Misplaced Pages

Directory:
Archives
March 2006 – July 2006 August 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 – April 2007 May 2007 – September 2007 October 2007 – May 2008 May 2008 – July 2009 August 2009 –

Help improving PatientsLikeMe please!

Hi there, I work for PatientsLikeMe and so want to avoid any conflict of interest by doing substantial edits to the article. However since it first went up we have published several research studies and been mentioned in a variety of journals including Lancet Neurology, Nature Medicine, AMIA, etc (see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=patientslikeme). I would be most grateful to have some additional input to the article from objective 3rd parties. Happy to answer any questions at pwicks@patientslikeme.com, I'm also easily Googlable! Thanks,--PaulWicks (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Shamwow86 (Creamy3)

Hi, Scientizzle. I wanted to let know that I support the statement you made on Shamwow86's userpage and at SPI. I brought up the sockpuppetry case, not simply because he was obviously Creamy3, but because he was starting to engage in deceptive behavior again. (Being deceitful about his past, his contributions, canvassing, being dishonest when directly questioned, etc. etc.). Like you, I think that many of his contributions to article space have been good, especially dealing with lesser known films and personalities. And if he ever could learn to stop the MySpacey junk, the sockpuppetry and the other immature behavior, then he could be a benefit WP. In other words, if he grew up and treated the project work seriously, I would also approve of giving him a fresh start. Unfortunately, the creation of his latest sock yesterday - does this sound familiar? - just so he could vote for himself shows he doesn't get it yet. Unfortunately. — CactusWriter | 10:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I was going to point out that per this diff, and subject matter edited, that User:Matthew Francis seems to be our boy. I was going to say that if he was behaving that despite the block evasion perhaps we could watch and give him a chance, but unfortunately it looks like he is socking again. Katr67 (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I was so surprised taht there was already a Creamy3 post here that I forgot to say: "Hey Scientizzle, long time no see! I hope things are well, and note that I might, just might reconsider your proposal. Cheers!" Katr67 (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've known about him since he popped up after Shamwow86 was blocked. I've been watching him as well as his other two open socks -- no particular problems so far -- so let's see whether he starts to cause trouble or not. — CactusWriter | 07:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys. I haven't been around much, but I've checked in on this occasionally. I expect the subject is savvy enough to have seen all our comment, so I'm sure he'll take note. I have no current intention to block Matthew Francis (talk · contribs), because the account doesn't appear to have been at all disruptive, or Sally77 (talk · contribs), because that account hasn't edited since its creation. I'm treating this as a de facto "one last chance" that was requested. If, however, there's any indication that Mr. Francis slips into his ol' patterns of "tomfoolery", I won't hesitate to act as needed. It would be to everyone's benefit if we can move past this without further incident. — Scientizzle 16:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

PS-Kat, my offer still stands and you should feel free to message or email me if you'd like to go forward. Cheers, — Scientizzle 16:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to allow one last chance, but do be aware that his edits aren't 100% tomfoolery-free: diff. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

TOMS SHOES reincarnates as TOMS Shoes

FYI, back in 2006 you voted in a unanimous AfD DELETE for TOMS SHOES, which has attempted at least twice to re-emerge with virtually no changes. It is now back again as TOMS Shoes. Here's the current AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/TOMS SHOES (2nd nomination) —Danorton (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

blanking

Somebody blanked your talk page. I reverted it without checking what you had written. Sorry if I wasn't supposed to do that. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it--I appreciate your edit. I'm happy to let stupid insults remain as a testament to a vandal's immaturity, but blanking this page prevents proper communication & collaboration, so I prefer that sort of nonsense be reverted. — Scientizzle 21:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

SHH

I heard that I was going to die in 2048. Do you think about when you'll die a lot? How do you think you'll die? Matthew Francis (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is inappropriate -- at best it's trolling, at worst it's a death threat. The recent trolling efforts and attempts to add self-promotional content are over the line. For me, it is the third strike. I will support a block or a complete ban from WP. — CactusWriter | 06:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Mr. Francis, what was your goal here? I'm inclined to consider this trolling myself, considering you are (presumably) the author behind various useless provocations and other nonsense directed towards just me. Examples abound of you acting like a complete jerk to many other editors. Then there's other nonsense, trying to promote your YouTube videos, and creating pages for your non-notable friends. I think it's clear that although you appear to have broad knowledge of some of the less-appreciated elements of the film industry, your interactions are, on the whole, too disruptive to tolerate any longer. Please find a new hobby. — Scientizzle 16:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And another one...

Just to let you know, I decided to take out this one myself. — CactusWriter | 23:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nootheridavailable

I am slowly familiarizing myself with "recent" events related to the homeopathy article. The last time I visited the homeopathy article it was just about the time when "Dr.Jhingade" first arrived and I have missed all of the intervening events related to his participation at Misplaced Pages. Thanks for the link you provided that provides insight into the difficulty of dealing with this particular source of frustration. I think some people have a faith in the efficacy of homeopathy that may come from experiences such as those reported here, experiences in which self-resolving conditions improve during the use of a homeopathic treatments. My current hypothesis is that "Dr.Jhingade" has, through his personal experiences, developed a strong faith in the efficacy of homeopathy. In my experience it is all too easy for such people to discount scientific studies of homeopathy that do not show positive results. Sometimes those who have had positive personal experiences with homeopathy will simply say, "Well, those studies with negative results may not have been done correctly. They were probably performed by skeptics who do not know how to properly treat patients homeopathically". I'd be interested to know if in your experience it has ever been possible to engage "Dr.Jhingade" in discussions of these kinds of issues. From what I've seen he is just not very communicative in the sense of being able to maintain a discussion thread where there is a give and take of ideas. --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)