Rockey 13:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Feedback for my user page

Hi Fyslee,

I was wondering if you would give me some feedback about my user page. I am trying to develop it to be appealing in content and also aesthetically attractive. Writing about religious topics is always controversial, and I would like to know if you think anything would be offensive to anyone, or could be improved. I have also invited a few others. Please reply here. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 13:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible list? Flora and fauna of Greenland

My original question

Is there any rule that forbids this from becoming a regular article/list?:

• Greenland nature galleries

The title can be changed if necessary. Other encyclopedias have such galleries as a resource. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk 07:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Since then the title, location, and format have been changed to Flora and fauna of Greenland -- Fyslee/talk

Replies

From Daniel:

I honestly have no idea; I'm not terribly up-to-speed with what's the current practice/general result of something like this at AfD. Could I suggest the Village Pump to ask, as it has a naturally-far greater amount of users who frequent it than my talk page. Hopefully someone over there would know what's the current standard regarding these. Beyond what I can fathom from WP:LIST (very little, sadly), I can't help you with your question, sorry. Daniel 07:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

From Will Beback:

Of course there's a rule. How could there not be a rule? However I think your page is clear of it.

• Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
• Misplaced Pages is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. All content added to Misplaced Pages may have to be edited mercilessly to be included in the encyclopedia. By submitting any content, you agree to release it for free use under the GNU FDL. Misplaced Pages articles are not:
  • 4. Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Misplaced Pages:Images with missing articles or Misplaced Pages:Public domain image resources.

Greenland nature galleries is not a mere set of media files. It is an illustrated nature guide, arranged in a logical format with identifying information. That is very encyclopedic content. To avoid confusion to folks who might think it would violate the above rule, I recommend giving careful thought to the name. Maybe "Greenland nature (bird/flower/moss) guide" or "Flora and fauna of Greenland". Some of the hunting material might be best split off to allow the topic to be narrowed. And even if folks object to having this guide here I'm sure it'd have a place somewhere in Wikimedia, such as Wikibooks. All in all I think it looks like useful content. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Your suggestion is being implemented here:

• Flora and fauna of Greenland

I hope this is a step in the right direction. -- Fyslee/talk 08:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

From Guy:

Interesting question. Honestly? I have no idea. Why not be bold? :-) Guy (Help!) 08:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

From KillerChihuahua:

I see I'm late to the discussion, if you have any further questions not already answered by others, pls let me know. KillerChihuahua 22:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

From Durova:

On the surface of it I don't see any problem with this. Durova 20:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

From Raul654:

In reply to this comment - no, I don't see how that could be turned into a Misplaced Pages-acceptable article and/or list. I don't really see any unifying relationship between the stuff there besides "list of things you might see in Greenland" which would never really fly. Raul654 01:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Raul654's comment is in response to the original format and title. Since then the title, location, and format have been changed to Flora and fauna of Greenland -- Fyslee/talk 15:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

From Tim Vickers

Looks like it would make a good list, however since it has little explanatory text it certainly couldn't be described as an article. TimVickers 15:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, "list" would be the best description for the current format, and I have now changed the heading above to reflect that fact. Of course there is nothing that would prevent it from becoming an article, but it could start as a list. Such galleries and lists are commonplace in paper encyclopedias, but here the links lead directly to the articles, thus making the list a sort of "Grand Central Station" for the subject. (I'm old enough to remember what a book is, so the hyperlinking format of the internet still amazes me!) -- Fyslee/talk 15:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of links

Hi. You may have noticed that I'm building Talk:Stephen_Barrett#History_of_.22Barrett_certification.22_dispute. I've run across a comment by you that I wanted to include, but would like your perspective on how to handle it since it includes your name. Leave out the diff maybe? -- Ronz  23:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Pocket Dialing

Thank you for contributing to Misplaced Pages, Fyslee! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Misplaced Pages. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule �urbandictionary\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages. Please read Misplaced Pages's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 06:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Third Opinion

template:History of Manchuria is suffering from extensive revert warring, and discussion is heading nowhere. A RfC was filed, but was only able to get one outside commentor. Please provide a third opinion on whether template:History of Manchuria should be titled History of Manchuria or History of Northeast China to facilitate dispute resolution. Thank you. 08:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

good catch

:-) -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV violation and cover-up of criticism by Carla Baron

(Copied from BLP Noticeboard (diff), since she likes to delete criticism. )

Carla Baron, this matter involves an obvious attempt to cover-up criticism of yourself. Such coverups aren't allowed here unless the information is libelous or undocumented. Articles here include criticism. Your misuse of this BLP Noticeboard will not succeed and has only brought more attention to your agenda, which is to keep criticism out of the article.

