User talk:Valjean/Archive 11

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Archive 11
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15 Recruitment and membership Can I join, or is there something else I have to do? --Abce2|Howdy! 21:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Go for it! This is a new project and we need to have more editors who will support the idea, provide suggestions, and help develop the project. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Ok, I've joined. What should I do now to help the project? --Abce2|Howdy! 22:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Good. Now can you figure out which category this project should be listed under? We need other ideas and resources. If there is a similar project, then we might merge with them or establish a formal collaboration. Find out anything you can about problem (often banned) editors who might be worth saving, any other methods used to help them, others who might be willing to help here, etc.. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC) About the asking other editors who are willing to help part, do I just ask them? Could you also please reply on my talk page from now on? Thanks. --Abce2|AccessDenied 22:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Sure. If you know another editor who might share such concerns, let them know about the project and invite them to join. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC) I've tried to get more people. --Abce2|AccessDenied 00:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Yes! I got someone to join! Finally! --Abce2|AccessDenied 02:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC) More poeple! --Abce2|AccessDenied 02:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC) You are one good recruiter! Thanks so much. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC) {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} But you are the one who stated it all. So here, take this tea. You deserve it. --Abce2|AccessDenied 03:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Wow! Thanks! How about continuing this on the project's talk page? If you feel comfortable doing so, feel free to copy this whole section there, and give it a heading like "Recruitment drive", for example. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Ok. Abce2|AccessDenied 03:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Yo, count me in. Abce2 told me about the project and it seems like a nice departure from playing whack-a-vandal all day.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Good. Just add your name to the "Participants" list and then spread the word. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC) No! You're taking my job! Just kidding. --Abce2|AccessDenied 04:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC) What does oversees mean? I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC) I guess that could be worded better. It means a probation officer assigned to each "parolee", or something along those lines. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Hi, I think what you are doing is really good and in need for the project. I would like to sign on but before I do I need to ask you if you think I should at this time? Since I will be going away here soon for surgery, would I be causing problems signing up and then disappearing for what ever time it takes for spinal stenosis surgery and healing time? I don't want to harm what this new project is attempting to do as I think it has wonderful potentials. I would appreciate you opinions on this or anyone elses who may be lurking here. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC) My thought would be go ahead and put your hat in the ring and help get the project into the air, but do not volunteer to mentor anyone back into the project if you do not feel that such a time commitment fits with your schedule at this time. Also, heal quickly and well - WP will miss you until your return. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Ok I'm off to go do that now, thanks for your kindness. I will do what I can to help even if it's limited for a time. Thanks again so much, it meant a lot to me. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC) If you still find my verbage on the project page too long I hereby authorize you to shorten it as you see fit! ↜Just M E here , now 07:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC) MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Computerjoe's talk 15:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Rehab So whats the deal on this? Did you go through the proper channels? Or are they just blowing smoke?Drew Smith What I've done 05:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I suspect blowing smoke. I have seen several projects start and there were no official hoops to jump through that I was aware of. The start of projects is a community matter usually started by the interested parties, without the possibility (besides MfD's) of skeptics of the project stopping and censoring it. If there is some official way to do this that was missed, then we'll just have to do it, but I don't recall reading anywhere that it was an absolute must. I could be wrong, so I hope to be enlightened. Even if there is a method that was missed, an MfD using this as an excuse is just a form of wikilawyering. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Theres our problem. There is a formal process at wikiproject council, and you attempted it, but didn't do it quite right. I fixed the mistake. Here is the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/User Rehab Get everyone willing to support it to sign there as well as the project page. This really should have been done first.Drew Smith What I've done 09:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Interesting. I must have just added it directly without realizing that it was a requirement to use the template. Where does it say that? Why have other projects been started without starting here? Here are a few: Paranormal Rational skepticism Alternative medicine I don't find anything in the archives that indicates that they started by using this process. Please place a notice on each of the user talk pages of current members. I have to run now. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Your new wikiproject Hi there, I have come across the rehab project that you set up, and I have given my support to it, as well as voting in favour of a keep on the deletion discussion. It seems like a brilliant idea, one that should have been done before. I am only a new user, but please let me know if there is anything that I can do. Yours, Fahrenheit 15:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Be careful You really should be careful with your tone, as it could be seen as uncivil and nearing personal attacks at times. Accusing editors of ignorance isn't the politest of things. And, for the record, I doubt any editor at the MfD is ignorant of the project's intentions - a good faith attempt to rehabilitate disruptive users and vandals into Wikipedia - but we have many issues with it. Computerjoe's talk 16:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC) My tone is perfectly civil. When I say ignorance, I mean ignorance of what I have written in that discussion, and that's why I requested you and others to read what has been written. When I repeatedly read critics complaining that this will coddle disruptive editors, that it will use ordinary supporters as mentors, etc., that's a pretty clear sign of ignorance of what has been written, so "ignorance" is the proper and civil word to use. This is going to be tough love, only for banned editors, and only experienced admins as mentors. Please help to get the critics to be more accurate in their criticisms, and to stop basing criticisms on fears of possible dangers. That's totally unfair. To come to the project's talk page and utter such fears would be a totally different matter, but to use such hard-handed measures as an MfD to prevent a project from even getting started based on unproven fears isn't right at all. We need guidance, help, and constructive criticism. What we're getting is only destructive, aimed at destroying by prior censorship. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC) I have raised it at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion.2FWikipedia:WikiProject_User_Rehab. I apologise that before I raised it I failed to see your reply here. At the time of nomination by the way, all the project said was 'this project is an attempt to codify such a system to be overseen by trusted admins'. While admins might oversee it, it was not clear at that point the role they would have (it is pretty vague) and it wasn't clear that admins would be mentors. Computerjoe's talk 15:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Re:Thanks I'm sorry, but your actions in failing to properly propose the project, and here [1] are what undermined, and ultimatey doomed the project.Drew Smith What I've done 05:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC) We both know that the failure was out of ignorance, and that many other projects have been started without using this process, without a single complaint. This complaint is just an excuse. That's all. It didn't doom the project. Falling for this ruse may have. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Actually those projects were ok because they weren't importan. This project had the potential to be very big, and a big part of the DR process. Thus the need to go through the proper channels.Drew Smith What I've done 05:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC) That does make some sense, but I wasn't aware of that, and I never have seen any notice that this was the ONLY way to start a project. It's a shame that my good faith attempt was met with such hardhanded methods based on fears and suppositions, but no evidence, by someone who openly admits he doesn't know!. Whatever the case, being treated by you as I have been, I'm pretty discouraged. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC) This is a case that might NOT be of interest to the WP:REHAB This was an indefinitely blocked editor who arbcom decided to change and give a chance to 'rehab' back into the project. I think this gives an example big time of what the project will be dealing with. Check out the following; [2] and [3]. Read the talk page of this user through history as he deletes a lot of discussions that he is uncomfortable with. I know about this from the middle of the problems. I went to the CFS page and saw and participated a bit trying to calm the waters a bit but with no success on my part. I think this is a good example of what the Rehab project would experience and with this editor it's not just the for/against element. This editor has touched people across the boards. I think you should check this out because it's leaving me feeling that maybe we need to rethink the rehab project. It does show what some of the other editors were worried about I think but I would like your thoughts on this. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 09:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Without even looking at the links (yet), is this user interested in returning? Are they interested in reforming? Do they see and understand the errors of their ways? I don't see the project's job to be forcing reform on someone who neither sees the need for it nor can see the need for it. I suspect that good candidates will have been banned for some time and have had time to really rethink their approach to Wikipedia. How do these questions apply to this situation? -- Brangifer (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Yes the user is interested in returning and apparently used arbcom email to get himself unblocked. Of course I don't know all the details of the unblock though.I would think though to get unblocked after the community overwhelming was discouraged. Right now with what has been going on since I posted to you it's not going well. The battle lines are being drawn and so far he seems to be on his own as he is burning a lot of bridges he had to have built. I would suggest you read the ANI. I think you should also know that Cool Hand Luke was part of this and now has recused himself from the situation. So, no I am not suggesting this editor for the rehab program. What I am suggesting is for you to read how this is going because if this new project is going to work then we have to see what is not working verses what might work and this time it looks like a 'it's not working' adding this editor back into the project, I sure hope I am wrong though. Just thought this could be an experience for you to read so as some have said, we know and understand what others have tried and failed at. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Although I was hopeful, as Guido wont acknowledge anything to do with his block, the two arbcom reviews of it, and is now wikilawyering about his topic ban and insulting editors all over, I'd advise you not to touch this. It's a shame, and sorry for the run-on sentence. Verbal chat 17:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Hi Verbal, I wasn't suggesting involvement, just reading what has happened since I don't think Brangifer knows this editors history. I was suggesting it to see how badly things might go for the rehab program. I think this can teach us for the betterment of the project being started. Good luck with Abd too! ;) --CrohnieGalTalk 17:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC) I took a look at the situation and it's a poisonous atmosphere. This is a good illustration of why I think the rehab project must be for truly repentant users, those who have realized the errors of their ways, are willing to be taught, and taught about exactly why their previous behavior got them into trouble. They should not be coddled or shown any sympathy, at least not for their behavior. They must realize how truly bad it was. We don't need this type of user in the project or at Wikipedia. I don't want to waste the project's time and to have editors who have been mentored and helped by the project go out and resume their bad behavior. No, that mustn't happen. That's why I suspect that very few banned users will be able (or wish) to avail themselves of this service. It should be a sort of reform school, and that's not all fun and games. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Do you know anymore about the unblocking? Why was he unblocked? Was there any demonstration of repentance? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Nope, sure don't, it was apparently done through the use of email with the committee or some other means. The topic ban sounds like it was originally agreed to but then you see where it's been going. Sorry, don't know the answers that is why I thought this might be of interest because it was done out of view and seems to be not working. I don't know if the reasons can be got, maybe CHL can say? --CrohnieGalTalk 11:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Laundry Ball Hi BullRangifer, re. this, thanks for your constructive contributions to the laundry ball article. You have improved the article as it should be, and not taken the lazy option I followed. User Verbal's contributions in that article were not constructive, with his reverts simply moving from one unsatisfactory state to another. He did actually make the same revert 3 times (undoing changes made by 3 different users, including myself), interceded only by a grammar fix, and leaving only sarcastic comments in his edit summaries that others should fix the problems he reintroduces. It's good to deal with someone who contributes constructively rather than simply heads for the revert button :) Thanks! Greenman (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Take another look at the history of that page. Verbal had made only two edits to that page within the preceding 24 hours and wasn't anywhere close to 3RR. Technically, to violate 3RR, one has to make four edits. If edit warring is going on, even less than three edits can get you blocked. The content was properly sourced and was being removed, not moved to a better place. Once Verbal realized that the problem was it being in the wrong place (which still wouldn't justify simply removing it), he moved it to a better spot and you still removed it. That's pretty bad. You had edited that at least twice, just as many times as he had, so you were in no position to point fingers. I'm going to make a guess here as to what has happened. You have been having a revert war with Verbal at the Patrick Holford article, and there he was warned for approaching 3RR. You got carried away and kept reverting him, but now at a different article. At least that would make sense of this. