| Revision as of 02:18, 29 July 2008 editOmbudsman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,258 editsm rv: rm comment from unwelcome user← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:12, 6 August 2008 edit undoWhaleto (talk | contribs)934 edits →Sending me emailNext edit → | ||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
| :Good faith is quite the lacking ingredient in the ] article, and several other medical articles where you have removed vital information -- that should be presented, in keeping with a reasonable expectation of the Wiki's collective good faith. If you want to talk about incivility, that's your prerogative, but please don't use such rhetoric to obfuscate the real editing issues at hand, like the ridiculous censorship of the ] article, and the repugnant smell of ]'s unqualified and unabashed ] quoted as gospel over on the ] article. In large part, you received an e-mail precisely because there seems to be hope for you as an editorial collaborator. Perhaps you could try a little harder to look at the upside, at the anticipation that you might wish to work collaboratively, which your demeanor prior to the last year seemed to merit. In contrast to your evident potential, the vaccine industry has been lashing out vainly to quash the rising tide of evidence of its culpability, and now the emerging proof, that their ever expanding ]s and failure to remove mercury from vaccines has resulted in one of the most devastating ]s ever. The issue at hand, which you seem to have missed or errantly turned inside out (i.e., your 'representations' above), is not so much about your individual proclivity for removing facts essential for npov, but about whether or not the Wiki's medical articles report a fair balance of illustrative facts -- embedded within reasonable context, and in keeping with the ideal of good faith. ] (]) 05:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | :Good faith is quite the lacking ingredient in the ] article, and several other medical articles where you have removed vital information -- that should be presented, in keeping with a reasonable expectation of the Wiki's collective good faith. If you want to talk about incivility, that's your prerogative, but please don't use such rhetoric to obfuscate the real editing issues at hand, like the ridiculous censorship of the ] article, and the repugnant smell of ]'s unqualified and unabashed ] quoted as gospel over on the ] article. In large part, you received an e-mail precisely because there seems to be hope for you as an editorial collaborator. Perhaps you could try a little harder to look at the upside, at the anticipation that you might wish to work collaboratively, which your demeanor prior to the last year seemed to merit. In contrast to your evident potential, the vaccine industry has been lashing out vainly to quash the rising tide of evidence of its culpability, and now the emerging proof, that their ever expanding ]s and failure to remove mercury from vaccines has resulted in one of the most devastating ]s ever. The issue at hand, which you seem to have missed or errantly turned inside out (i.e., your 'representations' above), is not so much about your individual proclivity for removing facts essential for npov, but about whether or not the Wiki's medical articles report a fair balance of illustrative facts -- embedded within reasonable context, and in keeping with the ideal of good faith. ] (]) 05:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==survey== | |||
| check out my page for survey ] (]) | |||
Revision as of 09:12, 6 August 2008
Archived talk pages:
- February 26 to December 31, 2005
- January 1 to June 30, 2006
- July 1 to December 30, 2006
- January 1 to December 31, 2006
The Kefermarkt altarpiece is a richly decorated wooden altarpiece in the Late Gothic style in the parish church of Kefermarkt in Upper Austria. Commissioned by the knight Christoph von Zelking, it was completed around 1497. Saints Peter, Wolfgang and Christopher are depicted in the central section. The wing panels depict scenes from the life of Mary, and the altarpiece also has an intricate superstructure and two side figures of Saints George and Florian. The identity of its maker, known by the notname Master of the Kefermarkt Altarpiece, is unknown, but at least two skilled sculptors appear to have created the main statuary. Throughout the centuries, it has been altered and lost its original paint and gilding; a major restoration was undertaken in the 19th century under the direction of Adalbert Stifter. The altarpiece has been described as "one of the greatest achievements in late-medieval sculpture in the German-speaking area". This image shows the upper-left wing panel of the Kefermarkt altarpiece, depicting the birth of Christ. Mary is portrayed kneeling in devotion in front of the infant Christ, who is placed before her on a fold of her dress. On the other side, Joseph is also kneeling in front of the child. Above Mary, on the roof of the building behind them, are two angels playing a mandolin and a lute. The annunciation to the shepherds can be seen in the background.Sculpture credit: Master of the Kefermarkt Altarpiece; photographed by Uoaei1
Archive – More featured pictures...
