Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jakr (talk | contribs) at 23:56, 26 April 2012 (→Speedy Deletion: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1,2

Khoisan religion

Hi Wolfie. Just some clarification on why I reverted your undo on the 'Khoisan Religion' page.

Since the Khoi and the San are entirely separate people, but are both alike in that they're Southern African indigenes, the term 'Khoisan religion' is meaningless without the proviso that the term is only a shorthand for “Southern African indigenous religion.”

There’s no such thing as “Khoisan religion” since there’s no cultural unit called the “Khoisan”. There’s the Khoi people and there’s the San people. They’re very different, and in current anthropology (since the 1970s) the consenus is that the term’s basically useless. The term's still used, but it is at best problematic.

To show you what I mean, the sentence in the entry "Cagn is said to have created the moon which holds special significance to the Khoisan people; the phase of the moon dictated when rainmaking rituals were to be performed" is completely meaningless. "Cagn" is a San mythical figure. The Khoi people had nothing to do with him. The word "Khoisan" here is... well, entirely inaccurate, since the "Khoisan" don't exist in this sense.

Also the orthography is Victorian and there's no distinction drawn between whose myth is whose of any kind. All the Khoe stuff seems to be taken from a book on one particular people from the west of South Africa, and there's no mention at all that even the San people of the south had a different mythology to the San people of the Kalahari.

Actually, this whole entry is so very, very bad wikipedia would probably be better off without it.

46.64.23.136 (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Neil

46.64.23.136 (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Neil

The Resilient Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		In understanding your concerns toward the Reg Gorman artcle's original unsourced stub state, and out of respect that you granted that your concerns were shown as addressable during the course of the AFd for that article, I am honored to show appreciation for your consideration by presenting you with this barnstar. Schmidt, 04:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! IRWolfie- (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Socking

I already asked for a sock report a while back on some accounts, have a gander here. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, it's interesting that I'm considered a sock puppet of Algis, that one can easily distinguish between us by usage of words, IP addresses, etc. I think WLU will agree with that :) Chakazul (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Editing war

Also I received your message in my profile that I'm inside an edit war (surely I am, in a general sense). My removal of non-RS materials is said as "disruptive", but I consider my actions are as legitimate as WLU's removal of the e-book published by Bentham, which is (arguably) non-RS. I think WP has a common standard of what is RS and what is not, and a guideline that we should include RS only? Chakazul (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point WP:POINTY. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think enforcing one of the 3 pillars -- verifiability and reliability of sources -- is disrupting WP...

We may be difference in viewpoints (I think the AAH is a proto-science, and you might think it's a pseudoscience), that's OK, we all hate pseudoscience. But we all work on the WP according to its guidelines. If non-RS is intolerable in WP, then we will remove the non-RS and nothing more. Chakazul (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no particularly strong opinion on AAH. My opinions on AAH are irrelevant to the article. The issue is that you are attempting to remove criticism which has due weight to be in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that each article... fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." -- also -- "Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."

That means due weight never overrides reliability of sources. No? Chakazul (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources are perfectly reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The actual issue is in the part of that quote that is not bolded - "proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". There are very few actual scholars in the relevant fields who take the AAH seriously. There are numerous scholars who point out it is not credible and promoted by only a minority of practitioners. So yes, we write an article that includes proponents - but we don't let those proponents overwhelm the article. The AAH page should note that a small number of people think the AAH has merit, but in general it has little traction. The page should not attempt to prove that the AAH is true, and it should not note the mainstream opinion at the end in a single sentence. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your conduct at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/LED-embedded glass

Exemplary. Thank you. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers :). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on your WikiLeaks "Out of date" tag from December 2010

Hello. You added an "Out of date" tag to the article Wikileaks on December 11, 2010. Would you be able to leave a comment on Talk:WikiLeaks#Out-of-date information? to let us know what you meant? Your edit log says "MediaWiki has not been used for some time. can someone look for updates on this? quick search turns up little" but I don't understand what that means, and it doesn't seem clear to the other editors either. Would you be able to explain what you meant and what we could do by leaving a short note about it on the Talk page discussion? Thanks a lot, and keep up the great work! :D Matt (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• 10th. It was that wikileaks used to use mediawiki for their format but then they changed style. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Donna Eden

Are you going to add your vote to the AFD discussion? --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I sometimes just add comments critiquing the points of others and don't vote. I may vote later when I've seen all the sources people dig up and then I can judge whether they help establish notability etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Village pump

Hi, Wolfie! I noticed your comments from earlier this month at the Village Pump (permalink). I've now moved that discussion to a separate subpage of the Village Pump, re-opening it there, and have also removed some of the off-topic and acrimonious back-and-forth from the thread, per WP:RTP. I don't doubt that your remarks there were very well-intended, but perhaps you'd be so gracious as to refrain from adding any additional comments to the re-opened discussion?

