Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:49, 7 February 2008

You may leave messages for me here. If I reply, I will do so here. If you wish to discuss a particular article, please do it on that article's talk page. Dlabtot (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Archives

Archive 1, 25 August 2007 - 12 January 2008

Your milage may vary

I completely agree with you about the purpose of a talk page. However, in my experience, patients who are expressing their feelings on the talk page of an article rarely post multiple times. With that in mind, I usually leave a nice note as a way of recognizing that they have been heard, and the conversation stops there. Just letting you know in case you're interested in trying the strategy in the future. Regards, Antelan 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps my reply was ill-advised. I suppose a wise man knows when to remain silent. Dlabtot (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruption

Your comments on SA's talk page are unhelpful. It is obvious that he doesn't want to discuss your behavior with you at this moment. If you want community input on your behavior, please feel free to open an RFC on yourself - the process is detailed at WP:RFC/User. I would consider any further comments by you on SA's talk page to be a disruptive attempt to rile another user, and at this point, I would consider you full and fairly warned. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to hold any opinion you wish; however, your stated assumption of bad faith on my part is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. I will take your 'warning' for what it's worth. Dlabtot (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not assumed any bad faith. I have said that any FURTHER comments would be a disruptive attempt to rile another user. Your past attempt may merely have been poorly informed. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I see, when labeling me disruptive, you were judging my hypothetical future actions, rather than my past actions.... thanks for clearing that up. Be advised, I don't consider your dictates as to where I should and should not comment to be in any way binding. If you believe I'm being disruptive, you are welcome to pursue the issue in the appropriate forum. Dlabtot (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Dlabtot. You may want to consider the fact that escalation is not a good strategy to pursue in Misplaced Pages. If an editor does not want your feedback, and he specifically asks you to stop, it may be best to leave it alone until things cool-off a bit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Very true. In a spat, it is rare to not put a foot wrong at any point. As everything is documented and is visible to all - for all time - both sides usually come out worse. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that I've 'escalated' anything. SA, who is currently under the latest of a series of blocks for incivility, stated on his talk page that "I am ignorant of Misplaced Pages's standards of civility". In another section he appealed to those he has been uncivil to, to state how they were offended by his actions. As one of the editors on the receiving end of the behavior that got him blocked, I attempted to explain that he was not blocked because people took offense, he was blocked because of his own actions. His response was to blank my comment with the edit page summary "POV pushing undone". This despite the fact that he has previously initiated an RfC on the question of whether this specific accusation is uncivil. Well, I am curious as to what exactly is the POV that he believes I am pushing. So I politely asked him that question. He can answer or not as he sees fit. Where's the 'escalation'? Dlabtot (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot: Do you have email? Anthon01 (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to receive Misplaced Pages related email. I'd prefer that all conversations take place in an open forum, such as this talk page. If you wish to say anything to me, please say it here. Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The type of argument you are referring to, "Physicists can't be trusted with physics" is only made when when the outcome of applying that argument supports the "anti-fringe" agenda. IMO, the goal is to remove all mention of homeopathy from wikipedia unless a source non-homeopathy source exists that discusses the usage in making preparations. The bar has been raised so high, that the chances of finding a source are close to nil. So the Homeopathic Pharmacopœia cannot be used to describe the products used in making a homeopathic preparation. Because you and I might agree on this one point, that an authoritative book on homeopathy is a RS for discussing the materials used in making preparations, we have been barred from this discussion. Anthon01 (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What I find particularly ironic, is that imho, Homeopathy is utter nonsense. In that I'm pretty sure I and SA agree. That doesn't mean information about it should not be in WP, however, and described according to NPOV, which is where SA and I disagree. Dlabtot (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not good enough. IMO, the attempt is to ban most references to homeopathy in wikipedia, based on an exceptionally high bar for acceptable RS on homeopathy. Additionally, I suspect that he is taking your attempts to help him as a reprimand. Anthon01 (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, remember consensus science has a remarkably reliable habit of being wrong on many fundamental concepts. Although I believe that homeopathy remains scientifically unproven beyond placebo, I am not certain that that will always be the case. Anthon01 (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT implies the importance of homeopathy to a substance should determine whether it is mentioned in that subject - not just whether it is used at all, or even whether the substance is important to homeopathy. Homeopathy references can determine whether something is important to homeopathy and whether it should appear in the homeopathy article, but to know whether it is important generally, references outside homeopathy are needed when looking at articles outside homeopathy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01 (talk · contribs) and Stephen B Streater (talk · contribs), if you have a message to leave for me please do so here. If you wish to debate Homeopathy sources, I'd like to suggest that you do so at Talk:Homeopathy, thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dave Sheridan (artist)

No problem. I just saw it on NPP. Happy editing! Billscottbob (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning

After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you back. A break sometimes puts things into perspective. Dlabtot (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Burma again

Talk:Burma#Survey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.189.89 (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think it matters what you call the article as long as the other name redirects to it. Looking at the talk page, I seem to be a minority of one in my view, so I decline to get involved. Dlabtot (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bleep

I hope your rustling efforts prevail.:) --Anthon01 (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about by 'rustling efforts' - nor do I want to know. I'd appreciate it if you would respect my wishes stated on the top of this page and keep discussions about the editing of any specific article on that article's talk page. Dlabtot (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought this comment was appropriate here and not the bleep talk page. A comment I made on this page several days ago was well received. Very confusing. The comment is not for the bleep talk page. Anthon01 (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: What the Bleep Do We Know!?