Long belated thank you
I was thinking how nice it was when the occasional new editor tells me thanks for a welcome template I placed on their talk page; then I realized that I had never thanked you for the one you left me! So allow me now to extend my belated thanks for welcoming me to the project. Thank you! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
A little help
A fellow editor asked me if he can remove/delete an account which he accidentally created. See here). Is this possible? Does it take an admin to do so? What is the procedure? Thanks! -- Levine2112 22:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Notice board for vaccine-related topics
Hi again, I don't really have any choice but to revert this edit again, for a few reasons:
- You refuse to engage me on the talk page. I've asked you several specific questions, and you've repeatedly responded by deleting my comments.
- You've repeatedly accused other editors of "personal attacks" but you've refused to explain to me which comments you think violated WP:NPA. You can't just throw around terms like "personal attack" and then refuse to say which comments you're talking about, and why you think they violate WP:NPA.
- You falsely claimed in your edit summary that you were moving the discussion to the talk page. In fact, you just deleted it.
- Yet again, you've marked your edit as minor, when you know it's not a minor edit. Since this has been clearly explained to you several times, I can only conclude that you're deliberately abusing the "minor edit" checkbox to avoid scrutiny from other editors.
As I've said before, you have no right to delete my comments from a project page. If you honestly think I've violated WP:NPA, please report me at the administrators' noticeboard. At the very least, take the time to answer my questions instead of unilaterally deleting them. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ban on Notice board for vaccine-related topics
Under terms of your indefinite probation, I find deletion of material on Misplaced Pages:Notice board for vaccine-related topics stating in edit summary to have moved to talk page (as per this), when bulk of material is not transfered (as here) is being disruptive. I therefore impose a ban on your further disrupting that noticeboard. I'll submit this to WP:AN/I for other admin review. David Ruben 20:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your action, on the heels of blatant misrepresentations (whether deliberate or not), was abusive, especially given your apparent association and conflict of interest with regard to vaccine marketers. It is that type of unilateralism and lack of civility associated with the protection of power structures that has resulted in the vast epidemic of vaccine injury cases, which now number in the millions worldwide. As was pointed out to you, the verisimilitude of the phrasing resulted in a very minor cut and paste error, which you have once again misrepresented in a less than civil manner. The noticeboard should be, inherently, used for timely notices, unlike the two year old 'comment' from an anon that you seem to think belongs on a noticeboard that should be routinely updated, and that should focus on vaccines, rather than hazing rituals. The ArbCom case, which you have lamely used as an excuse for your own knee jerk double standard reaction, was itself a sadly disruptive maelstrom of malicious behavior, something that is common in authoritarian cultural environments historically steeped in hazing processes. The abusive ArbCom process clearly never should have been perpetrated, much less turned into a classic and abusive example of hazing, by the ArbCom, given that the process was initiated by, apparently, a newbie who turned the biological psychiatry article into a grossly misrepresentative puff piece. Even the ArbCom acknowledged that the root issue, an npov tag on the article irreverently removed by NHS associated users, was clearly justified. Repeated removal of the biopsych article npov tag might be considered vandalism by NHS associates gravely hindered by conflict of interest issues. Moving comments from an anon (whose IP address seemed to match that of the anon who turned the Andrew Wakefield article into a character assassination hit piece) to the talk page was perfectly reasonable, a matter that you still don't seem to grasp, despite the histrionics over the simple cut and paste error that indicated your evidently admitted departure from WP:AGF. The Wiki is undermined by the type of public stocks actions that you and your NHS cohorts have perpetrated. An apology would be appreciated. Ombudsman (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ombudsman, re this posting on your talk page that you removed, I can only agree that it had been ungraceous; the edit referred to was clearly constructive, and looking back on the page's history, so have been some of your other edits such as this. I, and clearly no other admin, would block you purely on the basis of a further such constructive edit. With only one other editor commenting on your involvement on that page, lets enter the Easter break with this formal lifting of the ban :-)
- However, take care not to edit or alter the watch info about yourself, and if there is any disagreement about one of your edits on the Misplaced Pages:Notice board for vaccine-related topics, then by all means post a request for review/comment on its talk page, but refrain from any further edit until the community has responded (failure to follow this etiquette would, IMHO, be evidence of disruption and grounds for an extended block). David Ruben 03:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Before you comment further - above posted as an edit of prior version of your talk page, that you edited above as I was writing my own observation on why article ban to be lifted - wow, thanks for the AGF ! David Ruben 03:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- As for your above comments, I agree not an unreasonable option about having the watch info on yourself on talk page instead, but what was at issue was your reverting over others whether to do that or not and this contray to the de facto probation. As I had politely suggested on the block notice you have (within your rights) removed, "you could have just politely asked on someones talk page for a discussion thread of your proposal to be reconsidered," David Ruben 04:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Before you comment further - above posted as an edit of prior version of your talk page, that you edited above as I was writing my own observation on why article ban to be lifted - wow, thanks for the AGF ! David Ruben 03:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Your advice on a new article
Hi. A few years ago, you were a great help when I wrote my first article about journal_club. At the time, I was very excited to contribute to wikipedia, and by the revolutionary role JournalReview.org was playing in the medical community. My enthusiasm led me to make the mistake of offering external links to this project in a fassion that recently has been interpreted as spam. Although no links have been offered to JournalReview.org in almost two years, in Feb 08 the website was placed directly on the blacklist (bypassing the nomination phase). There are several reasons why I found this action to be overly aggressive, not to mention that there had never been a warning made to me, about the links, or any other method tried to suggest that these links were not appreciated. I offered my perspective and appologized on the blacklist forum to ask for reconsideration, but my request was denied.
