Misplaced Pages

User talk:Pepperbeast: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:54, 18 January 2016 editPepperbeast (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,679 edits Excuse me: TidyingTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit Revision as of 03:27, 18 January 2016 edit undoMatt Lewis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers9,196 edits Excuse me: repliesNext edit →
Line 63: Line 63:
:I never said that your edit was anything but in good faith, and I don't know why you're suggesting otherwise. :I never said that your edit was anything but in good faith, and I don't know why you're suggesting otherwise.
:While you're here, I'd like to remind you that ] aren't acceptable on Misplaced Pages, and that threatening to report other editors (even for strong language like "not helping"!) is really un-hoopy and not ]. ] ] 20:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC) :While you're here, I'd like to remind you that ] aren't acceptable on Misplaced Pages, and that threatening to report other editors (even for strong language like "not helping"!) is really un-hoopy and not ]. ] ] 20:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

:::I'm afraid you just cannot treat another Wikipedian the way you did to me. It's insulting and it simply invites criticism - and it's not surprising to me that you respond to my reaction by using ] and calling it a 'personal attack'. I find that very antagonistic too, and feel you are playing your deck of 'WP' cards here. I'm sorry but it's just not right.

:::It is very obvious indeed that there is no evidence to suggest that 'Naturopathy' is any ''one thing'' either way! It's not any one thing at all. It's not using 'Weasel words' to address that fact. You simply ''cannot'' make the statement that "Naturopathy is ineffective". You know damn well that there are plenty of crossover areas where herbs etc show varying positive effects on health. In the cases where those 'herbs' have shown unique-enough results to have been taken up by conventional medicine, it doesn't remove them from the world of herbalism I'm afraid, rather-sketchy though that world can certainly be lot of the time. But with a collective term (ie Naturapathy) that covers things as broad a 'field' as homeopathy and herbalism and acupuncture, that's the way it goes. Some of it shows up good at times - you really have to deal with that somehow. And how many herbalists etc are also exponents of homeopathy I wonder? Some are I'm sure, but the article effectively says that all these presumably-crazy people are into the same things by default! You just can't say that.

:::If there is any fault in my edit at all, it's in trying to keep all of the existing negatives and generalisations intact. Any decent content-writer will tell you that the constant problem with finding the right words is keeping people like you from 'auto-reverting' the changes to their favourite Points and their favourite lines. But if you know something you don't really like is an awkward fact, for God's sake don't just deny it - or demand it has to be merticulously cited either. You should really have a look yourself before you go reverting anything. If you have the energy to revert you should have the energy to examine. You should then be able to confidently say "There is no evidence!" - not "You have not fully citing!". Especially in areas where the citations need to be bland counter-statements relating entirely to Misplaced Pages's own context. They are a nightmare to find because people don't live like that. The record per context. What there most-definitely is "No evidence for!" is your claim of a "scientific consensus" that everything that can possibly come under the umbrella term 'naturopathy' is "inefective"! Yet you compile your out-of-context quotes of generalising statements, and you present your completely-developed and refined conclusion as a commonplace 'consensus' or truth. You actually fail ] when you do that. But you are not alone in that, and it's a sin that Wikipedians get away with all the time in these particular areas.

:::The simple truth is that you just cannot effectively control this whole area (generally called 'CAM') the 'tough' and 'minimalistic' way you want to. It just doesn't work. And I often wonder if you don't exaggerate the enemy here anyway. Some people seem to see anti-scientific 'monsters' where there are simply often-very unwell people looking for possibly-effective medication that actually works for them. It makes me so angry when I see people very-likely to be like this being treated roughly like they are trolls. The only way to stiffle the real trolls (or stop the IP editing in general) is to try to get the ''text'' as right and balanced and as fair as you can. All according to Policy. Which does means at least some element of balance and fairness I'm afraid. Then you can far more-easily deal from there with any of the various IP's and whatnot that may remain. Surely you can see that? What is fair on Misplaced Pages usually doesn't get played with. It's bias ''from all sides'' that messes things up. Currently you are using excessive control (actual textual control too) - and unsurprisingly you have trodden on someone who is willing and able to fight back.

