Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elonka (talk | contribs) at 22:04, 24 May 2007 (→Juice +: - Why is 100% of your time devoted to this one article?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Rhode Island Red, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Kf4bdy 22:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You are hereby warned. You are to stop attacking a certain product, which is protected by a company with considerable means. (Unsigned comment by Dr sears)

Hey, RIR, I think you are really needed at Juice Plus, I think you really could help us out. This whole thing is getting a bit out of hand, and it won't hurt if you helped. :) Yanksox 02:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the talk page? I applied an expert tag since I felt a third party was nominated. Then suddenly, "dr. sears" pops up. If you read the talk you can see the...I'm not sure what to call it. Yanksox 03:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A little help, please

I am the person on the Juice Plus+ article that everyone refers to as an I.P. address. I have made my comments and they have accomplished nothing at all. I am fine with that as this is your world and not mine. But, I would appreciate it if you would remove my I.P. address from the comments. If you have to, go ahead and remove my comments along with the I.P. address. There is too much going on over the Internet today and I don't need my I.P. address hanging out there and my network attacked. Please, I am asking you as nicely as I know how. I do not work for NSA or Juice Plus+. I do take Juice Plus+ and I have seen incredible results, and so has my family, extended family and friends. I think it's totally unfair that the product is being attacked like it is and the worst part is it may be depriving people from knowing about something that could really help them out a great deal. To me that's really sad, but this is not my fight (which it has turned into). I am not the same person as Dr. Sears either. If I wanted to I could come in using numerous I.P. addresses making it pretty difficult to block me, but I have no intention of doing that, I would just like my I.P address removed.

Thank you!

Nick (Unsigned comment by 70.33.58.155)

You don't have much of a choice, you editted on Misplaced Pages as an anon, and there really is nothing that could be done. have you considering registering a username? Yanksox 20:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"Dr. Sears"

I would revert the blanking, I strongly suspect he's realizing it was a bad idea. Now, we need to fix Juice Plus up. You've done a good job! Yanksox 04:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep an eye on this IP, 12.73.181.83 (talk · contribs · email). He's blanking the original anon's sig. Yanksox 05:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer to your question

Dr sears is an enigma. First, I don't think he is the 'real' doctor sears from askdoctorsears.com. His claims were too outrageous and all the information he used was listed on the website, like a low-level marketing/distributor from JP+ was cutting and pasting. It did bring my attention to the website askdoctorsears.com which is a completely misleading 'appeal to authority' in the first place where 'he' (in the knowledge that NSA marketing types most likely wrote his site) blankets the site with his credentials then gives personal testimonals, that are by the way outrageous: "JP+ cured cancer, myopia, etc". The interesting thing, is that no effort was expended to conceal the fact that NSA/Juice Plus+ wrote the website -- look at http://www.askdoctorsears.com/html/4/T040500.asp and see the corporate graphics integrated into the site. Not only that but Juice Plus+ add banners everywhere. This makes me sad for the consumer out there is is trusting the credentials and not seeing the marketing links and money flow underneath the site.

As for the comments on the talk page, I don't really care. His contributions are not significant; their only significance is that they testify to the ardor JP+ folks will fight to defend their product. I would too if I put down that kind of money and time into a supplement. So I would let him remove his comments, no use entering an edit war over that and the comments are in the Misplaced Pages archives anyway.

What is more interesting is his warning on your talk page. I have to mull that over what 'he' is trying to accomplish there. Clearly, this individual is not too informed on how wikipedia works if he is trying to appear unbias and leaving warnings tied to his username. Maybe he doesn't know how non-anonymous Misplaced Pages is. Oh and BTW, Nick needs to learn about IP addresses (i.e. a hacker can't do anything with a ISP's ip-address), why doesn't he just sign up for an account? Tbbooher 01:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you deserve this

		The Original Barnstar
		I, Yanksox, award an old school barnstar to Rhode Island Red for such an incredible body of work and tireless efforts to keeping Juice Plus in good quality. Yanksox 05:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Juice Plus

I understand your frustration with the articles problems, but please do not call the insertion of links vandalism. This could be construed as a personal attack and will likely escalate the hostility. I've tried to explain to the editor why they do not need multiple links to the same site and warned them that they are in danger of violating the three revert rule - please note that you're close to violating it yourself. If discussions with this editor haven't been working, please try using other forms of dispute resolution. Shell 18:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The first warning that was given was in regard to vandalism involved the editor's removal of a link. As near as I can tell, the unwarranted removal of content/links qualifies as vandalism. Is that interpretation incorrect? The contributor Julia Havey replaced the http address for a link with a commercial spam link on October 7 and again on October 8. According to Misplaced Pages guidlelines, this does qualify as vandalism, and the editor was given the appropriate vandalism warning. The next warning that was given was for the insertion of spam/commerical links that were already listed on the page (i.e. Juice Plus corporate page), which seems appropriate to Misplaced Pages policy. In addition, since this contributor sells the product in question, their repeated vandalism and insertion of spam links should be closely scrutinized. This is also not the first time that this editor has been warned for wanton spamming and vandalism, so it cannot be argued that they are unaware of Misplaced Pages's policies. Lastly, as I understand it, the 3R rule does not apply to reverts of vandalism or spamming. I look forward to your opinions and clarification on this matter. Rhode Island Red 18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I was actually referring to your most recent revert in which you removed the duplicate links, but the edit summary was "rv vandalism"; given the editor's history I don't think thats far from the truth, but I didn't want to see you set yourself up for a legitimate complaint. Its stretching it a bit to call these spam links - the link she's inserting is already contained in the external links section. We certainly don't need more than one copy of the link and I've left notes on her talk page about it; hopefully she'll understand, but given the long ranting emails I've received from her, I doubt it :( Its possible that others might see what you're doing as reverting simple vandalism, but just in case, I wanted to make sure you were aware. Shell 19:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and efforts to mediate. I agree with your general assessment.Rhode Island Red 20:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Juice Plus and Elonka