This documented criticism needs to be included:

• IIG Official Investigation of Claims of Carla Baron
• James Randi site
• The Case of the ‘Psychic Detectives’

I suspect there are other third party sources that can also be used to bring balance to the article. If there are issues with the quality (RS, V) of those sources, that is one matter, but covering up criticism violates NPOV, and there is plenty of criticism out there!

Carla, what has happened here is that you have become the victim of Misplaced Pages's "Law of Unintended Consequences":

This applies to all articles and to any subject, including pet ideas or favorite singer, regardless of who started the article. We need to cover the subject from all angles, and NPOV requires that both sides of the story are presented, so criticism is included. Many think they can write an article presenting a subject in the best light possible, only to find they have opened a can of worms and Pandora's box itself. Once the article is started, all kinds of negative things also become part of the article. So attempts to promote something often end up back-firing.

As we have often seen here, attempts to cover-up documented criticism only results in more unwanted attention and even better referenced criticisms being added to the article in question. We aren't interested in your idea of "truth", but in NPOV coverage of all aspects of the subject. Hagiographic articles are fine in the media or your own website, but are totally inappropriate here.

Your proper role here (since you have a conflict of interest) is to ensure that obvious libel or undocumented criticisms are corrected, and that is best done by participating at the article's talk page and convincing other editors to help you do it if they can be convinced by your arguments. If that doesn't work, then you can use this board.

The article should be restored, including the criticism. This attempt to violate NPOV and misuse this board should back-fire big. -- Fyslee/talk 06:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikifying C. Alan B. Clemetson

Rather than engaged in an edit war by reverting the wikify tag, please contribute to the discussion I started about it Talk:C._Alan_B._Clemetson#Wikify and explain your perspective. Thanks! -- Ronz  15:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Gettysburg address

Navigation templates don't have their own headers; the editor in question decided to add headers to these kinds of boxes in dozens of articles. Jayjg 21:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP Stephen Barrett

Just thought you would want to go back and recheck what you wrote and do a copyedit. Especially at the point where you talk about Bolin in parathesis. It's not a big deal, just a misspelling I think. I hope you are well. ----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 11:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the diff to the edit. I'm not sure what you mean. -- Fyslee/talk 12:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Its only "notability" is the fact that his main detractor (Tim Bolen, whom his is now suing for libel) has attempted to make it notable by misleadingly using the fact against him to imply wrongdoing, misrepresentation, or lack of qualifications to do what he does, which is to expose quackery. Sorry for not adding this. ----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 13:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha! Okay, here's the diff I asked for . What is the problem? Is it the typo ("his" instead of "he")? I'll go and fix that now. -- Fyslee/talk 14:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. For some reason my internal link didn't work this time so it showed like it did. Yes this is what I was talking about, glad you fixed it. I hope it was ok for me to bring it to your attentions.----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 14:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Robert C. Beck

NPOV ? 87.122.101.169 16:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett edit warring

While you've been a part of the recent discussions and editing of Stephen Barrett, it might be a good idea to contribute to the talk page so you don't look like you're just edit warring. -- Ronz  15:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

88.91.133.120

This is a common misconception. IP addresses are not the same as accounts and are only blocked permanently if they are an open proxy. IP addresses change frequently, particularly if one is using a commercial internet provider (as opposed to one's workplace or school). As you can see from the DNS lookup this is one IP address in a range, which means that it will eventually be assigned to a different person. That person, who has presumably not vandalised Misplaced Pages, would probably be upset to find themself unable to edit because of the misbehavior of the IP addresses current owner.