:::And as a coda I'll say that I think that 'CAM patrollers' need to be just a bit more enlightened about IP's and newly-formed accounts too. I expect that many of you tend to see them both as possible sockpuppets and biased fools, but I am sure that most of them are not. And I've been really harrassed by both in the past - so that is not actually that easy for me to say. If you want a lot of them to just go away, endevour to deal with these articles ''properly''. I am sure that a good many the problems 'anti-CAM' patrollers fight every day they essentially create for themselves. A true Misplaced Pages cynic could almost say they like to 'fight the good fight' with an 'ever-present' enemy, and are not really interested in improving their routine at all. But I'm sure that's not the case here is it? ] (]) 03:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


:*Hi, ]. I thought it would be easier to reply here since you left a similarly toned message on your talk page to my lvl 1 warning. I don't think your sentiment is constructive in both messages, and I find it unhelpful to suggest escalating to ANI without discussion with me and ]. I placed the warning on your page because I understood that to be an appropriate action given that I saw that you are not a newbie and that your edits were not constructive on an article that is known to be subject to vandalism and POV pushing. Your edits augmented the language of well-sourced material in ] and Pepperbeast and I seem to be in agreement. ] (]) 20:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC) :*Hi, ]. I thought it would be easier to reply here since you left a similarly toned message on your talk page to my lvl 1 warning. I don't think your sentiment is constructive in both messages, and I find it unhelpful to suggest escalating to ANI without discussion with me and ]. I placed the warning on your page because I understood that to be an appropriate action given that I saw that you are not a newbie and that your edits were not constructive on an article that is known to be subject to vandalism and POV pushing. Your edits augmented the language of well-sourced material in ] and Pepperbeast and I seem to be in agreement. ] (]) 20:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

:::Firstly ], I've asked you ''very clearly'' to make your reply to me on ''my own'' Talk page so I can keep our conversation together - it's just yet more bad manners from you to simply disregard that. Secondly, I'll take this somewhere higher - probably ANI, tomorrow if I can. You simply '''CANNOT''' give a Misplaced Pages Warning (of any 'level') for a harmless sole edit like mine. You need to be ''told'' that in no uncertain terms, and clearly from someone you are obliged to respect - ie an admin or hopefully two. You have just got it so wrong here. I wonder what rule book some Wikipedians read sometimes. Not the one I did, that's for sure.

:::Also, if you could see that I wasn't a 'newbie', then why on Earth did you point me to the 'Beginners guide to referencing'?! How does that help anyone here? How does a giving me a Warning actually help? It's just the act of a bully isn't it? Both of you. I'm afraid that you've heavied on the wrong person here. I am also rather worried that you both 'tag-team' irresponsibly too - and in a very-negative way for Misplaced Pages. So I'll see you both somewhere else too.

:::As you can see, it is my opinion that behavior like yours does not help Misplaced Pages at all. It's foolish, souring, unkind and basically hinders the 'project' I'm sure you claim you support. In my view your attitude risks upsetting and completely putting-off new editors (how can that be good?), as well as turning away older ones stepping back in and having a look around, which happens not-infrequently I'm sure. You need those people to come back, not turn away again shaking their heads. This subject is also an area where many people who get involved are simply not well. I suspect that this type of behaviour has become far-too prevalent too, and it was always around. To be frank, I'm not so sure that the job or 'label' of "Patroller" is a good one for just anyone on Misplaced Pages to have. Perhaps it should be given and potentially-removed, like rollback? It can be argued - though not to any legal effect I'm sure - that 'heavying' (I'm struggling for a better term) on normal everyday people like this is effectively a manner of online bullying. Some people will come here entirely in good faith, and they must be just so shocked at how they are treated. Is it fair if they are unwell? And is this really how Misplaced Pages wants to present itself? Does anyone ever think like this here apart from me? Why do things never seem to change? ] (]) 03:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:27, 18 January 2016


Archives (Index)



This page is archived by ClueBot III.
This is Pepperbeast's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Welcome!