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I would add that my reverts at Holford were, I believe, exempt from WP:3RR under WP:BLP rules. Thanks, Verbal chat 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Quite right. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC) My apologies to both you and Verbal, I see you are correct. Verbal's 3rd edit, which I assumed was the same as his first two reverts, actually fixed the error. Greenman (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC) He only made two edits to that page during a 24 hour period. There was no "3rd edit". You need to read WP:3RR. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009 From the editor: Browsing the archives Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more Features and admins: Approved this week Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Award Should I make an award or something for the Rehab Wikiproject? Here's a little something I've made as an example. One cruise ship Reason --Abce2|AccessDenied 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Do you mean something like a graduation diploma? Maybe a good idea, but I'd wait until the project actually starts working. We're still in the beginning phases. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Defend free speech Here's a box for free use. Just use this template: {{User:BullRangifer/Singh}} User:BullRangifer/Singh I signed up but I don't think my sig is there. Now that I have thought about it I just put my name but didn't fill in anything else including my email address which might be a problem with an online petition like this to verify me. Is this a problem, do you know? Should I resign with an addy disclosed? I didn't fill in anything else because of possible spamming violations with an unsecure site and it not being protected. Would appreciate your thoughts as I would really like to have my signature counted. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure. It's between you and Sense About Science. Try again. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks I'll look again and resign if it's not there now. On a different note, did you see this?. I glanced at the editor that is banned contributions and he contributes in areas I never go to that is a hot bed for controversary. I am going to leave it to you to handle this because I have no idea how to do anything requested. I would be willing to be a second helper though if you feel this would be helpful. I need to learn more about how to mentor first,so running behind and helping someone else would also be a learning experience for me. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC) editor and admin Thanks for your note on my talk page. I'm not really much of a Wikipedia editor or administrator since I am busy in the real world and I have not been spending much of my online time at Wikipedia for the past few years. Thanks for your patience as I stick my nose into difficult wiki problems that other more dedicated Wikipedians have sweated over while I've been away. I appreciate all the help that has been provided to me to help me "get up to speed" with the "Dr.Jhingade" situation. "If I at times seemed irritated" <-- I guess I'm just thick skinned and/or clueless because I was not bothered by any of your comments. I grew up in a culture where it is expected that one's friends will feel free to challenge your assumptions. I sometimes ask tough questions of other Wikipedians and I count on other Wikipedians to keep an eye on me and question my actions...particularly when I am exploring an unpopular POV. I'm really a wiki-coward and when I get irritated with a wiki problem I go away and find a less stressful and more fun online activity. I actually have a large amount of respect for people like Georgewilliamherbert who work hard to keep Wikipedia running smoothly. I hope you agree that Wikipedia is stronger when we carefully examine our assumptions and methods. As a scientist, I tend to get into an analytical mode where I try to understand problems. I'm not very good at understanding interpersonal relations, so it is not unusual for people who have good intuition about people to get frustrated with my cluelessness and my struggle to comprehend things that most normal people more easily understand. "could probably have worded some of my comments better" <-- I'd prefer that people speak honestly and correct any problems that arise rather than remain quiet in a cautious attempt to avoid imperfect comments. I like it when people say what is on their mind...it can save a lot of time. Please feel free to be blunt with me and set me straight when you see me going down a wrong path. I tend to test many strange hypotheses and I eventually throw most of them away. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Spoken as a true scientist! Keep up the good work. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not very good at reading talk pages of other editors, so I only just now noticed your question on Georgewilliamherbert's user talk page. My interactions with "Dr.Jhingade" have been very limited, just here and here. --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Okay. All's well. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) License tagging for File:Sas-libel-2.png Thanks for uploading File:Sas-libel-2.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC) $2.5 billion spent, no alternative cures found This news (which isn't news to skeptics) is very significant and is published by a very reliable news source: $2.5 billion spent, no alternative cures found. Big, government-funded studies show most work no better than placebos BETHESDA, Md. - Ten years ago the government set out to test herbal and other alternative health remedies to find the ones that work. After spending $2.5 billion, the disappointing answer seems to be that almost none of them do. These paragraphs say it all: "There's been a deliberate policy of never saying something doesn't work. It's as though you can only speak in one direction," and say a different version or dose might give different results, said Dr. Stephen Barrett, a retired physician who runs Quackwatch, a web site on medical scams. Critics also say the federal center's research agenda is shaped by an advisory board loaded with alternative medicine practitioners. They account for at least nine of the board's 18 members, as required by its government charter. Many studies they approve for funding are done by alternative therapy providers; grants have gone to board members, too. "It's the fox guarding the chicken coop," said Dr. Joseph Jacobs, who headed the Office of Alternative Medicine, a smaller federal agency that preceded the center's creation. "This is not science, it's ideology on the part of the advocates." Now how and where should this be included? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC) References No other ID available I wonder if Dr. Jhingaadey will work out how I keep spotting his IP socks? It's not too very hard. Verbal chat 12:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC) He probably hasn't seen that java tool. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009 Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC) WP:SOAP I am concerned that your recent organizing, campaign and recruitment efforts on Wikipedia in regards to the ongoing Simon Singh suit violates WP:SOAP. Bear in mind that SOAP applies to user pages as well as articles. Specifically, I would like to point out SOAP #1: Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not: ... Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. As such, I think it best to cease this campaign, especially with regards to the banner you created which actively asks users to sign an off-wiki petition (clearly violating the "recruitment" portion of SOAP). This also applies to the content of the #Chirocopalypse: British chiropractors running scared of this talk page (clearly violates "propaganda" portion of SOAP). I don't want this to become a big deal, so please just remove the content in violation. Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Let me study the issue and I'll deal with it. I don't want to violate any policy. Otherwise the development of an article (at present mostly collecting sources, with the precise wording to come) is acceptable in userspace. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I agree with BullRangifer in his criticism against the UK libel laws. A few years ago the US based health activist dr Mercola was forced to block access from UK visitors to some pages of his US based website because he criticised the artificial sweetener Sucralose. However, I believe that Levine2112 has a point. Anyway, there are some other relevant Wikipedia articles that can be improved here: Censorship in the United Kingdom English defamation law and Libel tourism. MaxPont (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I think this is a decent start. Please spread the word to other users who have adopted your template but still have the recruiting "call to action" link on their page. With regards to #Chirocopalypse: British chiropractors running scared, I see that you wish to create an article with this material. But do you really wish to create an article entitled: Chirocopalypse: British chiropractors running scared? That doesn't seem WP:NPOV. Further, this hypothetical article would have WP:CRYSTAL problems at the get-go and most of the sources you've listed are blogs or some other non WP:RS. As such, I think it is highly unlikely that an article would be created about this subject matter especially given the propagandistic tonality of your writing thus far. I would suggest you scrap it from your main user talk page, create a subpage, and start over writing from an NPOV perspective. As it stands now (and given your off wiki interests), a strong case could still be made that the material as it stands now violates WP:SOAP's "propaganda" clause. Moving it to a user sandbox page (and hopefully fixing the derisive tone) should solve any such violation in my eyes. Thanks again for your prompt response. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Obviously the current title and tone would be radically changed and other sources would also be used. BTW, some blogs that are reporting this matter are considered RS here, and there is no "absolutely no blogs" rule, although most blogs certainly wouldn't qualify. I understand these concerns, but I do find it ironic considering your purpose to protect the reputation of chiropractic at Wikipedia, that you seem to be in favor of extending/repeating the censorship desires that have gotten the British Chiropractic Association into trouble. Their action is being described in RS as a Pyrrhic victory and an example of the Streisand effect, and your actions, as a representative of the profession here, will likely have the same effect here. If I were so inclined (which I'm not at the moment, but if pressed could change my mind), I could press the issue all the way to a major RfArb and thus get your censorship actions widely publicized. That might even make it into RS in the real world and create even more bad publicity that could be used here. A similar situation is developing at the Chiropractic controversy and criticism article. Some editors who are objecting to its existence will just force the hand of other editors to enlarge that article with even more damning evidence from historical and current RS, making even more bad press for chiropractic. That article has huge potential, and could be enlarged to be much larger than the main article. Sometimes it's just best to be quiet and hope no one notices. Having said all that, I'm certainly going to change the current stuff in my own userspace before making it an article. Right now it includes some of my own wording, which is my right, especially since such wording is backed up by many of the sources to be used. I have just scratched the surface of the available RS that are covering the matter. Some of the material in the Simon Singh, Sense About Science, and British Chiropractic Association articles would also be used, making it even larger. The whole mess is tied together, and it could also become part of, or merged with, the Chiropractic controversy and criticism article, although this would be large enough for its own article, and would thus just be mentioned there. That article might get too large if it included this one. Thanks for your concerns, some of which are legitimate. You have awakened me and given me new vigor to proceed forward with more energy. Instead of spreading my activities, I could concentrate more on developing and enlarging these areas. I don't believe in censorship and have always resisted it, as I will now. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Please don't turn this into a personal attack on me or anyone else. My "purpose" on Wikipeda is not what you say it is, so please don't use your own pejorative hyperbole as an attack on me. It's quite simple: you are using Wikipedia for propaganda and recruitment. Please desist. If you wish to take this matter to RfArb, you have my complete support to do so. You make it quite clear above that your intention (or desired consequence) of bringing this matter before RfArb would be to further promote your propaganda on Wikipedia and you hope beyond. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I am confident that any and every Arbitor will see your actions clearly for what they are - a violation of WP:SOAP. So please go right ahead. As for Chiropractic controversy and criticism, it is clearly a POV fork and will be dealt with appropriately in the near future. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I have no such intention. It would be your actions that determine that, not mine. If you act foolishly, the results may follow, and they would be fueled by your actions. Already your actions in this matter are awakening many editors about the situation with chiropractic's attempts to censor criticism, just as you try to do. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC) LOL. I think WP:DENYWP:KEEPCOOL is applicable here. Intelligent, civil discussion is obviously wasted on some editors. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC) My personal opinion is that UK libel law is a major threat, not just to science, but to freedom of speech and democracy worldwide. Just look at[4] and the suppression of scientific criticism of lie detetectors[5]. However, WP rules are WP rules and I believe that the campaign banner[6] should be brought to an ANI. MaxPont (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I don't want to pile on here, but Add your signature to the thousands of others. should probably at the least be toned down to avert concerns of recruitment / advocacy. While I am not particularly informed as to the lawsuit in question, I am not sure that it is appropriate to link Chiropractic as a whole to the actions of what seems to be a local trade organization. Free speech is certainly central to a healthy society but so is accountability. The true problem in this matter seems to be strict libel laws. Unomi 21:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Before you wrote the above, I had deleted that from the top of this page and the template. There are other places that also need to be dealt with, so give me a chance to do it. I don't sit here all night long! (Well, sometimes I do.... ;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC) It might deflect a lot of these concerns if you were to reword this material to say something along the lines of "This user believes that libel laws should not be used to suppress free speech and scientific debate." As to your other comments, I agree that the Singh case is going to become more and more interesting over time. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I will definitely do that. I wasn't aware that my own userspace would cause such a rucus, but then again, if the word "chiropractic" is associated with even the most well-sourced criticism, you can be sure that Levine2112 will the first to object. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I have moved and begun to revise it: Backlash to chiropractic lawsuit against Simon Singh You are welcome to come to the talk page and provide suggestions for improvement. I have dedicated the article to Levine2112. He should actually have credit for much of the well-sourced negative material here at Wikipedia that is found at chiropractic, Quackwatch, and Stephen Barrett. Without objectors to reality like him, the criticisms and negative material would be much less. Since he has challenged it, and it's very real and can be documented, he has forced other editors to strengthen the case and source it better. All in all a plus for Wikipedia, and a Pyrrhic victory for him. If he has bosses paying him to protect chiropractic's reputation (which is his avowed and stated mission here), they ought to fire him. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Please remember AGF, NPA and that we should all be here to improve wikipedia. Unomi (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I am coming late to all of this but I have to say that this is all just POV BS. I think some editors need to find something else to do with their time other than to wait and jump on others for what they have on their user pages. I saw nothing wrong with this and I still don't other than the feelings of others blowing this out of proportion. When an editor is gathering material for a new article, please give them the space to gather their WP:RS and most important assume good faith. I'd like to know how many editors has Levine talked to about all of this because I don't believe in coincidence that the same editors who also show up after him shows up at AN to support what he thinks is a great injustice. I've now got the articles mentioned above on my watchlist so maybe this will give me the incentive to also help the new article. Jeesh, enough of this silliness. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC) WP:AN I just wanted to let you know you've been mentioned here. Vicenarian (T · C) 22:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Hi BRangifer, I've been seeing you around a lot recently and I've been impressed with your level-headed approach to on-wiki goings-on. I do have concerns, however, that the information on your talk page, such as the section Chirocopalypse: British chiropractors running scared, is running afoul of WP:NOT#WEBHOST. On a more important note, I'm also concerned that the reproduction of the letters here may infringe on various individuals' copyrights (an area I work extensively in on WP). As you have indicated that you intend to add some of the information to articles, would you consider moving some quotes to a personal sandbox, perhaps at User:BullRangifer/Sandbox, and removing the content from this page? It'll still be available for you to use easily in the page history. I'd be interested to hear what you think of this suggestion. Cheers, – Toon(talk) 22:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I will definitely address all concerns now that I have a little time. I haven't been aware of any of this. Please be patient. I notice that the template has been deleted, even though I had revised it per the concerns of the nominator. That's not right. It should be restored and I will then revise it if necessary. Please AGF, especially considering the wikilawyering agenda of the nominator, who is an arch-protector of the reputation of chiropractic here at Wikipedia, including keeping well-sourced criticisms out of articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC) That's fine, thanks for taking the time. – Toon(talk) 02:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I have removed it and will revise it. It's an extremely notable situation that has gotten the attention of the whole British press, but User:Levine2112 doesn't like even well-sourced criticisms of chiropractic here at Wikipedia. He's wikilawyering. He may have a point in some regards, but his motives stink. He's extending the same censorship to Wikipedia that the British Chiropractic Association is using against Simon Singh. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC) There is still the issue of copious amounts of copy vio text that must be removed from wikipedia, including userspace. Everything on Wikipedia has to be considered scrapable, as such copyvio is not acceptable, even in userspace. If you want to argue the case, fine, but remove the copyvio first until there is some consensus on the matter. Unomi (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, that is an issue. I suspect a court would consider it fair use, considering the nature of the case. Normally obstruction of justice is a crime, and hiding evidence, or encouraging someone else to do so, is also a crime. That seems to be what the chiro associations in England have done, and this is the evidence which is now found in hundreds of examples all over the internet. That's the Streisand effect for you. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure if that's how a court would view it in this case, but I suspect they would. I'll remove it for now and just leave a link to a diff. It will be used as content in an abbreviated form that is allowed under fair use laws. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Singh A tag has been placed on Template:Singh, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I have objected to the improper deletion of the template, which happened AFTER I had removed the "objectionable" words, per YOUR objections. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Has this been deleted already or is there some place this is being discussed? I think this has gone too far and would have like to have voiced my opinion. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC) CopyVio I have added your userpage to the list of possible copyright violation here. Sorry for any inconvenience. Unomi (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Didn't you read my response above? Why the impatience? I have done what you suggested. What's the objection now? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC) You addressed the concerns raised by Toon regarding the reproduction of the letters. There is now the remaining issue of the content of your userpage being verbatim copies of content here and here. Please note the clear indication of copyright on the SAS site: © Sense About Science. You may only download the content for your own personal non-commercial use. I don't see it as much as about impatience as about WP:IDHT. Surely you must have known it was a copyvio when you copy & pasted it? Unomi (talk) 06:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC) It is for personal and non-commercial use. What's the problem? That text is reproduced hundreds of places on the internet without any complaints from Sense About Science. Why else did you think they wrote it? Here's a very RS that quotes it. If it were for commercial use it would be a different matter, or if it were being twisted and misused. Otherwise I'm sure they're happy for the advertising. Maybe I'm not understanding the language issue here. I have lived in Scandinavia for too many years now, and sometimes it is revealed in my rusty English. The other link is my own website so there is no problem there. I can quote myself all I want. I have also moved the beginnings to the article and begun to write it in a more NPOV style. There's more work to be done. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia's copyright policy explicitly and strictly forbids the inclusion of content supplied under a noncommercial use license. The use of this content elsewhere on the web is immaterial. This content must be removed. In general, any content that you have introduced to Wikipedia from external sources under any sort of noncommercial license must be removed in their entirety. Any contribution of previously published content written by yourself must be explicitly licensed through OTRS under GFDL and CC-BY-SA 3.0 multilicensing. If you persist in reintroducing this content without taking proper action to provide permission, you will be blocked under our Wikipedia:Copyright violations policy. Dcoetzee 07:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I am seriously trying to understand this and I'm not attempting to be disruptive, so please be patient. The paragraph which I have copied to my blog originated here, so there's no problem there. Apparently Unomi seems to be objecting to the Sense About Science statement. I'll take it down. I hope that satisfies you. If not, please return and I'll continue to cooperate, but I have to leave my PC in a few minutes and won't be back for many hours. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Okay, that sounds fine to me. :-) As long as your blog is dated so that it can be verified that the content originated here, there's no need to verify it through OTRS. Dcoetzee 08:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Good. My edit history shows that I wrote that long before I ended up copying it to my blog. I was then going to revise the content here to make it NPOV in preparation for an article. Levine2112 and Unomi, the local chiro thought police who are wikilawyering to get their way, beat me to it and didn't give me time enough to deal with their concerns. They have now wasted lots of people's time. I hope that you are satisfied. I'll try to be more careful. Thanks for explaining things more clearly. Much appreciated. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC) BTW, the censorship activities of chiropractic and Scientology are interesting to compare. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC) All in fun I'm sure - how do you like? {{BCASingh}} :) -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Howdy mate! Long time no hear. I hope you're doing well. Yes, all in fun. I see no problem with the template in userspace, even though it seems to back an untenable position. It's your userspace and your opinion. The whole rucus centers around whether it is proper to sue someone for expressing their opinion in scientific matters, AND about the judge's ruling that Singh meant something which he obviously didn't mean, and which the context makes clear he didn't mean. The protests against this "bogus" ruling are mounting, and not only is Singh's right to express his opinions being defended, the whole English libel law is being attacked. This is a pretty high profile case and it'll be interesting to follow. The actions of the three English chiropractic associations in requesting their members to be careful and even hide evidence is pretty radical, especially the McTimoney blanking of their own website and request for all members to do the same. This is a tacit admission of guilt and will no doubt be used against them. If everything had been on the up and up, then they shouldn't have needed to warn their members. Here's an interesting article from a former GCC member.-- Brangifer (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not keen on debasing the union flag like that, maybe a picture of a spine being cracked would be more appropriate (over Singh's/Lady Justice's head?) A variant of the Jolly Rodger also springs to mind. Verbal chat 14:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC) More importantly - where's Levine and Unomi to rush off to AN/I to complain? Of course that's rhetorical - we all know the reason why :-) Shot info (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Honestly I am increasingly against all userboxes, but experience has shown that the larger community seems unwilling to engage in these discussions, by all means take it to AN if you wish. Unomi (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC) I doubt that anyone here would take something like that to AN. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC) LOL Shot info (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Valjean. You have new messages at SarekOfVulcan's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Restored. I apologize -- I could have sworn that link was in there where I deleted it. Either I had a cached version, or I confused it with one of the other instances of that picture/text.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Just a friendly heads up You may want to make adjustments to your {{Singh}} userbox as fair use images are not allowed in userspace. Consider Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria_exemptions. I am bringing it to your attention so that you may take steps to lessen the impact of its removal. Best Regards, Unomi (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Which images are a problem? No one has questioned any of them yet. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC) The problem is with the use of fair use images in userspace in general. You will see that fair use rationale governs the use of images in articles where they can be argued to play an invaluable aid to the reader. This is why a person who uses fair use images in articles must provide a rationale for each instance of image use. Having uploaded an image under fair use for a specific article does not mean that this image can be used everywhere else automatically. Fair use speaks directly to the act of 'use'. If you were not aware of this previously I would suggest that you read up on our Wikipedia:Fair_use guidelines and Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria policies. I now see that in this case the image is claimed to be too simple to have any copyright enforceable, so all is well :). Unomi (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC) I assume now that you must be referring to the color bars and words in the template. Yes, they are too simple. Previously another image was used which the website says can be downloaded and used. It was judged to only be usable in article space. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009 Special report:Study of vandalism survival times News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Meridian (Chinese medicine) Hi, BullRangifer. Would be grateful if you could give specific reasons for your summary revert of my careful edit to this entry. Would have thought the reason for my edit was self-evident: template on top states that this article "may be confusing or unclear to readers. Please help clarify the article." Must admit, I was shocked when I came across this entry yesterday. Honestly never seen such jibberish in a WP article, let alone in a lead. And much more needs to be done to clean up this mess: it aids neither neutrality nor clarity, let alone understanding. Your mouse click seems a further baffling blow for the cause of obscurantism. Thanks, in anticipation. Wingspeed (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I hate to be confusing, but I found your edit confusing, possibly because so much was changed at one time, coupled with the amount of existing Chinese characters mingled in with the existing text. Without that text I might have been able to figure out what you really changed. Have you read the guidelines for writing a LEAD? We don't just completely rewrite leads. They get tweaked according to changes in article content. If you have discovered something in the article that isn't being mentioned in the lead, then propose THAT change and provide your reasons. Here is the short version of my own guidelines to ensure that a lead does its job: Any subject in the article that has its own section heading deserves mention in the lead. Short and simple sections may only deserve passing mention. Large and complicated sections may deserve many sentences or a whole paragraph in the lead. How it gets mentioned is a matter for discussion and creating a consensus version. But maybe your concerns aren't so much about a lack of mention, but just confusing wording? One thing that sprang out immediately was your addition of the words "Applying western criteria". Actually the existing text there is simple and applies no matter what. The addition is editorial special pleading not found in the references. It would help if you made a comparison showing the old lead and the changes you wish to make. This should be done as a proposal on the talk page, since changing the lead is a rather major matter where other editors should have the possibility to add their input. The result will then be a consensus decision that will be protected by other editors than yourself alone. BTW, I agree that the old text was confusing and could use improvement, but your changes were made without any discussion on the talk page. Now what is there in the lead you're not satisfied with? (Actually just copy this wholed section to the talk page and continue on there.) -- Brangifer (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Thought Field Therapy Hi BullRangifer, I noticed that you reverted my edits to Thought Field Therapy as the perspective of writing seemed promotional. While I agree with you that it did, I think that it should be included in the article as it serves as history. Just like the history of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. I have attempted to change it's perspective to a more neutral point of view, but as you can see I wasn't very successful, could you reconsider your reverts and reinclude that section into the article again. Of course, we can change it to a more neutral point of view according to WP:NPOV. Thanks Khaled El Mansoury (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I have nothing against a history section, and that is in fact quite important. It needs to be neutrally worded and well-sourced. Try doing it on the talk page and other editors can help to make it a consensus version. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks, I will add it to the Talk page. Khaled El Mansoury (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC) SDA Hi. I don't know much about SDA other than what's written in the article, but was wondering, among other things, what sources the SDA leadership uses to substantiate a need for its observance of the Old Testament. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure if that topic is dealt with here at Wikipedia. If you browse Category:Seventh-day Adventist Church, you may find something. Even I am uncertain about how to answer you because your question is vague. Is there something particular in the Old Testament that you object to? To the best of my knowledge most Christian denominations include the Old Testament in their version of the Bible, and the New Testament makes little sense without it, since it is based on it. All of the teachings of Jesus are based on it, and he believed in it and used it. OTOH, there are differing opinions on which parts of the OT are still binding on Christians. I do know that SDAs consider the Ten Commandments to still be binding, just as do most other denominations. I don't know of any church that believes it is okay to murder, commit adultery, etc.. Do some searching here and elsewhere on the internet. I'm sure you'll find something about what SDAs believe on these matters. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC) I figured that you were responding to me because you were a member of SDA -- my question had nothing to do with Wikipedia. To 'unambiguify' my question: I wonder why Christians keep any of the Old Testament, as the Old Testament was given to the Jews, and when Christianity broke from Judaism and increased their numbers thousand-fold via pagan conversion, in what sense was the Old Testament being maintained for observance? My focused question regarding SDA is that SDA seems to be a branch of Christianity that reverted to the Saturday Sabbath, something that Christianity changed long ago for its followers. If SDA adherents maintain that they need to keep the Sabbath on Saturday, using the Old Testament as a source, why don't they keep the remainder of the laws of the Old Testament? I have no problem with the Old Testament, but find it odd that a group would pick and choose which laws remain binding and which don't, when there are no sources that warrant such a thing. I merely used the SDA talkpage as an effective means of attracting the attention of an SDA member to whom I could ask my question. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 00:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I'll give you a bit of what I think the SDA answer might be, but to get a fuller answer you should probably try contacting (by email) some of the more active editors of the SDA article. There's a chance that they are likely "more active" members than I ;-) As I recall...the SDA position is basically what most of Christianity held for many centuries, in that the claim that the OT was given to the Jews is meaningless, as there was no other possibility. It was ony in later attempts by Christianity to separate itself from Judaism, that this claim was made as a sort of historical revisionism. There was originally nothing to hinder for a continued belief in many of the things in the OT, as long as they were still valid or binding. As will all things old, some things simply get out of date, so to speak. Some things, such as the ceremonial services with their offerings of white lambs (symbolizing sin free, were replaced by their actualisation in the coming of Christ and his offering on the cross as the sin free Lamb of God. The curtain in the temple that separated the Holy place from the Most holy place ripped from top to bottom at that time, which SDAs interpret as a very dramatic sign that type had met antitype. The white lambs were types, and Jesus was the antitype. Their offerings had always pointed forward to the sacrificial offering of Christ, and now that He had been sacrificed on the cross, there was no more purpose or meaning in continuing the old sacrificial services, and the early Christians stopped honoring that system. So that part of the OT was no longer binding after the crucifixion of Christ. The obvious question is why SDAs still keep the Sabbath, which is held on Saturday, just as Jews still hold it. Well, during the process of trying to get more pagans to convert to Christianity, Constantine I compromised and changed it to Sunday, thus amalgamating the pagan holy day Sunday into Christianity, and thus contributing to the deteriorization of the originally pure Christian beliefs. Up until that time (on AD March 7, 321, "Constantine I decreed that Sunday (dies Solis) will be observed as the Roman day of rest"[7]), Jesus and all Christians had continued to keep the original seventh day Sabbath holy. Now a man, not God, had changed the day. SDAs interpret this event as a fulfillment of what is described in Daniel 7:25: "And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws..." That's their interpretation. You may want to read the article Sabbath in Christianity. I have no idea if it deals with the SDA position. It is also interesting to note that a Pope wrote that the Pope's ability to move the sanctity of Sabbath to Sunday is a mark of his power, which is one of the many reasons why SDAs have considered the Pope to be a symbol of Antichrist, just as most Protestants have always believed. Also Jesus, his disciples, and early Christians, all based their beliefs and teachings on the OT. There is no indication that they simply rejected it. It still had much meaning to them, and much of Christianity makes no sense without understanding its origins in the OT. There are other aspects to this, some of which you mention. Why keep one thing and not keep another? Good question. SDAs have reasons for these questions, and to find out more you should write an email (don't do it here, as that's not what Wikipedia is for) to a very active SDA editor. These are historical and theological questions and maybe someone can help you. Good luck. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC) moved RFC Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_page_indexing. Gigs (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC) RfC Yeah you can endorse as many statements as you like. Basically it just means don't carry on a conversation on the RfC page, use the discussion page instead. Gigs (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Okay. It needs to be reworded to make that more clear. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Hello, Valjean. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Citizendium Porting. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC) WP:REHAB Good morning, I have a question, is this project active? I haven't checked in recently and nothing has been showing up on my watchlist lately so I'm curious if the project died a quiet death with all the outside obstacles that happened. I will pop over there and give a peek too. If it is still active, which I hope it is because I've been doing a lot of research on site to try to help myself with more knowledge about banning processes so that I can be a better contributor there. I realized that I didn't know all that much about how a banned user could come back in good standing. I did understand how editors got banned for the most part but the unbanning processes are actually quite time consuming for the unbanning of editors that we set the project up to help. Lastly, I have been watching here to get information for myself and also to see if there was anything helpful for the WP:REHAB project. I think you might be interested in reading this section, start at the beginning though of this sub thread, I'm too lazy to go back and cut and paste the actual start of the thread. :) This discussion talks about rude behavior towards banned editors at a different level than I have actually seen. I've seen rude behavior but not in the way the editors here are discussing things, I now see that I may not have actually seen the worse of the rude behavior which is good but I (and others who want to help) need to know as much about what goes on with rude behaviors so that we can also prevent this kind of behaviors. I see parts of this discussions talking about behaviors against banned editors during discussions about returning from others. Now I have seen this kind of behaviors with different editors who are camped on opposite sides and/or have history with each other. This is different in a way then what happens with a banned editor because for the most part a banned editor cannot speak for themselves. Well I just thought you might want to give this a read, and even other parts of it to help you also get a whole picture of how arbcom and administrator deal with banned editor and their thoughts about how to do things. Also, would this be a good place to pitch the WP:REHAB project to get it to attentions of the arbs and more administrators and possibly get the project into the discussions to help? Thanks, I hope I've made myself clear here about my intentions of what I want you to see here. It's early. :) --CrohnieGalTalk 11:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Excellent comment! I am just getting ready to leave the computer when I saw your comment. I just wanted you to know that I thought you did well explaining the reasons this project would fill in the need they were talking about at the banning discussions. Thanks, later, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you for bringing it to my attention! -- Brangifer (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Notice from Dryad42 Hello, Valjean. You have new messages at Dryad42's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. User talk:Dryad42#Please explain your removal of sourced information Wikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009 News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Just a thought about Avathaar/JWS Playing devil's advocate isn't the same thing as doing the devil's bidding. Not that either of them have evil intent. If you want to learn how to "REHAB", you need to take the time to learn from other people who are doing the same thing. --SB_Johnny | talk 21:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC) That wasn't my comment. BTW, I don't see any evidence that JWS is playing devil's advocate at all. He really is far too open toward this pseudoscientific stuff and has often been acting in this obtuse manner regarding the subject of homeopathy and with regards to his "mentorship" of Dr. Jhingaadey. I see you have commented on the page. The way things have been going, I'm beginning to wonder who is mentoring whom there. Is it Dr.J's agenda that is driving things? Is JWS beginning to act more like a defender than a mentor? JWS needs some serious guidance before he ends up getting his adminship removed for incompetence. He should be guiding and instructing Dr.J., not defending him. As a mentor and admin, his job is to represent Wikipedia, not his mentee. He's supposed to be teaching Dr. Jhingaadey about how to follow our rules. Instead he's giving a terrible example of how to wikilawyer and obstruct. In the current discussion about sources, he's being obtuse and dense in an obstructive and disruptive manner. He's wasting our time. IDONTHEARIT doesn't cut it. The whole thing should be taken to the RS noticeboard, and JWS reported to ANI for obstructive behavior. His behavior can only have the effect of encouraging Dr. Jhingaadey in his mission to have an article that only tells the homeopathic POV. It is a serious matter to bring an indef banned and multiple socking and very deceptive user back in without community approval. The guy isn't even unblocked yet, and hasn't shown any real desire to reform. That's a fundamental must in any rehab effort. Rehab is tough love, not a pity party. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC) JWS is being very (and to you annoyingly) patient, but it seems to me that his conversations with Avathaar were going in the right direction (even if it's a bit glacial). He's good at one-to-one stuff: a good mentor. He's not very good at diplomacy, however. I think there's a chance that he can help here, but only if he's given the time/space/AGF to do it slowly and thoughtfully. JWS and I aren't fond of each other (example), but for my part I'm still AGF when it comes to him. There's absolutely no harm in letting the two of them debate and learn from each other. --SB_Johnny | talk 01:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Rehab request Resolved  – The sock has been blocked. Hi, I would like to participate in WP:REHAB, if you have space for me. All the best, 217.42.67.99 (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC) (Macromonkey) Before considering that, I think you should describe a bit about why you have gotten blocked. Let's discuss it. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Ok, violation of th 3RR, POV-pushing, sockpuppetry, probably vandalism but I don't remember exactly, personal attacks. Thats all I can think of for now 217.42.67.99 (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC) So how do we go about this? 217.42.67.99 (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Blocked for six months. Wait it out and start over, but very carefully. Any instances of block evasion will only worsen things. You're welcome to read Wikipedia, but mustn't edit anything at all. Never hit the "edit" button. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I only reappeared to request rehab and to try and get someone who was falsely accused of being me unblock- hardly the most nefarious of purposes, so why is my eligibility for rehab affected? 217.44.118.156 (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC) There are several issues going on here: Your sockpuppetry, which you are engaging in right now using another IP. That will only make things worse. Your attempt to clear another editor who may be falsely accused of being one of your sockpuppets. I definitely think your actions to clear this user are noble and I would have hoped that your attempt had succeeded, but because you were using an IP sock to do it, you got blocked. I suggest you follow my edit history at that time and read the comments of the blocking admin. The issue of being eligible for Wikiproject User Rehab. The other issues need to be cleared up first. Using a sock to apply for help isn't an accepted method. I suggest you check and see if one of your registered accounts allows you to edit the talk page. That is often the case with blocked users. They can edit their talk page if they haven't used it in a disruptive manner. There you can place a {{help}} template and make your case. You have named some of the issues that got you blocked. Do you feel you were treated fairly in getting blocked? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry to butt in but this seems to be the blocked User:Macromonkey who then became User:Micromonkey who was also socking under other ID's. The Micromonkey ID tried to deny being a sock here and in other locations when called on it. I don't think this is the kind of editor we are trying to reform. This editor needs to stop the WP:Socking and the disruptions and wait out all of the blocks on the multiple accounts. After the blocks have expired and if this editor is really serious about wanting to build an encyclopedia then the editor can/should ask for a mentor. I don't remember all the details at the moment but I do remember this editor was quite disruptive and annoyed a lot of good faith editors here. Before we could even consider excepting for the WP:REHAB project, I would suggest getting input from the community (WP:ANI, WP:AN and/or WP:ARB) so we can do this the right way. This is of course my opinions of this so thanks for letting me butt in and voice it. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I totally agree, especially after the comment below. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC) WP:RBI. Need an admin. Verbal chat 19:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Has an adminstrator been notified? This joker has been playing the system to long. Get him blocked and then delete this please. If you need an administrator I'm sure I can ask one to take care of this. A sock investigation isn't nec. this is pretty obvious. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC) "Macromonkey2" indefblocked... something else needed? --SB_Johnny | talk 21:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Now what type of template should be placed on the user page? -- Brangifer (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Sanities For the sake of our collective sanities, I strongly suggest un-watchlisting User talk:Avathaar. That's what I plan to do, anyway, because attempting to reason with Avathaar/JWSchmidt produces nothing but misdirection, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and other sources of frustration. There's much wisdom in WP:SHUN. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I understand what you're saying, but there is one advantage to dealing with the situation, and that is that the evidence is mounting up for desysoping JWS. This isn't the first time that has happened. He's repeating history. Someone who stonewalls, DOESNTHEREIT, games, aids and abets POV pushers, and doesn't understand RS, BLP, OR, and SYNTH to the degree he fails to understand them, doesn't deserve to be an admin. It just goes to show that being a scientist doesn't guarantee the ability to think clearly, use critical thinking, or have a healthy skepticism. In this case his "open mind" is having a detrimental effect on the location of his common sense. That's supposed to remain "up there", but something's dreadfully wrong. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Homeopathy For your enlightenment: Mitchell and Webb: If Homeopathy Beats Science "Don't drink water - it remembers all the shit it had in it." -- Brangifer (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Enlightening yourself used to get you in trouble with Spanish church, and is a form of self-abuse (self-help is bad for you, claim scientists... Are you in england/english, or did you find his on a forum somewhere? I saw these guys live a few years ago - very funny. I added another sketch I like from this series to my talk page. Verbal chat 08:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Reddi No newbie, he's a pov pusher who has been around for years, pushing fringe stuff, history often based on obsolete texts, never caring about consensus -- sometimes some decent stuff as well, but he doesn't work well with others. OR also, which he has just added to Science and the Bible -- those 'comparison tables' of his are clearly OR. He also goes away for weeks or months and comes back and makes huge changes to articles with no discussion. Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the info. Something looked fishy, but I'll leave it to the regular editors there. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC) hi Resolved  – The sock has been blocked. I bet you can't guess who I am- you've got three tries :-) Macromonkey2 (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC) You could be anybody trying to tease me, which really is an indifferent matter to me. Since you seem to be imitating Macromonkey, it will likely be assumed that you are that banned user and you'll get blocked again. As to your talk above about wanting to use Wikiproject User Rehab, you can forget it now. That door is definitely closed. Socking is no laughing matter here. Disruptive children shouldn't be allowed to disrupt Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC) ah the project i have been turned down for you mean? A bit of an empty threat there. Macromonkey2 (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Re: Homeopathic Humour That reminds me: you were asking for sources showing homoeopathic treatment with undiluted remedies. Have you tried Sheridan Poorly? You'll find it on the last page of the document. Brunton (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC) That's a good one! I've never read Sheridan Poorly before. Yes indeed. Homeopathy is the hypochondriac's best friend. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC) re: Greg park avenue Regarding this discussion, has there been any response from him yet? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Not a word.  Roger Davies talk 05:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Okay. The ball's in his court and no one is interested in dragging anyone, especially a banned user, screaming and kicking back "into the fold". ;-) It has to be their wish and desire to return as a respectable member of the community. Thanks for the reply. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Excuse me But what's fishing?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 00:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC) ?? I'm not sure what you mean. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) [[8]]Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 00:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I know what I wrote, but I'm not sure what you mean with your question. Please rephrase it. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Still what do you mean by fishing in that?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 00:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC) (ec) I have just added a comment and tweaked my previous comment to make it more clear. BTW, please follow standard indenting. It's confusing when you fail to indent. Since this is my own talk page, I have refactored the indents. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Do you want to know about the other user I mentioned on the page? The Frei Hans page.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 01:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Unless you're talking about someone else (and I'd be interested), I'm talking about finding out who created the Free Hans sock. Right now I have 18 different windows open and it takes a few minutes to switch between them to see what's going on. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC) User:Supreme Deliciousness This may not be spelled right, I'll correct it in a sec. The same thing happened to him. After he was blocked for edit warring or something, random newly created users try to impersonate him.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 01:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC) That may be a similar type of situation. Did they ever bust whoever did it? BTW, where did you mention this? Please provide the link. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC) No, and the user is blaming User:Arab Cowboy, but I've asked him to stop due to the situation here.[9]And I didn't mention SD by name.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 01:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I just found that they blocked several users for sockpuppeting. This could figure this out.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arab CowboyAbce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 01:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC) All very interesting, but doesn't seem to have any connection with the Frei Hans/Free Hans matter. Can we get back on track? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Ok.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 02:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly. Notice delivery by xenobot 13:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009 News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Discussion I would like to make it perfectly clear that I am not macromonkey. Placifist (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Indef blocked for disruptive editing. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Macromonkey Brangifer (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC) FYI This might be a good first case for the WP:REHAB, your thoughts? Thanks,--CrohnieGalTalk 10:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC) More humour From The Onion this time, available here. The last one sounds more like a few Homoeopaths we know and love. Verbal chat 16:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC) "Choose a study..." From Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Avathaar: "Choose a study from your long list and then examine it on your talk page. See if it would actually pass the muster according to MEDRS." I still think (as I said on JWSchmidt's talk page) that this approach is simply going to encourage cherry-picking. If Avathaar does manage to find a reasonable paper from a good source that shows a positive effect (and I'm sure such papers exist, if only because significance only means a 1 in 20 chance of a false positive) he is going to want to include it in the article, and we're going to be back to trying to explain to him that we need to include all the research, taking study quality into account, and this is already done in the article by referring to systematic analyses. Even if the paper he finds is flawed, it might be tricky to find RS pointing this out - mainstream scientists have tended not to bother submitting critiques of studies of homoeopathy to the journals that published them, so while there are good critiques out there they tend to be on blogs and suchlike (I remember a couple of editors refusing to consider a critique of a paper on a talk page solely because it had been published on a blog). I think we could be opening a can of worms here. Brunton (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Wikiproject User Rehab National Mentoring Month Logo This user is a participant of the WikiProject User Rehab List of scientifically controlled double blind studies which have conclusively demonstrated the efficacy of homeopathy List of scientifically controlled double blind studies which have conclusively demonstrated the efficacy of homeopathy Nullity? - 2/0 (cont.) 04:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC) What on earth? {{Adminhelp}} Context: [10] Chris G blocked me for 12 hrs.,[11] claiming I have done something which I did not intend. Nothing in what I wrote him could imply what he claims. (I wrote: "Please take a look here" with this link. That's all. I could have no way of knowing how he would react. There was no vote being taken, just a discussion. I wanted more eyes from experienced people, and I thought an experienced admin like him might provide some words of wisdom. Instead he blocked me.) This was done without even contacting me or warning me, so a misunderstanding based on "I personally think" has resulted in me getting a spot on my block log. Since when are experienced editors who act in good faith treated this way? I have not sought to get User:Pedro thy master blocked or banned, yet this happens to me. Very odd. I expect an explanation, an apology, and my block logged fixed. I'm fortunately inexperienced with blocks, and to my consternation I note that (contrary to what the block notice states): "Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail." I am unable to contact Chris G by email. Something needs to be done about that message. This block was given too fast and on a very shakey basis. Brangifer (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Try an {{unblock}} request, you'll get more relevant attention. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC) According to your block log, Chris G blocked your email. Sometimes it happens by accident (at least it often happened when the feature was new), but he may also have done it because the block reason was an email. I saw that Sandstein complained about an email from you. Was this about the same matter? In any case I guess Chris G saw the two emails as part of a pattern. Chris G forgot to leave an instructive notice and an explanation. I believe that's generally considered bad form. (Administrators should also notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page unless they have a good reason not to. It is often easier to explain the reason for a block at the time than it is to explain a block well after the fact. [12]) Perhaps he thought you were used to blocks and knew why you were blocked. Hans Adler 19:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC) PS: The reason for the block review result doesn't seem to be any more helpful. I certainly don't see what's going on. Hans Adler 19:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC) I agree. It also assumes bad faith without knowing the basis for the problem. No one has asked for an explanation, or even contacted me by email to ask what's going on. They have just shot first, and aren't even asking later. There were some other emails about other types of problems, but without any expectation of action. Maybe those who don't want to receive emails should fix their preferences accordingly, or Wikipedia could make a policy that emails must never mention Wikipedia or anything happening there. Then the email function would just be a public email hosting function unrelated to Wikipedia. Hmmm. Brangifer (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC) OMG!!! I have just opened my email, and what is there, an email from the Sandstein. It's a totally unrelated matter, so I won't discuss it here. That's a freaky feeling, having just read and then written the above, and finding an email immediately afterwards. Brangifer (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Valjean (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: See above Decline reason: Your block is of short duration, which reflects the tolerant approach of the blocking admin. Canvassing is naughty. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. So this is about WP:Canvassing? Hmmm...so a friendly and completely neutral message is considered improper canvassing? Hmmm...no AGF here I see. Brangifer (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Obviously without knowing the emails and going through all your recent contributions I can only guess, but it looks to me as if you posted to ANI with a request that needed attention by experienced editors but not necessarily by admins. This is apparently being interpreted as an underhanded request for a block – something that I believe would be completely out of character for you. Hans Adler 20:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC) I have clearly stated that I am not interested in a block or ban, only more eyes to follow that user's contributions. I think it's an immature user who is blundering along, and by ignoring much advice and many warnings, is constantly violating policies and guidelines. That makes them a disruptive factor here that wastes a lot of people's time. They need mentorship and possibly some form of topic ban until they learn how to do things. I really am looking for more input on what to do. I don't know, that's why I took the situation to the board. I acted in good faith and got punished for it. BTW, the content of my email is mentioned above. It was totally neutral, which is why I was shocked by the block. Never has anyone warned me that this type of email was considered improper canvassing. These types of emails are sent all the time to and from me, often with admins. No one has ever uttered any doubt about it. What is really ironic about this situation is that what the blocking admin suggested I could have done, and gave an example, is precisely what I deliberately avoided doing, because THAT really would have been canvassing to get a definite result. I didn't do that, and chose a totally neutral "Take a look", and that got (using very bad faith, and assuming I wanted the user blocked, even though I had already stated I didn't want that) mistakenly interpreted as an attempt to influence the discussion in some undetermined manner. This is a really weird situation. Admins who shoot first, without AGF, are really what makes this project not worth it sometimes. Brangifer (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Chris, please explain Now that my block has expired, please explain to me in what manner my email fits what you wrote in my block log: "Spamming people to change the outcome of a dissusion (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Numerous_problems_caused_by_User:Pedro_thy_master) is unaccpetable." I just want to understand this so as not to repeat some apparent error in judgment. (It's too late to undo the damage that has been done to my honor.) Brangifer (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Chris ultimately apologized, so this unfortunate incident can be layed aside. Now my block log just needs fixing. Brangifer (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I have written some of my thoughts here: My block log parsed Brangifer (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I came here via ANI (just caught my eye). Unfortunately we lowly admins can't alter your block log, but one method that's been used in the past to get some kind of explanatory note into the log is to block again. No, seriously. If you were to be blocked with a duration of, say, one second, we could use the summary to create a permanent record explaining the previous block - you could provide the text if you like. Only an idea, and not really what you're after, but I'd be happy to assist if you like. EyeSerenetalk 19:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC) How about getting the blocking Admin, ChrisG, to do this? He's apologised and agrees it was wrong, so he should be willing to do this. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC) A better idea, thanks Doug :) EyeSerenetalk 07:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Do you want me to do this? --Chris 09:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, since there apparently isn't any better method. The suggested text is: "My July 27 block was a bad one. Sorry about that." Brangifer (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for getting this taken care of. We can lay this incident behind us. Good luck in your future here. Brangifer (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Punitive model From the diff you posted, the blocking admin seems to be an adherent to the punitive model of administration. Admins should really think twice before blocking just because they don't like an activity that someone does. I'd like to see the blocking admin's thoughts on the matter. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009 From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 08:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigations Are you trying to request a new SPI on this user with a CheckUser request? MuZemike 18:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Yes. The template at the top of this page: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr.Jhingaadey is incorrect and unhelpful. After adding my request on that page, I then discovered that this one is also historical. Maybe they should be replaced by redirects? Brangifer (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC) OK. I'll repost the case under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr.Jhingaadey. In the future, use the request form under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Instructions to request a sockpuppet case, as there are bots that will automatically sort previous cases as well as CheckUser requests. Thank you, MuZemike 18:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Also, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr.Jhingaadey contains a link to the prior pre-SPI cases near the top of the page for future reference. MuZemike 19:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks so much. I'm sorry about placing it wrong. I just started wrong and got confused. Brangifer (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC) What? Yet another person defending his removal and refactoring of comments. Very disappointing. ThuranX (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC) I never mentioned that, so I can hardly be accused of defending it. I was commenting on your attacks, but since you bring it up, refactoring, as long as it doesn't change the meaning, is allowed, and deleting other's comments is forbidden, so don't do it. You can politely object, but don't edit his comments. Brangifer (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC) His refactoring DID change the meanings, in that it completely altered the context. He removed his section starting post, leaving it to look like OTHERS dogpiled him and he was defending himself from unwarranted comments. That's not what occurred, and his deceptive and unethical editing was to blame for that malfeasance. He's got either a huge CoI or serious POV issues. You don't want me to stand up to his bullying and sneaky tactics, that's fine, but then you ahd better get him under control. Pseudoscience has a huge arbcom structure around it, and he's playing games with that by this editing nonsense he engages in. ThuranX (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC) You could just point out that he should have left that one part in place. Instead you actually deleted his comments, even the new one(s?). That's not nice. I have no control over him. I have advised and warned him many times on-wiki and by email, but he won't listen. You're welcome to start an RfC/U on him. That's the proper place for carefully worded charges, as long as you have the evidence. Don't do it elsewhere, including my talk page. BLP applies to everyone (including editors) and everywhere on Wikimedia. Don't violate it with your undocumented charges of COI. Don't confuse a COI with a shared POV. If you continue this campaign against him, you're going to end up reported at ANI. I'd rather you start an RfC/U on him, but you are weakening your case by continually attacking him. In closing, let me make sure you understand one thing. I may largely share his POV in matters regarding pseudoscience/alternative medicine, etc., but I don't share his talk page methods. They need great improvement. Start that RfC/U. Brangifer (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC) For your information, I always sign using the four tides! And sinebot would still put unsigned and post reminders on my talk page. That is why I made this comment User_talk:Slakr#About_SineBot_comments. Please learn to investigate first before saying anything, it would make you appear competent. Your opinions on the Clayton article are just that, opinions. It is within my right to remove comments on my talk page. Kindly desist from abusing your admin privileges and stop threatening me. – Shannon Rose 18:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon Rose (talk • contribs) First, I am not an admin, just a concerned editor. I have been polite and have not threatened anything. Please be civil. When Sinebot is always after you (and no one else in that context), then it's reasonable to assume that something you were doing wasn't being recognized by it. If you've been signing properly and Sinebot is screwing up, then by all means continue to attempt its owner to fix it. Bots do make mistakes. As far as the Clayton article goes, we are both expressing our opinions, but mine and Ronz's are based on a much longer history of editing at Wikipedia and at that article, and also working within those policies, so it wouldn't hurt for you to listen to other's opinions. Even if you don't agree, you should still be polite and do what you can to encourage a collegial atmosphere here. Yes, you are "allowed" to remove comments, but no matter what policies or guidelines say, it still can make you look devious when you do it to hide things that are uncomfortable for you. Best to be open and show that you can deal with those warnings and advice in a contructive and civil manner. That makes the situation end up a positive for you, because you can show that you can be taught and can learn from your mistakes. You need to show a good track record and a positive learning curve here, and how you deal with warnings is one way. I have just gotten some good (uncomfortable) advice myself and I'm going to be acting on it soon. Watch my edit history and learn how I deal with such things. Brangifer (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC) How do you manage a large watchlist? I don't have 3,000 yet on mine, and I drastically slowed down additions over a year ago. I find myself spending more time just following up on my last couple of days editing than I do with my watchlist. Do you have any tricks/advice for managing such a large watchlist? What a bizarre last 48 hours or so! Strange things have been happening in my world here. My watchlist grows automatically because I have my preferences set to automatically add everything I edit to it. Occasionally I go on a deletion rampage and delete a number of the items, but then it grows again. I guess it's time to pare it down again. I do cover a lot of territory, even though my greatest focus of interest is fringe stuff. I usually take a few looks at the watchlist when people in the US are sleeping or at work, since I'm normally located in a very different timezone, except when travelling, like right now. I'm usually a nightowl and try to edit while they are also online, since most of the ones who reply seem to be in the States. I also check my own user contributions and see if anything's been changed, and whether the changes are of interest. I also check the user contributions of people of interest to see if we have intersecting interests. There is no system to it, but more often a rather random series of clicks, saves, occasional findings of gold flakes, or even gold clumps, and sometimes just bumping into real flakes and idiots. This place is populated by some very weird people, but also some very interesting ones whom I would love to meet. There are some very intelligent folk here whom I greatly admire. I can't really admire you much, since I'm supposedly talking to myself. Talking to one's own sock is a rather weird pastime, but apparently this Shannon Rose character thinks that's what we're doing here. It's enough to make one sympathize with those suffering from dissociative identity disorder....or sock puppeteers....or puppeteers pulling strings! -- Brangifer (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC) "My watchlist grows automatically" The horror! Thankfully, I didn't know that was an option. Yes, it got a bit bizarre there. I'm not in the habit of checking editors' block logs, but that was another case where it would have helped me set some more realistic expections. I guess that's why AGF is only a guideline. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, AGF is not a suicide pagt. It shouldn't replace common sense, which is quite uncommon. That is proven every day here. The very wording of Wikipedia's description seems to attract too many flakes, jerks, and immature people: "the free encyclopedia that you can edit." It should also include: As long as you follow the rules, you'll be okay, but if not, you're screwed!" which I have added to the top of my user page. Brangifer (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009 News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Fixing format Thanks for doing it - I appreciate it - and I apologize. I will try harder.--JeanandJane (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC) I assume you're referring to this. Glad to help. Please notice what you have done by using the preview button and correcting things before saving. This post was placed in the wrong spot, so I had to move it. Things like that are a constant irritation. Keep trying and you'll get it. Brangifer (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Yes. Correct. Thanks again. --JeanandJane (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Troll socking Remeber that conversation we had about User:Free Hans and other Troll socks? Well, they have been appearing more often and I thought I'd see if they were related. Do you remember any users that this has happened to? It would help in the SPI.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 19:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Courtesy notice I just opened this report. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 02:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Conclusion: Resolved  – No outing has occurred due to the fact the information was voluntarily provided by the complainant, which is an exclusion under the outing policy. Sarah 02:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC) The only obvious conclusion, since IPs and geolocation are necessary in any SPI, and no personal information (names, addresses, places of business, etc..) was divulged. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009 Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Re: Deletion of Talk:Quackwatch/FAQ The page was speedly deleted because the talk subpage was not linked to the main talk page. Now that I look at it more, I see how the page was used in an archive, not sure if the page is best way of doing things but as I see it now it doesn't qualify for a speedy delete but it would for an MfD. I just undeleted the page. I know nothing about the subject matter, but the content doesn't seem like it fits. Sorry about the time for a response, but I was on vacation without internet access. --Michael Greiner 22:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009 From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here? Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BullRangifer: Declined For the record: First there was this one Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BullRangifer/Archive by User:Shannon Rose (blocked for two weeks on August 10). A first. Of course it was declined. Then there was this one Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BullRangifer by User:Stmrlbs and also declined. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Stmrlbs , mostly around August 13-18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NuclearWarfare#sockpuppet_report:_BullRangifer Brangifer (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Barnometer "stolen" You might be interested to know that User:Pedro_thy_master duplicated your barnometer including all your barnstars and comments. I don't feel qualified to edit this user page directly, nor requesting the removal of theses so I didn't act upon it myself but I was kind of shocked to see someone "steals" something as personal as the barnstars. Ksempac (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry for the late reply. I've been on vacation and have been very busy, and am slow in catching up with wiki matters. I'm also doing some interesting research. Yes, Pedro_thy_master did some very odd vandalism of my userspace, including copying my material. He ended up using quite a bit of it. I don't mind him borrowing the non personal stuff, but using barnstars he hasn't received is very dishonest. Maybe someone should notify him that it's not proper to do so, and that it has been noticed. I'd rather stay away from more conflicts with him right now. Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Since no one has said anything to him yet, I left a message for him. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Comment This[13] wasn't particularly helpful. Taking the high road always works to your benefit in the long run. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC) I agree and have stricken most of the comment. I mailed him the URL for the account of the raid. Keep in mind that we're dealing with a multiple blocked sockmaster who doesn't deserve to be treated with much respect. His continued use of socks should now result in his dubious User:Avathaar account being indef blocked. Brangifer (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC) That doesn't give you license to engage in harassment or personal attacks, and I think you're stepping on the wrong side of the fuzzy line here. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect. --SB_Johnny | talk 08:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC) To a certain degree I agree with you. Even sockmasters should be shown a certain amount of respect civility, which I have done, although they have forfeited any right to "respect". This guy has been gaming the system here for so long, creating so much disruption, and has openly lied to us so many times, even after being given second and third chances, that my patience with him has worn thin. I have already dropped the matter on the talk page. The details of who he is, his claims to be able to heal every imaginable disease, especially incurable ones, and of the raid, are all available on the internet. He came here and posted links, so we know exactly who he is, the various spellings of his name, his various email addresses, and his clinic address(es). I have collected a list of links that make interesting reading, if following the career of purveyors of quackery interests you. He actually has a very, very long list of diseases which he claims to be able to heal using homeopathy. It rivals the one made by Daniel David Palmer, founder of chiropractic, who made such a list and claimed to be able to cure 100% of all diseases, in his case using spinal adjustments. I obviously have no intention of posting such information here, but you're welcome to read it if you'll just drop me a line. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC) just to let you know about incident I filed on QuackGuru I wanted to let you know about this since I mention you,not as an involved party in this incident, but in the events leading up this latest incident. The incident report [14] --stmrlbs|talk 03:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Already over. QuackGuru blocked for 1 month [15] --stmrlbs|talk 03:41, August 23, 2009 (UTC) Congratulations, and I totally agree. He's not very careful with his accusations and use of geolocation. Wild accusations and shooting around with a shotgun approach won't do. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009 News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009 Flagged protection and patrolled revisions: Misleading media storm over flagged revisions Flagged protection background: An extended look at how we got to flagged protection and patrolled revisions Wikimania: Report on Wikimania 2009 News and notes: $2 million grant, new board members Wikipedia in the news: WikiTrust, Azerbaijan-Armenia edit wars Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 15:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Response to socking question I responded to your question on "My Talk" page: --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC) The result (multiple indef blocks) is found here. Brangifer (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009 From the editor: Call for opinion pieces News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Removal of sourced information on acupuncture talk page I hope you know that by reverting the last 5 edits of mine, you not only got your wish of having that original (yet unproven) statement back, but you also deleted all the new information I posted about acupuncture working for osteoarthritis in a recent study that was funded by the NIH and posted in a prominent medical journal. I'll quote you right here: "Removal of sourced information, including the opinions of a notable acupuncturist like Felix Mann, is a big no no". Congratulations, you win in your quest to make the article as one-sided as possible.99.255.196.199 (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I see what you mean, but as I recall it was included with flowery language that was unbalanced and it was just easier to revert the whole mess. The one study could be reinserted, but using neutral language. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Easier, but also correct - an earlier individual study should never be given equal weight to a later systematic review and meta-analysis. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Brangifer, you could've easily just removed/edited any flowery language without reverting ALL the changes. That's specifically why I made many tiny little changes in many little edits instead of making one gigantic edit so you wouldn't have had to do that. 2over: there are 3 sources for that statement. One source is inaccessible- the link is old. One source is a study that concludes: "Sham-controlled RCTs suggest specific effects of acupuncture for pain control in patients with peripheral joint OA. Considering its favourable safety profile acupuncture seems an option worthy of consideration particularly for knee OA. Further studies are required particularly for manual or electro-acupuncture in hip OA.", which is pretty much the OPPOSITE of what the statement referencing it states. And the last source actually does match what the wiki statement says. Both sources were in 2006, have conflicting results, yet the statement on the wikipedia page states: "For osteoarthritis, reviews since 2006 show a trivial difference between sham and true acupuncture." Interesting. I posted a newer 2007 systematic review that also states that acupuncture is effective for chronic knee pain in OA patients in the discussion.99.255.196.199 (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC) See the acupuncture discussion page. I'd like an explanation on why adding year of publication is whitewashing. Thanks.99.255.196.199 (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I comment in the east, and you reply in the west. That's devious. I didn't comment on the dates. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Uh, here's your first few words: "SH is right. Your description of your edits isn't quite "straightforward". If SH is right, then I am indeed whitewashing the dates because that is included in what he said I did. He commented on removal of negative source, undue weight and white washing. I know the 2 edits he is referring to with his first 2 complaints, so the 3rd must be referring to the noting the dates of the studies. WLU has also argued that adding the dates is not-so-subtle criticism. I am not a mind reader, so I do not know that you mean you only partially agree with his edits when you say "SH is right." It's not devious- I was just very ready to believe that you actually think that adding dates is unacceptable as other seasoned editors here have done. I don't want to edit it again only to have you or someone else revert it, making it look like I'm continuing an edit war. That's the only reason I want to have this discussion with you. So what do you think of it? Is it whitewashing and overly critical to note the date of publication of the reviews that the statement is based on, or is it acceptable? Please elaborate if you think it's not acceptable.99.255.196.199 (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I suspect you are thinking of this edit. Looking at the section in question, it already starts with dating the AMA quote, so anymore than that isn't necessary. If the AMA had issued a newer statement with different conclusions, then we'd have to look at that new situation. Have you found anything newer from them, or even from any other medical society? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Looking into whether the AMA has issued a new statement has nothing to do with dating the reviews. I've already accepted that we are going to keep this outdated, nonspecific statement on the page simply because the AMA hasn't updated their statement yet. It does date the AMA quote, but the recently added statement by WLU notes that critical reviews concluded there is not enough evidence, etc. is not dated and is separate since it specifically comments on acupuncture. In this context, it is important to note the date of the critical reviews. As stated, newer evidence has come out that makes this statement outdated, but the folks around here would rather keep it in, which I accept- one cannot move mountains. Do you not think it would be less misleading to note the publication date of the reviews which the statement is based on? I think that is as equally important as dating the AMA statement itself considering the context where it is perfectly reasonable that one might think that the AMA actually updates their statements by looking at recent reviews. I'm trying to look at it from your POV and I really do not see why we shouldn't note the publication date of the reviews. I do not believe that adding the 20~ letters & numbers will clutter anything or negatively affect the page, but rather make it less misleading. Question again: do you see this as whitewashing or criticism that violates wiki guidelines? If so, what is your angle?99.255.196.199 (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC) IP guy here, just wondering if you have thought about the my question yet: Do you see noting publication dates of reviews as criticism or whitewashing?JohnCBE (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I have never considered it whitewashing. We do include publication dates in our references, but adding more is a form of adding editorial bias, and that's not allowed here. We present the sources and let readers decide for themselves. Adding editorial bias is a form of criticism that is not based in V & RS, IOW it is criticisms subtly introduced by editors. That's not proper. I'll copy your question and my answer on the talk pag. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Edit count Actually, that is my full edit count - I just changed username. Hopefully this will not lead to too many fireworks if I pull an RFA in the, oh, let us just say relatively near future. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Hi, if you do, drop me a dif for it please. You have my support! :) Hi BullRangifer, it's been awhile, hope you are well. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009 Opinion essay: White Barbarian Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Topics lists to outlines Yes, I guess I tried to go too fast. I've done larger moves, but those were in less traveled/watched areas of Wikipedia. Have you had a chance to look around the WP:OOK yet? You might also find the support pages at WP:WPOOK useful, as they explain outlines, etc. Any and all feedback is welcome. The Transhumanist 21:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC) My advice would be to stop immediately any and all work with such matters. Changing of titles and categories has far reaching consequences, and it should all be done following a consensus of the involved editors on the given article or topic. I don't know if English is your mother tongue, but some of the changes you have made create titles that don't sound very good in English. The original "lists" format is grammatically clearer, simpler, and unambiguous, even if it might be a couple words longer than your new format. It's going to be a miracle if you don't get blocked. What this all comes down to is consensus. That's how we work here. Everything should be done by consensus, not solo editing. Listen to the criticisms and don't continue, even if you don't agree with them. Right now you are giving your project a very bad name. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009 New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Hi Hi I liked your Simon Singh user box but was unable to access inside the page to copy it. What's the secret? The Rationalist (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC) (I think) I've placed the relevant code on your talk page. It's everything after the title and before -- Verbal chat 16:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009 From the editor: Perspectives from other projects Special story: Memorial and Collaboration Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more Dispatches: Sounds Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Civility Your civility regarding supporters of outlines is pretty bad. May I ask you to tone it down a little? It's not like we are enemies or anything, we're all on the same side! -- penubag  (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC) I'm irritated with The Transhumanist for his disrespect for other Wikipedians. He needs to listen and stop. He doesn't have to agree or even understand. He just has to recognize that he's irritated lots of people and needs to become more collaborative. His refusal to use consensus is a major slap in the face to the whole community, and if your project thinks that's OK, then it needs to be shut down. It is being watched more now, and endeavors to stop it will be made if it doesn't advocate abiding by consensus. Projects are not above policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC) WP:CIVIL is there for a reason no matter your excuse. Even if you're irritated you shouldn't make other people haywire as well, as that makes it all the worse for us and for you. Also note that the majority of us haven't done any of the moves and your negative comments hurt everyone. I'm not going to force you to, but just try see why we spent literally years of our free time to make outlines. We believe it contributes to the "sum of all human knowledge" or we wouldn't be doing so. and such attacks are detrimental to the moral of the contributors. Thanks for understanding -- penubag  (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC) I have nothing against outlines as a format. It's the anal obsession with using the word "outline" in titles that is the problem. It doesn't always sound good. Your project needs to distinguish between using outlines as a format and the practicalities of using titles that aren't simplistic and slavish uses of the word. That's about as foolish as the idea behind the doctrine of signatures, and in some ways is very similar. Common sense gets thrown out the window as an illogical and rigid thinking takes hold, preventing the consideration of other possibilities. None of this preclude using outlines as a format at all. There is one objection, and a potentially serious one, against outlines. They can easily be representations of editorial POV, whereas lists are often strictly alphabetical. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC) There isn't an anal obsession with the word. As stated by many others, the use of this term is common-practice among renowned works and daily use; users coming across a page titled "Outline of x" would know what to expect as they are already familiar with outlines. Again, I am not saying all lists should become outlines. There are lists that serve better unorganized where formatting topically would be inapplicable. -- penubag  (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC) BTW, what have I said that you consider to be incivil? Please provide a diff. I may be blunt, but I assume I'm talking to adults and not to children. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC) It's your tone when talking, it reads like you are shouting. Saying whether I deserve to be treated civilly is in question: [16] A big no-no infers that you're talking to a child, which wasn't necessary: [17] You tell transhumanist multiple times a block is way overdue, which is no way to speak to a user who is trying to help the project...and I believe it was you that said to AGF! Don't try and counter this argument, no matter your excuse, it wasn't necessary.