Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:31, 6 November 2009

This user is a participant in WikiProject Alternative views.

This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron.

Template:Talkbottom

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

You were listed on the en:Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians/China page as living in or being associated with Shanghai. As part of the en:Misplaced Pages:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit en:Category:Wikipedians in Shanghai for instructions. Rmky87 16:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead of HIV article

Hi there. I've begun a new section at Talk:HIV#Recent changes to lead discussing my rationale for reverting your recent edits for a second time. Before reinstating your edits, please be sure that the new material you're proposing is supported by editorial consensus. Thanks, Emw (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see talk page guideline

Neuromancer, regarding your edits and talk page comments at HIV, I would encourage you to please see WP:TALK. The talk page is not a forum for discussion of AIDS denialism or even the science of HIV/AIDS. Please know that I will remove any further abuses of the talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP violation warning

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Misplaced Pages about living persons, as you did to Talk:HIV. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Chat warning

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:HIV for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Misplaced Pages articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Misplaced Pages is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last seven days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Re

Neuromancer, in response to your question on my talk page, no, there is nothing personal to my criticism of your behaviour on Misplaced Pages. You are, in my opinion, advancing a fringe point of view beyond due weight, and you are soapboxing on the HIV talk page. You have plagiarised from several sources, without giving citations at all, and have refused to admit this. You have created an article with substantial amounts of trivia (lists of contest winners) about what I consider to be a non-notable company, leading me to question what your connection with this company might be (please see WP:COI). I don't know you, so there's nothing personal, but I would much prefer that you stop using Misplaced Pages for promotional reasons or as a forum for your beliefs.

In future, if you have questions about virology and immunology methods, please direct them to the Science Reference Desk. Demands for a single citation to establish that HIV exists in Africa or is in fact a virus or has been isolated, etc., should be directed to more appropriate sites on the internet, of which, as I am sure you know, there are many. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia and not a forum for AIDS denialism. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made some improvements to the Fatcat article and noticed that much of the information contained in it indicates an apparently intimate personal knowledge of the motivations and histories of the individuals involved. A large part of this has been removed as potential WP:BLP violation. Please take care in future to add information to Misplaced Pages only when it is available in reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 46579f0826e550b28969de8359b03f8f

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

HIV dissent

The talkpage Talk:AIDS denialism has several times discussed the scope of the article, leading to consensus that denial of the connection between HIV and AIDS is properly included at that article. Please discuss there if you think a spin-out article is warranted. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, someone changed your new page to a REDIRECT to the old AIDS Denialism page within hours. Let me know when the new page stabilizes and I will participate.

It sounds to me like some people have seriously adamant positions, which I'm guessing comes from having lost a loved one. Hard to believe that scientists would insist so much on THE answer. Martindo (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments could be clearer, at least in the Talk pages (which is all I can see). You challenge testing processes, but I don't see mention of the variety of alternative views. In particular, you omit the distinction between denying the role of HIV and accepting HIV as one of several causes (cofactor hypothesis).

Sorry but this process is too fast and too obdurate on all sides to appeal to me as a participant. I find it a little scary to see an edit war that time stamps suggest can be measured in minutes. What exactly is so threatening about having alternative ideas online for a few days, so that more than a handful of people can judge POV fork and other allegations of WP policy breach? Martindo (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring and 3-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on HIV dissent. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. MastCell  05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And please take a look at our policy on inappropriate canvassing while you're at it (). MastCell  05:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer your implied question at User talk:MastCell#HIV dissent, the relevant sections are Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Votestacking and Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Forum shopping. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate my edit summary here, please be aware that you have made more than three reverts to HIV dissent in under 24 hours. This is in violation of the three-revert rule sufficient but not necessary bright line definition of WP:edit warring. Please desist before you are blocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I get off reverting to the redirect because it's the only policy compling option. Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Neuromancer,

You will never get anywhere with the likes of Keepcalmandcarryon, Mastcell, Nunh-huh, etc. Going into the archives of some of the articles here on AIDS and HIV, I found that some of these people have been working, full-time it seems, on keeping these pages biased for years, and that they don't allow any edits which provide alternative information to the orthodox theory that HIV=AIDS, or anyone attached to these theories. They can be illogical, bullying, they will name-call, they will call any persons with honest questions denialists, and they will use any and every strategy no matter how ugly to keep these pages the way they want them to read. They don't allow edits they don't like to stay up for more than 30 minutes, and their tactic is to bully and threaten people until they give up. Of course people do give up, because they become exhausted and worn down as nothing they try to correct will stay up. Interestingly enough, some of these people also police pages on subjects such as Aspartame and alternative medicine. It's frightening how the AIDS orthodoxy doesn't want the public to know the facts. Most horrifying is the effect on AIDS patients themselves, who have the right to know everything there is to know and to make their own choices. I'd be interested to know your uncle's history, whether he was taking AIDS medications, what AIDS-related disease he actually died from, etc. AIDS has turned into a fear campaign - they give you a death sentence, and tell patients that if they stop the drugs that they will die. I wonder if these mercenary editors here have any idea that their policing of these pages could be leading to actual deaths in the world, as thousands of people take poison in a desperate attempt to save their lives, when they are not even sick. Mister Hospodar (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Neuromancer, I've already spent many hours of my life trying to get in even small tiny points corrected, and they don't let ANYTHING stand. I would be happy to help you here if you do manage to create a page that stays up, but if we could get a few more people on board that would help tremendously. I've noticed that they take something down saying it was because of a "consensus" when there has been no such thing, and then they get an administrator that they know to get on their side. It's like a mad tea party, and there is no logic, no science, no fairness involve. It's the Wild West! I'm going to be very bust in the next few weeks unfortunately, but I will step in where I can. Mister Hospodar (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism vs. Content Dispute