Hello, Pepperbeast, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Chris 23:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

November 2015 newsletter

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter
Volume III, no. 3, September–November 2015

Note: To opt out from receiving future newsletters, please click here for instructions.                                      

Project News

  • Potential upcoming project page changes by WikiProject X. Category discussions at CfD. (more below)
— View by clicking  —


  • WikiProject X may begin pilot testing to refine WikiProject Food and Drink's project's pages. A recent discussion regarding this occurred at the project talk page here.
  • During September–October 2015, several food and drink categories have been discussed at Categories for discussion. Notices for these discussions are sometimes posted at the project's talk page. Notice about a new discussion was recently posted at the project talk page on 8 November 2015.
  • There are presently 3,658 unassessed Food and drink articles. Assistance in reducing this number would be appreciated.
  • Please see the project's Tasks and To do sections for project and article tasks, and please update the lists by adding new entries and removing resolved or outdated ones.

Article alerts

— View by clicking  —

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Food and drink/Article alerts

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.

Fusce convallis, mauris imperdiet gravida bibendum, nisl turpis suscipit mauris, sed placerat ipsum urna sed risus. In convallis tellus a mauris. Curabitur non elit ut libero tristique sodales. Mauris a lacus. Donec mattis semper leo. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Vivamus facilisis diam at odio. Mauris dictum, nisi eget consequat elementum, lacus ligula molestie metus, non feugiat orci magna ac sem. Donec turpis. Donec vitae metus. Morbi tristique neque eu mauris. Quisque gravida ipsum non sapien. Proin turpis lacus, scelerisque vitae, elementum at, lobortis ac, quam. Aliquam dictum eleifend risus. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Etiam sit amet diam. Suspendisse odio. Suspendisse nunc. In semper bibendum libero.

Proin nonummy, lacus eget pulvinar lacinia, pede felis dignissim leo, vitae tristique magna lacus sit amet eros. Nullam ornare. Praesent odio ligula, dapibus sed, tincidunt eget, dictum ac, nibh. Nam quis lacus. Nunc eleifend molestie velit. Morbi lobortis quam eu velit. Donec euismod vestibulum massa. Donec non lectus. Aliquam commodo lacus sit amet nulla. Cras dignissim elit et augue. Nullam non diam. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Aenean vestibulum. Sed lobortis elit quis lectus. Nunc sed lacus at augue bibendum dapibus.
  • Feel free to welcome the new members who have recently joined the project.
— View by clicking  — Onel5969ValoemDangerousJXD
The project currently has 83 active members.
— View by clicking  —

More new articles...



Past newsletters

Food and drink articles by quality and importance

— View by clicking  — Article statistics
Food and Drink WikiProject
article assessment
Food and drink articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total
FA 7 15 32 54
FL 2 2 4
FM 146 146
GA 18 31 77 281 407
B 56 232 346 719 87 1,440
C 77 405 1,013 3,604 552 5,651
Start 22 327 1,667 12,126 3,918 18,060
Stub 16 532 9,029 4,916 14,493
List 12 71 115 552 23 275 1,048
Category 6,110 2 6,112
Disambig 220 220
File 2,768 2,768
Portal 504 504
Project 230 230
Redirect 10 70 625 1,669 2,374
Template 577 577
NA 3 18 116 137
Other 181 181
Assessed 185 1,101 3,838 26,988 12,544 2 9,748 54,406
Unassessed 13 1,965 1,978
Total 185 1,101 3,838 27,001 12,544 2 11,713 56,384
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 204,996 Ω = 5.11

  – Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 23:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Descendants of George III and Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Molloy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

3RR at Mujaddid

Right or wrong, it isn't a good idea to even get to 3RR if you've been blocked before. Doug Weller (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Naturopathy&type=revision&diff=700234316&oldid=700163445

RE your very arrogant 'edit note' to your reversion of my ONLY edit thus far. If you ever use language like that towards me again on the edit table I will simply have to report you. You don't seem to realise how utterly wrong it is, so at some point you will need to be told. It combines incivility with abusing Misplaced Pages's core values. It leaves a stink and ultimately works against the encyclopedia. It's bullying really. So will you please not do it again? You have no right to say "No." to my edit - or indeed to any editor such as myself. You also frankly have no real right to say what "helps" or doesn't in this area regarding a specific edit like mine (do you realise what that sounds like? It sounds like you have a particular agenda to be frank.)