Hi Red - I am very uncomfortable with the idea that someone who has a vested financial interest in a product should be actively involved in editing an article on the same. To me this goes completely against the spirit, and no doubt the letter of Misplaced Pages practice. I would say however that asking for my intervention or more detailed input however is unlikely to present me in the light as an good independent arbitor. Although I try and keep a dispasionate neutral voice on Misplaced Pages, I hope you can see that the stated context with which you contacted me would perhaps make any potential support for your position, seem suspect! From what I can see from the article and talk page, there is a long and complex history here. I offer you my moral support specifically in relation to your atttitude to 'no adverts' on Misplaced Pages; but I regret that I don't think it would be appropriate or helpful for your position to comment otherwise on your view that there has been inappropriate behaviour or collusion between other editors. All the best •CHILLDOUBT• 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand and I respect you all the more for it. And thanks for the moral support! Best wishes and happy editing to you. Rhode Island Red 01:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Any alternative to Stephen Barrett, over at Juice Plus?

I'm appealing to you as the lonely defender of policy over at Juice Plus. I must confess that when I first saw the mention of Stephen Barrett at that page, I became nervous. Is there any alternative to using him there? I.e. anybody else who makes the same points. I gather that a lawsuit between Barrett and somebody else has been the subject of an Arbcom case. (Reference available on request). From his previous background, it's not obvious that he would be the world authority on MLM schemes. But you've looked at this issue more than me. If you were to drop S.B. from the article, it would only lose two sentences. Thanks, EdJohnston 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Stressful Juice

Hello RIR. Since you've begun warning the other editors at Juice Plus, it might be time to gather outside opinions. While your standpoint is good in terms of policy, any time there is a charge of disruption, it helps to have more eyes on the problem. A fairly low-weight and unstressful way of doing that would be to ask for a peer review of the article (WP:PR). This is a way of getting independent advice from established editors that are new to the article.

There are also some administrators on call that have been known to swoop down and issue vivid warnings to people who aren't behaving well, if one of them is needed. For you to threaten action yourself may be somewhat less credible, because of your long history on the ramparts. Since you are defending the community, it should be no problem to materialize some members of it to help you. Let me know your thoughts. EdJohnston 15:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I responded on my Talk. EdJohnston 02:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Juice +

Here's what I understand:

• That you're vandalising the Juice Plus article (vandalism comes in all shapes and sizes -- in this case it's the non-consensual insertion of disputed text)
• That you're the only supporter for the inclusion of the text
• and that you are going against consensus

I urge you to stop, before you dig yourself in any deeper. This situation can still be resolved amicably if you cease edit warring. Remember that the onus is on those seeking to include, not remove. Matthew 14:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, your use of the term vandal does not appear to follow from our policy documents. If RIR's changes are in fact against consensus the most that you would be able to argue is disruptive editing. I agree with your observation that there is an edit war in progress. Negotiation is good. EdJohnston 15:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Red, at this point, I think it's less about whether or not you're right, and more about whether or not you're willing to work in a collegial fashion with other editors. When you refer to other people's good faith edits as vandalism, accuse them of misstating facts, accuse them of disruptive editing, and routinely revert people to insist on your own version, good faith wears thin. For example, I asked you to take a break and work on a different article for awhile, and you reacted by accusing me of "driving away productive contributors," which is not what that guideline means at all. When a Juice Plus distributor commented on the talkpage, you reacted by telling them they had a conflict of interest and telling them that they weren't allowed to even participate on the talkpage, which again, is not what that guideline means. Being uncivil to other editors has also not been helpful. In other words, when you revert people and accuse them of vandalism and policy violations, they're not going to be inclined to want to work with you in good faith, since they no longer see you as reasonable. Please, I don't think that anyone's trying to vandalize the article -- there are just vastly differing opinions on what "good article" means at this point. That's why I think that mediation would be the best option. I'm not trying to get you to leave Misplaced Pages -- I think you're a good researcher and a hard worker, and I'd like you to stick around and work on lots of different articles. But a simple glance at your contribs is showing single-minded attention to this one subject, of what is really just a little-known nutritional supplement that really, not that many people care about. Why is it worth so much of your time and energy, when there are so many other worthy projects which would really benefit from your attention? For example, working on one of Misplaced Pages's vital subjects instead? --Elonka 22:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)