Vandalism requires a desire to damage the encyclopedia. Although you are damaging the encyclopedia by placing content that is factually false and pushes a (harmful) tiny-minority PoV, I do not accuse you of vandalism, because you believe the enyclopedia will be better if it says what you believe. You should grant me the same courtesy. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Neuro, you've made it very clear at this point that you are not looking to discuss anything. You are looking for people to agree with you. Anyone who doesn't is promptly told that they are wrong, you are right. You've also made it clear that because of this, no one will be able to convince you that you're wrong. Now, maybe you're not wrong. Maybe you're completely right. But at some point, you have to realize that you're arguing with the community that developed the original research policy and the three-revert rule. You are seeking redress from administrators who are philosophically incapable of agreeing with your edits or your behavior. So you have a choice. You can continue to tilt at the windmill until you're banned from Misplaced Pages, or your can learn to assume good faith, resolve disputes, and drop the assumption that you know more about Misplaced Pages policies than those who have been here for years. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's my issue. I attempt to contribute to the Wiki. Before my work is up for two hours, it has been unilaterally wiped down to a redirect. No discussion, no time period, no anything. Just gone. Who am I supposed to resolve a dispute with if they don't even notify me they have a dispute. How can a dispute be resolved unilaterally by one editor in a matter of an hour or less? Can you understand my frustration? I am trying to contribute what I, and others, feel is notable information. I have spent hours researching, referencing, and editing prior to posting anything. Then it gets wiped without an articulated reason minutes or hours later. Neuromancer (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would ask that you extend to me the same level of respect. Please review Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Alternative Views before trying to wholesale delete information because you do not share the same viewpoint. The purpose of Alternative HIV viewpoints is to present a notable viewpoint which lacks widespread acceptance. There is no reason to delete it.

• Alternative views: This project aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant "alternative views"—those theories, hypotheses, conjectures, and speculations which, though notable, lack widespread acceptance, and which may challenge a "dominant view" which does have such acceptance. The project encompasses alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities.
• "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Misplaced Pages, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies."

Neuromancer, Someguy is an old AIDS orthodoxy guy, you will not get justice from him. I recognize his username from old discussions. They block anyone that tried to change anything on the AIDS-HIV pages, they are thrilled with reverting everything you do so that you are blocked, but they don't get blocked because they trade off amongst themselves. It's bullying in numbers. A reasonable, good-faith editor can go nuts here. When you are allowed to edit again, maybe you can help with the House of Numbers page, in which they will not allow even a normal synopsis (see my attempted, perfectly neutral edits). Thanks. Mister Hospodar (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no cabal. JoeSmack 20:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The above comment is a clear violation of good faith. That is just harassment, and gloating. Neuromancer (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be a violation of AGF, harassment or gloating::. JoeSmack 22:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it certainly came off that way. Perhaps thinking prior to making an edit would be advisable in the future. I am not trying to make enemies. I am just trying to make the Wiki a better place. I am following the rules, and every rule I comply with, someone else violates and then cites Misplaced Pages:Ignore_all_rules like it's a game or something. It is frustrating, but I won't give up... You are all stuck with me. Neuromancer (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well regardless of your perceptions, following them with snarky comments won't help your case. Removing deletion tags is definitely not alright - if the deletion is unwarranted then it would reflect in the comment section for it. I don't see a lot of people using WP:IAR, it is mostly WP:MEDRS + WP:POVFORK. JoeSmack 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The initial delete tag was malformed. Look at the history. That is what I removed. As far as my "Snarky" comments, I am not treating anyone here differently than I am being treated. I get a "Snarky" comment every hour like clockwork. I never get any actual answers. I just references to policy pages that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. As far the article goes, it falls under Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Alternative Views. It doesn't have to conform to WP:MEDRS or WP:POVFORK guidelines. Incidentally, read WP:POVFORK and then read Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Alternative Views. The whole idea is that they are not widely accepted viewpoints. That's why the project is there. Neuromancer (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You are getting answers. It's just that you don't like those answers, so you're alternately ignoring them and asking the other parent. That tends to annoy people. If you are honestly open to understanding how Misplaced Pages works, then consider the following. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Alternative Views is a voluntary association of editors with similar interests. It has no "authority" per se, and it most definitely does not supersede core Misplaced Pages policies like neutral point of view, POV-forking, and reliable sourcing. A lot of your posts come across as frantically throwing around links and acronyms without bothering to try to understand the way Misplaced Pages is actually meant to work. This is intended to be a serious, respectable reference work. How many serious, respectable reference works or encyclopedias are you aware of that even acknowledge the existence of a group as tiny-fringe as AIDS denialists, much less give them their own article? The topic is already given excess, undue weight here. MastCell  04:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Neuromancer, I did notify you here following my redirect. Anyway, I will be around Talk:AIDS denialism when your block expires, so see you there. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it... Are you just screwing with me? Neuromancer (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was in reply to your post of 21:21 last night. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent Block