And it is very-much you who has been "vague" here, not me. You cannot properly tell me what I've done wrong. My new text was not 'vague' - it was balanced. It's about avoiding obviously-biased negative generalisations over what is clearly a collection of different disciplines. 'Naruropathy' is clearly NOT all the exact the same shape of rubbish, so why pretend that it is? It clearly varies! For more here, see my talk page regarding my silly 'warning' (for making one single edit for Christ's sake - I hope you two don't tag-team with each other). Some of the sources used in the article do not use the same encyclopedic standards as Misplaced Pages (why would they? Sources rearely do). We quote information, not linguistic style or approach. The context is always different for a start.

If you can't see that my edit was at-least well-intentioned then I'm sorry but you must be blind. It was also a perfectly good (and needed) edit in area I can only assume you must hold a certain degree of bias towards (or against it does seem). But that is beside the point. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and therefore must use an encyclopedia approach with fully encyclopedic language. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid newspaper, nor even a broadsheet for that matter. It's an encyclopedia. Full stop. So few people seem to understand that here. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edit made the lede suggest that only some "forms" of naturopathy are pseudoscientific and that some "forms" have been shown to be effective. That isn't what the rest of the article says, so for one thing, it's an unsourced assertion, and for another, it brings the lede into conflict with the rest if the article. If you have evidence from reliable sources that some form of naturopathy is effective and scientific, then by all means take it to the talk page/add it to the article. You also might want to have a look at Weasel Words.
I never said that your edit was anything but in good faith, and I don't know why you're suggesting otherwise.
While you're here, I'd like to remind you that personal attacks aren't acceptable on Misplaced Pages, and that threatening to report other editors (even for strong language like "not helping"!) is really un-hoopy and not wp:civil. PepperBeast (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid you just cannot treat another Wikipedian the way you did to me. It's insulting and it simply invites criticism - and it's not surprising to me that you respond to my reaction by using WP:Civil and calling it a 'personal attack'. I find that very antagonistic too, and feel you are playing your deck of 'WP' cards here. I'm sorry but it's just not right.
It is very obvious indeed that there is no evidence to suggest that 'Naturopathy' is any one thing either way! It's not any one thing at all. It's not using 'Weasel words' to address that fact. You simply cannot make the statement that "Naturopathy is ineffective". You know damn well that there are plenty of crossover areas where herbs etc show varying positive effects on health. In the cases where those 'herbs' have shown unique-enough results to have been taken up by conventional medicine, it doesn't remove them from the world of herbalism I'm afraid, rather-sketchy though that world can certainly be lot of the time. But with a collective term (ie Naturapathy) that covers things as broad a 'field' as homeopathy and herbalism and acupuncture, that's the way it goes. Some of it shows up good at times - you really have to deal with that somehow. And how many herbalists etc are also exponents of homeopathy I wonder? Some are I'm sure, but the article effectively says that all these presumably-crazy people are into the same things by default! You just can't say that.
If there is any fault in my edit at all, it's in trying to keep all of the existing negatives and generalisations intact. Any decent content-writer will tell you that the constant problem with finding the right words is keeping people like you from 'auto-reverting' the changes to their favourite Points and their favourite lines. But if you know something you don't really like is an awkward fact, for God's sake don't just deny it - or demand it has to be merticulously cited either. You should really have a look yourself before you go reverting anything. If you have the energy to revert you should have the energy to examine. You should then be able to confidently say "There is no evidence!" - not "You have not fully citing!". Especially in areas where the citations need to be bland counter-statements relating entirely to Misplaced Pages's own context. They are a nightmare to find because people don't live like that. The record per context. What there most-definitely is "No evidence for!" is your claim of a "scientific consensus" that everything that can possibly come under the umbrella term 'naturopathy' is "inefective"! Yet you compile your out-of-context quotes of generalising statements, and you present your completely-developed and refined conclusion as a commonplace 'consensus' or truth. You actually fail WP:No Original Research when you do that. But you are not alone in that, and it's a sin that Wikipedians get away with all the time in these particular areas.