Open proxies and Tor nodes are occasionally blocked indefinitely or for very long spans of time (5 years or more). Additionally, some shared IP addresses that have had particularly abusive histories are softblocked for periods of up to 6 months. Natalie 11:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. How about a longer block, say a month? -- Fyslee/talk 11:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Note at WP:AN/I

Please note this discussion at AN/I. Thanks, Navou 19:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Warnings

Removal of a warning may be taken as an indication that it has been read. Removal is acceptable. Also warnings from involved parties are often functionally indistinguishable from trolling and should be left to an uninvolved party. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there some continued problem? -- Fyslee/talk 22:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Article from Journal of Controversial Medicine

In 2002 the Journal of Controversial Medical Claims published a paper submitted by the NACM entitled "NACM and its argument with mainstream chiropractic health care."

1. Mirtz TA, Long P, Dinehart A. Slaughter RL, DuVall Jr., CE, Bryson R, Kourmadas F. Campo J. NACM and its argument with mainstream chiropractic health care. Journal of Controversial Medical Claims, 2002;9(1):11-25. (Article summary)

• The references from the article

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

Volume 20, Issue 18 — 2024-12-24

• News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform"

• Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything

• Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject

• In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case

• From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting?

• Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality

• Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies

• Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols

• Traffic report: Was a long and dark December

Robert C. Beck

The Robert C. Beck article is up for deletion.

You said that Robert C. Beck person's "Protocol" was pseudoscience and will end up killing people.

From some anecdotal accounts, people have been successfully treated for AIDS and other diseases using "The Beck Protocol."

Is this categorically false?

Have you any scientific experimental results that show good or bad outcomes using this protocol?

"Where are your reliable sources?"

I have been researching with an open mind.

Upon close examination, I find that the American Cancer Society has made some misleading statements about alternative medicine such as about Royal Rife.

To my knowledge, there are no laws of physics, chemistry, or biology that would stop some of the Ray Beam Rife frequency treatments from working.

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. None of the dismissing characterizations about Rife's original successful 1934 clinical trial treatments ever bridge the concepts of NMR with the nature of Rife's work.

Rife's research lab results are dismissed out of hand by unqualified non-physicists, non-engineers that claim "no pathogens could possibly be rendered harmless." "Power or energy levels are too low."

Sorry, this is not the scientific method. Where is the experimental results that disprove or support this claim? How would a MD. know what power level was good? What experimental results are there?

Blood electrification does this work "only in-vitro?" The American Cancer Society does not mention such a topic to my knowledge.

U.S. Patents on blood electrification (to counter AIDS tainted donated blood) were issued because the patent applicants were able to demonstrate that both their inventions, and procedures worked.

It is "not out of the realm of possibility" that Blood electrification could be done in-vivo as Robert C. Beck attempts to explain. The Voltage and Current levels used in his specific application to the arteries that he outlines would cause current flows (of magnitudes I am not able to know). That he and his supporters "claim to be curing themselves of various diseases" warrants my investigation into the matter.

A true scientist is "not political" and does not dismiss claims out of hand unless the idea has absolutely no possibility of working (i.e., against the laws of physics). I would not bet my life against this concept working...

A search of the Internet turns up that veterinarians have been treating the joints of horses with some form of magnetic pulsed mechanism, and have been doing so for some time.

Stem cells. "The Body Electric." I downloaded a copy of this book and skimmed it over. It was written by a MD. He was studying healing of bone fractures. He was in the U.S. Veteran's Administration working on war veterans. Some bone fractures would not heal. He investigated this. He made some interesting discoveries that permitted the healing of otherwise non-healing bone fractures.

Genes in stem cells. Gene expression. Electronics. Circuits. I saw a TV news story in Canada in the late 1990s or so about a company that had made an experimental IC that could direct stem cells to express themselves as various types of new forming tissues.

There are so many discoveries being made, it would be foolish / poor-judgement to dismiss anything out of hand without some proper, unbiased scientific research or experimental investigation.

I do not mean to offend your genteel sensibilities with anything that I have ever written, and am sorry if I have. Oldspammer 09:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You have definitely not offended me. I don't have to prove or disprove Beck's or Rife's theories. The burden of proof is on you and them. Where is the proof (anecdotes are not legitimate for this)? If you can find published scientific evidence that is listed at PubMed, you will stand much stronger when discussing these matters.