I understand why you have blocked me, and humbly request that you reconsider the block for the following reasons:

Hipocrit made this initial edit He decided, without any discussion, to blank the page and forward to another article. Which I reverted

He then attempted to nominate the page for deletion, but did it improperly. Which I then removed

He then made the following edits, and in the comments attacked personally calling me a conspiracy theorist. These edits were wholesale deletes of information. Which I reverted

He then added the following: Which I removed. Which he then reverted. Which I then reverted.

This is all prior to Hipocrit making a single entry on the talk page.

Then he reported to you for a block. The article in question falls under the Alternative views guidelines. There will be information that is not mainstream or widely accepted. That is the purpose of the article. Deleting the information contained in it is not beneficial to the Wiki, in fact it is detrimental, and form of censorship.

For the reasoning above, I request that you unblock me, and at the very least, issue a warning to Hipocrit.

Thank you in advance for your time and understanding. Neuromancer (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My AFD tag was not malformed. My final edit, which you reverted, said "see talk," because I was posting to talk. You didn't check talk - you just reverted. Hipocrite (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There was no flaw with the AFD notice here. You should be allowed to edit again soon enough and can discuss it at AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

At the time I reverted the changes, the user had not nominated the page for deletion. I believe you nominate the page, and then post the notice. When I reviewed AFD, there was no nomination, nor was there a talk entry, which is why I reverted. After he actually nominated the article for deletion, I did not remove the header. Neuromancer (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's actually the other way around. See WP:AFDHOWTO. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. Neuromancer (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alternative HIV viewpoints, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alternative HIV viewpoints. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Verbal chat 11:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring straight off a block is not a great thing to do. I suggest you self revert, to show good faith, and put your arguments to the talk page and the AfD. Verbal chat 11:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons warning.

You have made an edit to Dennis Ketcham that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. Hipocrite (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, in the article you don't care about that you're reverting to try to annoy me. Hipocrite (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

re afd on Denialism

Hi, Thanks for the support in the discussion. I would like to ask you to refrain from arguing from the position of AIDS Denialism being imprecise etc. I believe that it distracts from the overall discussion from Misplaced Pages policy. In all honesty if anything it will make people !vote keep just to piss you off. The core problem, as I see it, is that the only way to get at a definition of 'denialism' from current sources is to extract and synthesize characteristics attributed to 'AIDS Denialists' and 'Holocaust Denialists' etc. Best, Unomi (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree with you. It does appear that I have made some enemies with regard to the "denialism" editors crowd. I will, as we say in London "Piss off!" and leave the discussion in your hands. Neuromancer (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

A warm welcome. Glad you found our group.

Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found Hi, Neuromancer~enwiki, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Misplaced Pages editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification. Many times we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Many of these editors are also new to Misplaced Pages so may see deleting "their" article as "bitey". Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages. The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion. Our primary work is improving articles tagged for rescue. On this template you can see a drop-down list of current articles tagged. You can install it on your own page by putting {{ARS/Tagged}}. A more dynamic list with article links and description is on our current articles page. It is highly recommended you watchlist it. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves. Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ikip (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alternative HIV viewpoints

A strong argument is not a personal attack. If you wish to stay at WP, you will find, as I have, that sometimes people have strong views, and that is OK. See WP:NAM. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

AIDS denialism

Please do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. If you have any legitimate concerns about the wording or neutrality of AIDS denialism, concerns that are rooted in policy, please raise those concerns at the talk page. Since no one can read your mind, simply adding a boilerplate to the top of the article doesn't help anyone resolve the dispute. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

One last time

I'm going to ask you one last time to stop canvassing partisan editors (). In the past few days, you've violated nearly every behavioral policy this site has. Recent history leads me to the conclusion that you're more interested in pushing a narrow agenda at the expense of this site's behavioral and content policies, and that you're not particularly interested in learning how this place actually works, or what its goals and standards are. I would love to be proven wrong. On the other hand, I'm not endlessly patient, and if you continue along your present path then I will probably ask for a more formal review of your behavior, since to date it has not seemed to me to be appropriate for a collaborative, serious reference work. MastCell  04:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)