The simple truth is that you just cannot effectively control this whole area (generally called 'CAM') the 'tough' and 'minimalistic' way you want to. It just doesn't work. And I often wonder if you don't exaggerate the enemy here anyway. Some people seem to see anti-scientific 'monsters' where there are simply often-very unwell people looking for possibly-effective medication that actually works for them. It makes me so angry when I see people very-likely to be like this being treated roughly like they are trolls. The only way to stiffle the real trolls (or stop the IP editing in general) is to try to get the text as right and balanced and as fair as you can. All according to Policy. Which does means at least some element of balance and fairness I'm afraid. Then you can far more-easily deal from there with any of the various IP's and whatnot that may remain. Surely you can see that? What is fair on Misplaced Pages usually doesn't get played with. It's bias from all sides that messes things up. Currently you are using excessive control (actual textual control too) - and unsurprisingly you have trodden on someone who is willing and able to fight back.
And as a coda I'll say that I think that 'CAM patrollers' need to be just a bit more enlightened about IP's and newly-formed accounts too. I expect that many of you tend to see them both as possible sockpuppets and biased fools, but I am sure that most of them are not. And I've been really harrassed by both in the past - so that is not actually that easy for me to say. If you want a lot of them to just go away, endevour to deal with these articles properly. I am sure that a good many the problems 'anti-CAM' patrollers fight every day they essentially create for themselves. A true Misplaced Pages cynic could almost say they like to 'fight the good fight' with an 'ever-present' enemy, and are not really interested in improving their routine at all. But I'm sure that's not the case here is it? Matt Lewis (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi, Matt Lewis. I thought it would be easier to reply here since you left a similarly toned message on your talk page to my lvl 1 warning. I don't think your sentiment is constructive in both messages, and I find it unhelpful to suggest escalating to ANI without discussion with me and Pepperbeast. I placed the warning on your page because I understood that to be an appropriate action given that I saw that you are not a newbie and that your edits were not constructive on an article that is known to be subject to vandalism and POV pushing. Your edits augmented the language of well-sourced material in Naturopathy and Pepperbeast and I seem to be in agreement. Delta13C (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Firstly Delta13C, I've asked you very clearly to make your reply to me on my own Talk page so I can keep our conversation together - it's just yet more bad manners from you to simply disregard that. Secondly, I'll take this somewhere higher - probably ANI, tomorrow if I can. You simply CANNOT give a Misplaced Pages Warning (of any 'level') for a harmless sole edit like mine. You need to be told that in no uncertain terms, and clearly from someone you are obliged to respect - ie an admin or hopefully two. You have just got it so wrong here. I wonder what rule book some Wikipedians read sometimes. Not the one I did, that's for sure.
Also, if you could see that I wasn't a 'newbie', then why on Earth did you point me to the 'Beginners guide to referencing'?! How does that help anyone here? How does a giving me a Warning actually help? It's just the act of a bully isn't it? Both of you. I'm afraid that you've heavied on the wrong person here. I am also rather worried that you both 'tag-team' irresponsibly too - and in a very-negative way for Misplaced Pages. So I'll see you both somewhere else too.
As you can see, it is my opinion that behavior like yours does not help Misplaced Pages at all. It's foolish, souring, unkind and basically hinders the 'project' I'm sure you claim you support. In my view your attitude risks upsetting and completely putting-off new editors (how can that be good?), as well as turning away older ones stepping back in and having a look around, which happens not-infrequently I'm sure. You need those people to come back, not turn away again shaking their heads. This subject is also an area where many people who get involved are simply not well. I suspect that this type of behaviour has become far-too prevalent too, and it was always around. To be frank, I'm not so sure that the job or 'label' of "Patroller" is a good one for just anyone on Misplaced Pages to have. Perhaps it should be given and potentially-removed, like rollback? It can be argued - though not to any legal effect I'm sure - that 'heavying' (I'm struggling for a better term) on normal everyday people like this is effectively a manner of online bullying. Some people will come here entirely in good faith, and they must be just so shocked at how they are treated. Is it fair if they are unwell? And is this really how Misplaced Pages wants to present itself? Does anyone ever think like this here apart from me? Why do things never seem to change? Matt Lewis (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)