Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hipal (talk | contribs) at 23:52, 14 December 2006 (→Your comments on Talk:The National Council Against Health Fraud). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages!

Hello, and Welcome to the Misplaced Pages, I'clast! Thanks for the contributions over on the Joseph Mercola article. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Misplaced Pages experience:

• Take a look at the New contributors' help page, the Misplaced Pages Tutorial and the Manual of Style, and If you still need any help, you can always post your question at the Help Desk.
• When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Misplaced Pages and Assume good faith, but please keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Best of luck, I'clast, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 11:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

WIACHR

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Please don't vandalize the essays. Azmoc 17:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently suggestions about corrective & informative edits of "owned" pages weren't welcome by the above editor on "his" agenda driven essay that he severely criticizes Misplaced Pages in general and other editors broadly. Looks like an AfD candidate. Above editor's recent improvements: Agenda proposal, arguing with several admins, interaction with others. Another editor's assessment:. --I'clast 19:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right. Azmoc is soleley a POV warrior who has yet to make a single useful contribution to the encyclopedia, which is the reason we are here, supposedly. User:Zoe| 19:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit about the retraction and 50K in Mercola and Barrett article

• l'clast. I agree with you on this issue. Another editor, Fyslee, was bent on including it in the Barrett article as well with the same references even if the editors had clearly agreed that in legal matters, a high level of verifiability was required. Fyslee is an editor who is a self-proclaimed quackbuster as well as an Assistant Listmaster for Dr. Barrett and very actively involved in editing articles related to the subject at hand as well as to subjects posted on QW. NATTO 04:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Independent review of QW

• I'clast. many thanks for the links to the independent review of QW. Very relevant and factual. Hopefully that will help focus on the real issues instead of having to deal with the specific worldview of some editors. :-) NATTO 09:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Since these links originated among several with AEL, User:Alan2012, also , you might thank/encourage him also. I suspect that he may be able to source more, similar links.--I'clast 19:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I am glad to do so and have posted a message to that effect on his talk page :-) NATTO 11:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamation of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of these have been merged eh? Like, even that Tim Bolen and Quackpotwatch articles were redirected to quackwatch. I guess it was decided that they didn't need articles? Tyciol 22:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

All three articles were retained due to legal structure.--I'clast 22:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

QW

• I apologize if I removed any of your edits on that topic. I was trying to undo the edits of Travis who insist on putting a POV spin on the review section. You are more than welcome to re-insert your edits. NATTO 08:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• One more thing. Can you please put the name of the editor you are addressing your comments in the talk page to avoid any confusion. Thanks :-) NATTO 08:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• I restored the edit as best I could determine. Please note that on the anti-skeptic issue. It appears that Kauffman is member of his local skeptic group so I thought best to have a neutral title , after his status as a skeptic is not the point, it is the content and quality of his review that is. :-) NATTO 08:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

ok

Kauffman's article assessed as a critical view User talk:I'clast/As-criticism-of-QW

Fyslee has replied in my place to your message on my talk page

I'Clast please see below:

I think if you could come up with 1-2 references that show QW attacking or unfairly characterizing Weil (or Pauling) and perhaps a 2-5 word phrase, that would be a better format.--I'clast 12:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Please do, since that will provide an opportunity to provide Quackwatch's arguments on those points. Just open that door.....;-) But, on second thought, we're trying to write an encyclopedia, not conduct a discussion group. The article is about Quackwatch. If you really want to do that, do it on their articles. That way, if you really want to invite Barrett et al into those articles, just do what you are suggesting. You'll get the whole scientific community on your backs, point-by-(excruciatingly revealing)-point. So far all the criticism you have provided on the various articles has only resulted in enlargening them and strenghtening them, for which we are actually grateful. Call it unintended "collateral benefit" to the cause of exposing quackery and fringe science...;-) Without it we might have settled for short and factual articles. (Maybe this is a result of too much mercury exposure? Dangerous stuff! It keeps one from seeing "the big picture." To see it, just look at the articles before and after you got involved.) Have a nice day. -- Fyslee 13:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Per the above, apparently bias, (in)accuracy, (im)balance are minor concerns once a certain POV is established. As for the "the whole scientific community", QW is already missing silent portions of the scientifc community, albeit many only express their opinion after retirement, if ever. The QW article before? the word hagiology comes to mind.--I'clast 13:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we wouldn't want that kind of thing. It's a controversial site, and it can't be any other way. Any website or anyone who has an opinion will risk getting involved in controversy, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. That's one of the ways we learn. Studying both sides of a controversy is stimulating and helps us to developed informed biases, rather than blind prejudices. (Read my introduction for more on that subject.) Controversies should be mentioned and linked, but the article isn't the place for editors to continue the discussion on their own account, or on the account of others. Doing that is unencyclopedic and would end up reproducing the website and portions of other websites, ending up with a long, rambling, and argumentative article. We need to stay on-topic. Mention the controversies, link to them and the subjects - including wikilinks - and then let readers do their own studying outside of the article itself. The article should just mention things. It plants the seeds, but it isn't our job to do the harvesting. (If you were a fundamentalist Christian - like I have been - you'd recognize that that is the work of the Holy Spirit....;-) -- Fyslee 14:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have indicated to User:Fyslee on his talk page that this is inappropriate and that in addition his comments were of a threatening nature. I am not sure if this is acceptable in WP ? NATTO 15:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My reply to NATTO's comments and accusation are found here. -- Fyslee 19:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"...Mention the controversies, link to them and the subjects - including wikilinks" this is similar to my thinking with the suggestion to Natto of 2-5 word phrases with 1-2 superscripted references to Natto earlier. I do like cleaner prose, but significant contention points need some kind of ' * '. In some cases I think that better examples could be given, e.g. I think Pauling is a poor example (i.e. QW bragging that it shot & skinned the rarest, largest of a protected species to both fed'l and state game agents after running the fleece up the flagpole would seem kind of ill advised, even in the most anti-govt woods). We've been working on this article hot & heavy for several weeks, things have been getting a little warm again this weekend. The QW article is in pretty good shape now, perhaps we should try to slow to small, occasional edits this week. Its still Sunday here, so let's think positive thoughts about our neighbors. Pace.--I'clast 23:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'Clast, Sound advice. Thank you and enjoy what is left of your week-end :-)NATTO 23:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on Talk:The National Council Against Health Fraud

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! --Ronz 02:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Misplaced Pages. Thank you. --Ronz 16:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! --Ronz 22:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I did ask nicely and hope that others will see the positive, collaborative merits in my suggestions.--I'clast 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

To me, your writing "you have pushed your point of view very hard here, let it go" comes across as a povpush accusation. Further, you say so in the midst of another's blatant povpush effort. However, I appreciate your notable difference in tone and approach. --Ronz 23:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)