If it needs a protection extension, that bridge can be crossed when we arrive to it. east.718 at 19:47, January 23, 2008

RfM filed

A Request for Mediation has been filed on the continuing dispute over the lead section of this article. You have been listed as an involved party, please respond on the mediation page at your earliest convenience. Dreadstar † 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

SA AN/I Thread

I noticed you replied to my comment after I archived the thread - generally, reports of incivility/disruptive behavior about an editor under restrictions for those things by ArbCom should be reported to the ArbCom Enforcement page (WP:AE)). The ArbCom itself won't take action, but the administrators on that page will be well versed in the restrictions and will apply the correct remedies as outlined in the enforcement section of the case decision. I wasn't commenting specifically on whether this was needed in this situation but more generally that WP:AE is the correct forum. 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to do that, and I honestly have no idea how it happened. Considering it was a thread that was just opened I don't really understand how it was archived so quickly. Again, I did not knowingly or purposely comment inside an archive box; I thought I was commenting on an active thread. Dlabtot (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Its no problem, it happens and there is no rule against it anyway. I just wanted to explain my reasoning for the comment I made. The reason I archived the thread and marked the section resolved is because the editor making the complaint was blocked indefinitely and there seemed to be no call for administrator action left. 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR

This frivolous complaint is unacceptable. First of all, he was reverting your unsourced statements. Second, he has not exceeded 3RR, which is when a complaint can be filed. Apologize please. OrangeMarlin 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, he was reverting your unsourced statements. I have never edited the Deadly Nightshade article. However, if I filed the complaint erroneously, I do apologize for that. Dlabtot (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate place for your apology would be on the talk page of the user you wronged. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture on etiquette. It is received in the spirit it was given. Dlabtot (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Question on 3rr

In regards to this report, why did you only file a report against one user, when two others were also posting the same reversions? Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right; actually it appears that User:ScienceApologist, User:PouponOnToast, User:Orangemarlin, User:Anthon01 and User:Levine2112 are all engaging in edit warring on the Deadly Nightshade article. Tag teaming each others reverts. I find these edit wars to be exhausting, and the motivations of those involved to be incomprehensible. How about you? Do you understand it? Dlabtot (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate personal attacks. Please apologize to me Diabtot. I am not tag-teaming, I am cleaning up Homeopathy promotion POV cruft from the project. You can thank me for doing my best to preserve NPOV. OrangeMarlin 23:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't attacked you; if you believe I've violated WP:NPA, you have the ability to file the appropriate appeals. There is edit warring going on in the Deadly Nightshade article; an article that I've never edited. I'm sorry that you've perceived my opinion about the edit war there as a personal attack against you, and I assure you it was not intended that way, rather it was a comment about the 3 revert rule's failure to address the edit warring in that article. Dlabtot (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My only real issue is that ScienceApologist and now OrangeMarlin keep trying to include the text "though none of the substance is present in the provings". This text is not supported by the given source and thus violates WP:OR. I am not sure why OrangeMarlin thinks that the inclusion of this text has to do with satisfying WP:NPOV as he has done little to communicate outside of terse edit summaries which label my position as "POV" - or worse is ScienceApologist's edit summary which uses the uncivil "POV pushing" accusation. I hardly consider my position as the "Homeopathy promotion POV" (as OrangeMarlin uncivilly refers to it). I am only trying to include information which can be verified by a reliable source. I personally don't believe in Homeopathy. However, I fully support that content about homeopathy can be included rather than suppressed. -- Levine2112 00:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Warnings

Careful - is a talk page warning, and you accidentally put it on the article. PouponOnToast (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll 'be careful', LOL. Dlabtot (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

New ShortCut

On my editing break, I've created a shortcut that you might find useful. WP:PSCI. Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsign

Your post is missing your name. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/What the Bleep Do We Know!?. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 12:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding refactoring of WP:AE

The reverting at this page is quickly approaching an edit war. I'd like to appeal to both you and ScienceApologist to drop the matter. Personally I think that refactoring those three comments to the talk page is a bit inappropriate as SA seems to have a conflict of interest in doing so. Additionally, the talk page doesn't seem like the place to move the discussion to; its purpose is to discuss aspects of WP:AE, not matters taking place there. Even so, if you're willing to step up and just let it go, I think that it will probably be the best thing for everyone involved anyway. Thanks. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)\

I agree with you that it was inappropriate for SA to move my comment. Dlabtot (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy article probation notification

You are probably aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation, which means that editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Please consider yourself notified of this article probation. All resulting blocks and bans will be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. Addhoc (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose this notification was technically necessary, although I really should have been included in the original list of involved editors, even though I don't think I've ever edited the main article in question, nor the ancillary articles, I have participated in the talk page discussions. What I find really bizarre in this is dustup that I totally disagree with the POV of the editors that I have been lumped in with - I think homeopathy is total bullshit - nevertheless, it exists, and I believe Misplaced Pages should accurately inform the reader about this subject, rather than pretend it doesn't exist. Dlabtot (talk) 04:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hrs for edit warring on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement

Regardless of the correctness of using the page in that manner, you and SA both edit warred on the arbitration enforcement page there. You both know better. You both appear to have done so with knowledge of the consequences of WP:3RR and our edit warring policy in general.

As you both stepped into it with foreknowledge of the policy and ignored it anyways, both of you are blocked for 24 hrs to end the conflict. Please, when the block expires tomorrow, avoid such pointless and spiteful activity. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I fully agree with you that it was edit-warring, so I suppose I have no valid reason to contest the block. I do think it was highly inappropriate for SA to remove my comments in the first place, however. Dlabtot (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)