Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by East718 (talk | contribs) at 10:56, 1 January 2008 (→Quackery: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1. Archive 2.

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

If you leave a comment for me here, you should watch this page for any reply that I might make. If I have left a comment for you on your Talk page, expect that I will be watching your page and you should reply there (if you wish) but not here. This way, conversations are kept in their proper context. I reserve the right to delete or archive (but will not otherwise modify) any comments left here.

Re: Quackery AfD

Thanks for letting me know. It's a really POINTy nom in my opinion, but I'll let you slide for now. Don't try something disruptive like that again though. east.718 at 19:57, December 17, 2007

I'm not trying to disrupt, so tell me what I did wrong, please. In e-mail if appropriate. I think that this article is incapable of being other than a disparagement of certain people and practices which are simply unpopular. There is no standard of what is or is not quackery. —Whig (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears you have been emboldened by Mercury's absence, and are back to your previous behavior. I will defer just this once to you new mentor's judgment, but if anything like this happens again I will press vigorously for your indefinite ban from the project. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate that. I will refer your comment. —Whig (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, that was a colossal mistake at best; more likely it was you trying out subtle disruption. A dispute of that sort would be best resolved by posting a polite and narrow message on the talk page, requesting third opinions, and then going down further steps of dispute resolution if conflict persists. Please don't repeat such behavior. east.718 at 20:09, December 17, 2007

I was not trying out subtle disruption. I don't appreciate that. If I made a mistake, then correct me and help me do better. —Whig (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I do AGF, but it's tempered by your past history, which unfortunately precedes you. Creating an AFD like this isn't a good first impression on me. I gave you some advice on what to do if you come across this situation again. You don't have to heed it, but just consider that it's in your best interests. Cheers, east.718 at 20:21, December 17, 2007

I do appreciate the advice. My past history is not a subject I want to get into here but if you would like to comment on it I would be interested, as I have told you. —Whig (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for digging that up, my confidence in you has increased. I'll stay in touch if I find anything. east.718 at 22:26, December 17, 2007

I suggest tagging the article with {{POV}} and consiscely and politely stating on the talk page, in a new thread, about what specific problems you see. If there is discussion, just stay cool and try to work towards a neutral compromise version. If nobody responds in a reasonable amount of time, make whatever changes you deem appropriate to the article. Just get back to me if you get reverted, treated incivilly, or if somebody complains about your behavior. east.718 at 22:48, December 17, 2007

Have you ever been in any conflict with Shot info? I've seen the name on various noticeboards before. east.718 at 05:15, December 18, 2007

I don't believe so. —Whig (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so either (FWIW). Shot info (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As they are not an admin, I would not put much stock in that comment. It is unfortunate, but you should just take it in stride and not get heated. Water and ducks' backs and all that. east.718 at 07:38, December 19, 2007

I do not appreciate this double standard of civility. If I am not to complain of it then will it not simply continue? —Whig (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If it gets bad, I will ask an uninvolved admin to take a look. For now, you should take this as an opportunity to boost your stock by being the better man. east.718 at 07:38, December 19, 2007

Blood electrification

Blood electrification Afd. Oldspammer (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had no involvement in this article to my knowledge. —Whig (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not to canvas. The article subject is being downplayed as quackery. I see that you have been involved in some discussions about quackery, and quackwatch. A group here on WP tend to jump to a conclusion of quackery without any scientific experimental verification one way or the other. This ends up with this group of contributers applying their reasoning skills as to what sources, what pub-med articles apply or not to sections of an article, and if judged by them as improper, entire sections of article are boldly edited. After waves of such bold editing, such articles end up with a big question of WP:notability, and with all WP:RS removed by bold editing, the article's WP:V is brough into question, and so is Afd nominated.

If nothing else, you could have a look at the article talk page, the article edit history, the Afd discussion, and weigh in with your thoughts.

Also, I'm still trying to bravely edit the article, but bold edits are still being applied. You may have had more experience in these matters, and could advise me as to what you find useful to do in these instances. Oldspammer (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll stay out of this as I have no expertise in the subject and have a lot of other things on my plate. —Whig (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackery

Aren't you supposed to be on a 1 revert rule probation? You're at the least skidding at the edges of it by your recent edit warring there. Adam Cuerden 09:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have referred your complaint. —Whig (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I just replied to your comment about running the sources for Hahnemann by WP:RSN. I'd like to give you some advice on this. If you pursue this avenue be sure that your reasoning listed there is a little more substantial than the reasoning you gave for the AfD. It will make other editors more likely to assume good faith if you lay out a clear argument as opposed to something short and pointy like "inherently POV". Also I'm kind of interested so see how that process works, I've never used WP:RSN before. I'm pretty sure though if you are successful in getting those sources viewed as unreliable then it will be really hard to use them in any other article. I noticed that they are both Homeopathic web pages so if those web pages are used in any other homeopathic article they won't be able to be used anymore. That might have major ramifications for the other homeopathy articles. You might want to keep that in mind. Anyways, if you do decide to pursue that avenue I'd like to wish you good luck! Elhector (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Whig, I am disappointed that you chose to do two partial reverts just 25 hours after your initial edit concerning Hahnemann. Although this doesn't violate the letter of your 1RR probation, it is certainly against the spirit of it and may be perceived as textbook tendentious editing. I will not take action this time because this was only a minor slip, but will remind you that your 1RR probation is not part of our mentorship agreement; it was imposed on you by the community in exchange for your unblocking and as so, any administrator who is a member of said community can enforce it as they see fit. In the future, continue to use the talk page to foster discussion and propose changes and if you find yourself outnumbered, c'est la vie. east.718 at 19:16, December 19, 2007

I am seeking to be BOLD without being reckless. The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is one popular way to use the "Be Bold" approach responsibly, especially when other editors have questions over your ideas. I will try to be more careful. —Whig (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks good to me. One thing you should explain though is is why you do not consider the sources reliable. The RSN regulars may not be completely up to speed on the dispute. Would you like me to contact one of the admin regulars there for a second opinion? east.718 at 06:52, December 20, 2007

Honest mistake :) east.718 at 07:02, December 20, 2007

No problem. I'll wait to hear if you find another admin to comment. —Whig (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please give me a couple hours to catch up on what's been going on. east.718 at 01:53, December 24, 2007

From what I have gathered, you have not been behaving disruptively. This is where your 1RR restriction will bite you in the ass - I have little advice for now except to keep cool if you want to fight an uphill battle. east.718 at 00:40, December 25, 2007

Well, that restriction was one of the contingencies of the release of your indefinite block. Protesting it will likely be an unwinnable uphill battle. east.718 at 00:45, December 25, 2007

What is the comment you're planning to post? east.718 at 01:36, December 27, 2007

Yes, please do. east.718 at 01:46, December 27, 2007

Shower them with love. I will be keeping my eye on the discussion. east.718 at 08:36, December 27, 2007

I am taking a look at it. east.718 at 11:05, December 31, 2007

OK, from what I've seen you haven't been disruptive. Just continue discussion as you are now, and keep in mind that sometimes you lose uphill battles. east.718 at 10:56, January 1, 2008

QW Shortened text

Thanks. I will reconsider. Anthon01 (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Danaullman

I think my personal views on pseudoscience, time constraints, as well as having declined one of Ullman's previous unblock requests will disqualify me from adopting them. However, assuming they manage to get unblocked, there's a whole category of people over at Category:Wikipedians seeking to adopt in Adopt-a-user. east.718 at 04:41, December 29, 2007