Be that as it may, to demonstrate notability of the project, I have started a draft on my talk page of an article specifically about journalreview.org. I recognize that the article will undergo careful scrutiny as it will require a whitelist requests. I wanted to give the article the best chance of success possible, and was hoping that you might offer some feedback if your time allows.
Many thanks, EBMdoc (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Question
Hi, Are you a user on www.freehealthaid.com? I seen the user "Ombudsman" and was wondering if it was you. If so, that's pretty awesome, because I'm a user, also! I just signed up... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.0.31 (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Belli And the Children Shall Lead.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Belli And the Children Shall Lead.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Misplaced Pages's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Koko and the Maui Ape Preserve
Hi. An update to material you added to the article Koko on 4 June 2005 is being discussed here. Your opinion on the matter would be appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Physics participation
You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.
On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.
If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
request for input: eye-related article titles
I see that you're connected with WikiProject Psychology. There's a dispute brought on by changes in titles, already done or planned, by a user who I suspect does not have a close command of the language. Most urgently, I wonder whether you agree with the change from "Eye movement" to "Eye movement (sensory)"?
Talk:Eye_movement_(sensory)#Third_opinion TONY (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Sending me email
Please don't send me any more email. It is not appropriate to use Misplaced Pages's 'E-mail this user' tool to violate Misplaced Pages's policies against personal attacks and incivility, nor is it acceptable to use it to lecture other editors on some perceived failure to assume good faith. (Do you recognize the irony there?)
Calling me an 'obstructionist' and accusing me of 'vandaliz' an article because I disagree with you on an editorial matter is flatly out of line. Accusing me of being "out to score political points with the mainstream med censors", meanwhile, is simply ridiculous. In the edit summary I suggested an appropriate place for you to present information, if it wasn't there already. You may wish to review WP:WEIGHT and WP:COATRACK, not to mention WP:VAND.
If you have any further remarks that you wish to make to me about an article, do it on-wiki where your comments will be subject to community scrutiny. I don't need and don't deserve – and don't have to put up with – private messages from you questioning my motives or my integrity. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good faith is quite the lacking ingredient in the Mark Geier article, and several other medical articles where you have removed vital information -- that should be presented, in keeping with a reasonable expectation of the Wiki's collective good faith. If you want to talk about incivility, that's your prerogative, but please don't use such rhetoric to obfuscate the real editing issues at hand, like the ridiculous censorship of the Thomas Verstraeten article, and the repugnant smell of Brian Deer's unqualified and unabashed character assassination quoted as gospel over on the Andrew Wakefield article. In large part, you received an e-mail precisely because there seems to be hope for you as an editorial collaborator. Perhaps you could try a little harder to look at the upside, at the anticipation that you might wish to work collaboratively, which your demeanor prior to the last year seemed to merit. In contrast to your evident potential, the vaccine industry has been lashing out vainly to quash the rising tide of evidence of its culpability, and now the emerging proof, that their ever expanding vaccination schedules and failure to remove mercury from vaccines has resulted in one of the most devastating man made disasters ever. The issue at hand, which you seem to have missed or errantly turned inside out (i.e., your 'representations' above), is not so much about your individual proclivity for removing facts essential for npov, but about whether or not the Wiki's medical articles report a fair balance of illustrative facts -- embedded within reasonable context, and in keeping with the ideal of good faith. Ombudsman (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)