Interestingly, Misplaced Pages is not about "truth", but about documentable opinions and facts. If you can provide evidence from published WP:V and WP:RS (read those pages completely) that Beck is notable (it should be possible, if not only from alternative medicine sources, but also from sources where he is criticized), you might be able to save the article in an abbreviated form. From there you can build it up using such good sources. You must not advocate his ideas, just document the opinions that exist, both for and against. WP:NPOV requires both POV. If you can do that, even I will back up the inclusion of total nonsense. -- Fyslee/talk 09:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it is a chicken or the egg problem. If there is no wiki article at all, then fewer people will learn about the subject and less interest will be generated, etc.

Trouble with some branches of the scientific community are that they are too political. As such, Rife's or Beck's results shall be prevented if anything.

http://www.Rife.org/ have lots of historical texts showing his experimental results for inspection.

From what I understand from documentary videos about Rife, there were 3 or so sets of clinical trials carried out by various M.D.s during 1934 to 1937 or so.

1934 is widely reported as 100% success rate but on only 16 patients. But according to the video, the overall success rate at treating incurable, final hopeless stages of cancer was about 90%.

Rife had a lot of trouble with the AMA. The corrupt head of it was eventually convicted of racketeering charges. The AMA only started to get after Rife some years after the first few clinical trials. Supposedly, police raids, and fire consumed a lot of the research and equipment.

JAMA would have rejected all of the "Rife group's" submissions.

Apparently, in the late 1930s and onwards, MDs using Rife's equipment were threatened by the AMA not to use the devices or lose their license to practice medicine. Eventually, in the late 1950s California AMA branch had the health department declare the machinery unsafe although all scientific labs checking the equipment said it was fine. AMA investigators were then free to make calls to police to raid doctor's offices to confiscate such equipment.

John F. Crane a partner of Rife's got himself into a jam where he was prevented from providing evidence to defend himself in court. Rife gave a sworn statement from Mexico but it was ruled inadmissible as was anything Crane tried. Crane served 3 years in prison only because the appeals court reduced his sentence down from much more.

There is no monetary incentive for MDs to examine Rife's claims--they might lose business if it proved effective. Worse yet, the drug companies would be in trouble if it proven. I was and may still be an investor in drug stocks.

According to web pages, the AMA was hounding Bob C. Beck too--trying to entrap him into prescribing medical treatment to a number of undercover agents. So much so that Beck had told his friends and close contacts not to publish his contact information that might lead these people to bother him further.

The equipment is not too expensive. The Protcol book warns that it is not a cure for all things. Anyone reading it should consult their physician. It has recommended treatment schedules so as not to over do anything. But, a user could over treat themselves. Other conditions could develop. The equipment could go faulty. But this is exactly the same as taking prescribed drugs: the patient could take too many, or too few, or not often enough or other abuses.

One concern that Beck had was that expressed in the book "Emerging Viruses: AIDS & EBOLA -- Nature, Accident or Intentional?" by Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H. 1996. Some autocratic group might engineer a means of population control for the rest of us. Oldspammer 11:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Outing info removed

Hi Fyslee. The information I posted was from Avb's user page, and was also provided by him in the previous diff. ॐ Metta Bubble 06:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh! Thanks for the clarification. Where is the info on the page? I looked and didn't see it. I would suggest AvB remove such info, because if people like User:Ilena get hold of it, they can make life miserable for him. -- Fyslee/talk 06:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It might be an idea for Avb to request the information oversighted from his user page. ॐ Metta Bubble 07:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I just looked through the whole history and didn't find it. -- Fyslee/talk 07:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll post in a sec... Old user page and recently. You should note that Avb hasn't gone to great lengths to hide any of this. He has openly shared his medical condition, his religious beliefs, the size of his family, and where they holiday. I really have respect for Avb's openness and have no intention of posting information he hasn't posted himself. ॐ Metta Bubble 07:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Then let him do it himself. You doing it borders on a bannable offense. Editors who dug into my own user page history and published the information here (and used my honesty against me!) were severely warned and one banned. I have since gotten that information oversighted. My family should not be endangered because I was open and honest. People's openness should be respected, not used against them. BTW, he stated that he is holding a sabbatical from his work on that site, which is probably why he said he did not have a problem with that issue. -- Fyslee/talk 07:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