I've no idea who was right or wrong in the previous conflict between you and the other editor, but given that you evidently initiated some kind of arbcomm proceeding against him over it, posting additional comments to that particular discussion might not be the best plan. Especially since yours was the first comment made after he opened the discussion, and was posted just 26 minutes after he did so, it seems likely that posting additional comments to the thread could very easily be construed as wikistalking or hounding, however erroneously, by other editors who aren't involved in the dispute between the two of you. Cordial thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply to your query of another editor

Hi, on User talk:Coagulans, you asked about the meaning of that editor's userpage statement. For the answer, I direct you to Talk:Thomas Jouannet#Complaint. (Also, be sure to look at the history of the article page itself - see the article as created by Coagulans before cleanup by Drmies.) LadyofShalott 01:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for the info, I was thinking it was a little odd. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Robert O. Becker

Misplaced Pages had a 10627 char. article on Robert O. Becker, + a 6336 char. article on his book The Body Electric. Total: 16963.

After you had finished editing, only the Becker article with 5044 remained. You slashed away 70%.

It is hard to assume good faith when observing this, including a systematic dismantling and removal of The Body Electric.

If you can only accept small amounts of research results, you should stay within your favourite topics.

As you have taken the position as judge and executioner of this scientist, it should be asked: Which of his books have you read?

(Becker's research must have the printed books as sources.) OlavN (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if you look at what I removed you will see why. Most of it was original research, unsourced or undue material sections based on WP:FRINGE primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now written a new version of The Body Electric here. Notability and sources are mainly given on the accompanying Talk page. OK now? OlavN (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There are effectively zero references. The text makes many claims without taking into account WP:FRINGE or WP:MEDRS. Also, I suggest you process this page for creation through Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Coordinated_voting_by_Fringe_Theories.2FNetwork_participants_in_AfD_and_other_debates".The discussion is about the topic Coordinated voting by Fringe Theories/Network participants in AfD and other debates. Thank you.—Romulanius (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

WilliamH (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• And again. WilliamH (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Second Quantization. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 23:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Shiatsu

LAST DELETION You claim that "Your addition to Shiatsu has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without permission from the copyright holder." Curious, because it is EXACTLY the same source and material as included in the article right now, RIGHT NOW. It seems that you do not take seriously copyrights violations by people who write what you agree with. That's exactly what it seems. I would like mediation ASAP, because you either remove those words and source or you accept mine.Shiatsushi (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You are not allowed to copy text, that is a copyright violation. That means copying the exact words, you must paraphrase sources in your own words. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to appeal to you again, because yobol has undone my last editing on shiatsu without giving any reasons. I have used EXACTLY the same article (http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/shiatsu) that is given in wikipedia as a source. I just felt that choosing just the part of the article that yobol likes, without mentioning the rest, was not impartial at all. So now I need mediation -formal if possible - between you and me (you haven't replied to my last comments) and between yobol and me.Shiatsushi (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Since you are not more specific in your accusations about the article not supporting what I edited, when I have explained in detail that it does, and you insist on undoing my editing for apparently no good reason, I have asked for informal mediation to begin with: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/11_April_2012/ Shiatsushi (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC) I don't think this is the case. Both sources menrion the lack of clinical trials. I explained that in my previous editing of the talk page but for some reason you have chosen to ignore it. I have just read WP:BRD as you suggested and it says "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." It seems to me that you are the one not following wikipedia guidelines. If you don't like my changes because they don't agree with your opinion, that is not reason to undo them. I'll repeat it again. Both sources say there are no clinical trials, from whichever angle you want to look at it, it means there is no evidence for the efficacy or inefficacy of the technique, which is what I was trying to convey. Now, I'd like to see how neutral you are - and sure of your point - by starting formal mediation for this issue. Informal mediation hasn't worked because nobody has volunteered for it. If you refuse, as you have done in the past, I'll request it. Shiatsushi (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop wasting peoples time. There are other editors on the talk page. Go get some consensus for your changes. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Shiatsushi

I will leave Shiatsushi a message on his talkpage; basically, I'm going to ask once if he'll voluntarily restrict himself from the topic. If he will, great, and it not I'll reblock with an unblock contingent on accepting a topic ban. We'll see how it goes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI: moved your post

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I moved your RFC closure request to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RFC_Close, as (1) AN/I is more heavily trafficked and (2) closure requests fall more under the scope of WP:AN/I than WP:AN, based on past experience. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

here Pass a Method talk 16:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Posting unwanted messages on my talk page

Please stop posting your views on my talk page and put them where they belong - the talk page of the article under discussion. I find your attitude offensive and your intransigence irritating. I'm sure that you will manage to get the article deleted with a little help from your friends, but I certainly do not intend joining your witch-hunt. Paul venter (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Self publishers

Hi, FYI, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_reliability a drive to slow down self-published book references is getting started. Would you like to join that project? Membership is free. History2007 (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Please respond to the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Quantum_Bayesianism 77.89.233.54 23:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)