All that aside. I've also got diffs where you recognise your particular vest interested and have hence refrained from certain articles. I'm suprised you object to me saying you have admited an interest. I'll happily strike my comments myself if you want to discuss it here. ॐ Metta Bubble 07:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Admitting an interest is not the same as having a Wiki COI. I would like to discuss this with you, but preferably by email. Just click the link at the left side of this page. Send me the diffs and we can discuss them. There are still malicious editors very active here, including their socks, and other malicious persons who keep an eye on what I write and may publish it off-wiki. -- Fyslee/talk 07:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I wholy agree that interest doesn't equate to conflict. But I think you know there's more to it than that and hence your willingness to discuss it off project. There must be some facility to discuss this within the project without harassing anyone, no? ॐ Metta Bubble 07:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to hide from honest and honorable persons, but we are dealing with people who take innocent information, personal details, irrelevant facts, minor imperfections and failings, etc., and use them in personal attacks in a very unfair manner. My openness has been used against me and I have learned from being so naive as to expect that Misplaced Pages editors are honorable persons. Not all of them are such. Besides them, lurkers who read our comments can do the same. -- Fyslee/talk 08:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Your refactoring of editors opinions is unacceptable and disruptive. Please refrain. I'm really not interested in your games of escalating what should be a simple situation. ॐ Metta Bubble 22:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:REFACTORing is standard practice, especially when BLP issues are involved, and they do apply to editors, especially when they also come in the form of personal attacks, which your misleading statement was. Place yourself in my shoes. If I lied about you, how would you feel? You claim to be a Buddhist, IIRC, but you are anything but peaceful. Please do not repeat the false charges that were never proven in the RfArb. Some people seem to believe in "guilt by accusation", but that's not the way it works. Please reword it to "POV". That would be accurate. -- Fyslee/talk 22:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You weren't refactoring BLP information. You were refactoring my fair and reasonable opinion. My opinion wasn't a personal attack nor uncivil. My statement was "Fyslee doesn't hide his conflict" and although I'm starting to doubt the accuracy of my statement you still have no business changing my edits. ॐ Metta Bubble 22:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

To me it is a BLP violation. I know best about myself. The charges were never proven. Read the rules. I can -- and all editors "must" -- immediately remove potentially libelous statements and unsourced negative information. BLP applies to all living persons, including editors, and applies to all of Wikimedia publications, including personal userspace. 3RR does not apply to removal of such information, but does apply to the one who includes or restores it. -- Fyslee/talk 23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Your edits of Kanpur

Thanks for maintaining a constant vigil on the above page. However, I feel you are overdoing it. You did two more removals of Allen Forest (a government owned zoo and one of the largest in north India) and Lal Imli (BIC) again a government owned factory of british era which was exporting worldwide (in fact Lal Imli / BIC were considered for assurances of quality but lost its name due to trade-unionism in 60s and 70s). This places are of real importance for anyone who knows Kanpur properly. Please clarify or else I will have to revert anyhow. Just coz I did not get time to write up pages for these places, does not mean I cant do so later. --Bobby Awasthi 19:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bobby. The purpose of limiting inclusion only to notable persons, institutions, or whatever.... is a matter of principle. That article was at one time filled with numerous listings of unknown persons, businesses, my aunt and her grand-uncle and their pet dogs, etc.... There was absolutely no control over whether the additions were nonsense, vandalism or were worthy and Wiki-legitimate candidates for inclusion. Since Misplaced Pages forbids such indiscriminate lists (we are being lenient and "looking through our fingers" already), this is the only way to ensure that Misplaced Pages's Notability requirement for inclusion is met. Even if the article is a stub, the subject can be included. Just do that and there will be no problem. If we once again start allowing red links and unreferenced additions, then we will quickly be back to the chaotic days where this article was as reliable and safe a place as the worst back alley in a Bombay slum market place. Kanpur deserves better and this article is an important "face" for Kanpur to the world. -- Fyslee/talk 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)