-- penubag  (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for providing the diffs. I see what you mean and I apologize. With the first diff I did mean the collective "you", but that is not clear at all, so I did goof up there. My main beef is with TT, not you, and I was letting off my steam at him when talking to you. Sorry about that. The "no-no" is a common term that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with children. I'm pretty sure you're not a child, and my comment was to make it clear that plain speech can be tolerated by adults. They are usually more capable than children of understanding the nuances of language because of their greater experience. Children often take things very literally and understand what is said better than what is intended. Adults usually can sense the difference and don't get hung up on details. Of course adults who don't have English as their mother tongue should be excused in such situations. Anyway, I'm trying to tell you that I definitely wasn't trying to treat you or TT as children. Discussions about civility, the boundaries of civility, plain speech, bold speech, honesty, real discussion, etc., often deal with what is appropriate, what is tolerable, what is honest, what is truthful and blunt, what is abrupt, yet still allowable, etc.. I don't beat around the bush, that's all. I expressed my concerns and made it clear that TT was being disruptive. Don't be too sensitive or take it personally. It is TT my ire is directed at, and only secondarily toward those who aide and abet him. TT has been very rude in his behavior, even if his words may sound nice. He's been very disdainful of the concerns raised by his mass moves and renamings and has treated the community with an uncollaborative attitude that is unbecoming of a Wikipedian. I wish he'd have taken the high road, as I suggested to him, by apologizing and stopping his disruptive actions. Instead he kept on discussing, arguing, stonewalling, and repeating his actions, just on a slightly smaller scale. Instead he should have heeded the warnings and advice he was given by so many different editors and admins. Although I have seen some attempts by (probable) project members at damage control, any support he is given only makes him feel he's right and justified in ignoring the concerns that have been expressed about his failing to seek consensus. That's what it all comes down to. He feels that the project is above policy, and that he thus has the right to ignore all objections and continue to repeat very controversial actions. That's not wise and is a very blockable offense. The degree of disruption he has caused is worthy of a very long block. You mention TT as "...a user who is trying to help the project...". It could well be that he felt that way in the beginning, but after all the concerns that have been raised, he and his supporters should be very aware that he was helping his "outlines" project at the expense of the Wikipedia project. Anything that causes disruption is damaging to both projects. If the concept is good and right, then get a change of policy that is arrived at by a very large consensus before proceeding with such renamings and moves. If you all succeed in that, then I'll support you. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for apologizing and understanding your wrong doings. I can tell you mean it and forgive you. You mention that your ire is directed secondarily towards those who aide him. May I point out that we have not aided him, but are doing what we think is best for the encyclopedia (which is why we are here). We may have common interests and beliefs but that is very different. I do agree that TT's method was far from ideal but look at all the good work that resulted from the project. He may have moved a few pages (ok, a lot) but there were hundreds of outlines created during the process, all of which are extremely handy (I actually make use of them IRL every once in a while where I couldn't before). I understand his pain when he endures only words of complaint and no words of praise. Yes, TT should have gotten prior consensus, I admit, but it just started as a few bold page moves that didn't seem too controversial but in the end amassed to more and became that way. Transhumanist has stated on his talkpage that he will not be moving any more pages so it would be nice if we stopped criticizing individuals and opened a formal discussion on the naming of outlines, if that is what the opposing side would like to do. -- penubag  (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC) I think the proper way to do this would be to seek a change in the MoS, probably by discussion on the talk page and then using an RfC located there. By getting things approved at a policy level, a major obstacle will be removed. I could imagine that some approval might be achieved, but I doubt that permission for wholesale changes would happen, since there will be individual situations where using the word "outline" in the title just results in an odd or ambiguous title. I think that's the major objection, and that won't disappear, regardless of any policy change. Titles should remain flexible, being guided by common sense rather than a rigid rule. I like the idea of an outline format and think it's usually a good thing. I doubt that many would have objections to adopting that format as a more or less universal rule. Basically outlines and lists are duplications of categories, but in a different format. Our current policies allow such duplication because it can aid readers find things. Some people like categories, while others prefer lists or outlines. We're all different and policy allows such duplication in the interest of easing the process for different people. While categories are indispensable, I personally like lists or outlines, where all the links are on one searchable page. Categories can't be searched in the same way, and that makes them have a limited function when I'm searching for information. If all the links are on one page, I can use a Google search, or even better Google Toolbar, and find exactly what I want. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC) I agree titles should remain flexible and don't support every list be converted to outlines. Outlines are superior to alphabetical lists in most cases and support such lists be converted to outline format. I think seeking a change on the MoS page would also be the best course of action, but I heard there is already an RfC draft in progress that is going to have a full report on the conduct of the outline wikiproject users. This is the wrong venue to resolve this matter; the Rfc should happen on a policy page like the MoS and start on the right track, not a derailed one. -- penubag  (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC) My article History of this thread: A troll, likely a sock of some blocked or banned user, stole an unfinished (and thus at present inappropriate) article I have in my userspace and went public with it. Before doing so, they left a message on my talk page (below). Here are some relevant links: User_talk:BullRangifer#My_article - This section was started by the troll. Special:Contributions&target=Theirdelayvivid - The troll. Special:Contributions/Theirdelayvivid Alternative Medicine Critics - The article they started. User:BullRangifer/Alternative_medicine_critics - The original, unfinished, article. It needs work before it's ready for publication. User:Macromonkey - My prime suspect, but it could be anybody. Admin Vsmith took action. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Check out my article, you might like it. Theirdelayvivid (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC) The stolen article has been deleted. It isn't even finished and is inappropriate for "publication" at this time. It's a WP:POINT violation to do what you've done. Whose sock are you? -- Brangifer (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC) I think you will find that it has not been deleted. And take a wild guess Theirdelayvivid (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC) User:Macromonkey? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC) guess again :-) Theirdelayvivid (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC) No, this game needs to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Result: Sock indef blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC) After I think I've seen it all with vandals something like this shows up. Amazing, I'm glad you posted this here because I do a lot of vandal patrolling and it's just something else to make sure doesn't happen. Hope you are well, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC) It is indeed a bizarre case. It helps one to understand just how deserving of being blocked or banned some of these people are. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Johanna Brandt So why did you delete my cross-reference to the article denouncing "The Grape Cure" as quackery? John Paul Parks (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC) I didn't. I only moved it up to a more appropriate location [18]. Something weird did happen then... Somehow I accidently pushed the redirect edit button, which added the redirect code without my knowledge. I had to then delete that. Your edit is still there. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Okay, I see it, thanks. John Paul Parks (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009 News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Wikimedal WikiMedal for Janitorial Services The WikiMedal for Janitorial Services shall be awarded to User:BullRangifer for good janitorial work, shown by adding an appropriate and much-needed image to this article. Mootros (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Wow! Thanks. Much appreciated. I'll copy it to my subpage. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC) User talk:71.37.31.89 Re. the {{adminhelp}} posted on User talk:71.37.31.89 This type of request needs to go on the Administrator intervention against vandalism - so I removed it from that talk page, and pasted it there. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the explanation and for taking action. I wonder if a template could be designed that auomatically transcluded such requests to ANI? -- Brangifer (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Milgrom and the BCA Here is a thing that may interest you: http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/10/legal-scholarship-of-dr-lionel-milgrom.html Cheers, Verbal chat 17:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Indeed, and what a coincidence. I just read this about an hour ago: http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/has-lionel-milgrom-libelled-simon-singh/ -- Brangifer (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009 Interview: Interview with John Blossom News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Civility BullRangifer, you may want to review Wikipedia's policy on civility. You recent comment was uncivil - it certainly was not respectful or considerate. Remember that one way of avoiding incivility is to comment on the content, not the user. Regards, DigitalC (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Get him to stop lying about my comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC) ICA Hello, Valjean. You have new messages at Drsjpdc's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Drsjpdc (talk) Д-рСДжП,ДС 00:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Hello, Valjean. You have new messages at Drsjpdc's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Drsjpdc (talk) Д-рСДжП,ДС 18:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Hello, Valjean. You have new messages at Drsjpdc's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Drsjpdc (talk) Д-рСДжП,ДС 20:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC) You're right about that too! Any other ideas for that one? Perhaps you can re-think your position re my dad? The whole thing really stinks of yellow journalism and was obviously adversely affected by someone with a 40+ year old ax. - Д-рСДжП,ДС 20:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Right about what? That's a detached comment. As to your dad, you're right that you have a problem, but it was created by an (as far as Wikipedia policies goes) improvement of the article. The following of policies was what resulted in what you don't like. Promise me that you won't try to write anymore hagiographies! Also please fix your sig, or the way you use it, because it keeps sticking out all the way to the left margin. It should be at the end of your message, or at least flush with the left margin of YOUR message. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC) AS the the sig. It's only when I use that template. See the paragraph above. As the that article, its not improved; its just not overt libel anymore. It still fails to meet the policy regarding criminals, in that they have to have committed somethign "major" AND be notable for somethign else. Since I have conceded that his patent was NOT the first, he fails that test. PROMISE no more hagiographies! As I said a dozen times there, it was started with the best of intentions, but as a NEWBIE. I think you can tell, i have picked up a LOT since teh about Wiki Culture and rules.Д-рСДжП,ДС 21:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC) The sig issue is occurring quite often, and not just when using the template. I have corrected it many times now. As to the things you've been learning, yes, Wikipedia is complicated and there are lots of things to learn. We're all learning. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Just checking... But the Rehab Wikiproject seems dead. Is it still going?Abce2|This isnot a test 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC) It's true there isn't much happening at present, but there must be a need for it before it can get more active. Shortly after it started, and was harassed a lot, I posted this about other processes that might obviate the need for the project. As it is, the project does no harm and is waiting for a need. If those other processes don't serve the need, then the project may come in handy. Right now it serves as a place where one can seek interested parties, etc.. If a need still exists, then it can be developed and activated. There was one applicant, but nothing came of it. I'm not interested in forcing the project on the community. It was started as a service, and if the service is needed and someone applies for help they can't get elsewhere, then something might happen. Thanks for your interest. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Yep, the good old days. Well, thanks for telling me, Abce2|This isnot a test 20:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009 Article contest: Durova wins 2009 WikiCup Conference report: WikiSym features research on Wikipedia Election report: 2009 ArbCom elections report Audit Subcommittee: Inaugural Audit Subcommittee elections underway Dispatches: Wikipedia remembers the Wall News and notes: Strategic planning, November conference, brief news and milestones Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations WikiProject report: Project banner meta-templates Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Pharmanoia You're most welcome to expand the page as an essay, turn it into a mainspace article, or link to it freely for information and interest-gathering purposes. I was planning on bringing it to WP:MED's attention once it was in reasonable shape, but don't know when I'll be able to do so in the near future. Please, be bold, edit freely, share the link and add/correct as much as you want! It may be in my userspace for now but it will ultimately end up in general circulation and I'm pleased if people are sufficiently interested to help with it as is, where it is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Will do. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Denialism afd Hi, Thanks for your input, I hope that you will support your 'keep' vote with arguments from sources and policy. Unomi (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Annoying blocked person Sorry to be cryptic, it's a long-running oversightable issue. - David Gerard (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC) I AGF. Keep up the good work. It's just a shame that Wikipedia needs to be protected. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Cookies Hello, Valjean. You have new messages at Drsjpdc's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Drsjpdc (talk) Chiropratique BR, I thought I would ask your opinion of a way to research the following: In 1987 there was no word in the French language for our profession. Oh, they occasionally used "Chiropraxie", but mostly they used the English word "chiropractic". Shortly after I started FICS, I got a call from Dr.Jacques Bréton, whom I invited to sign the charter. Jacques was then President of the College of Chiropractic Sport Sciences (Canada). He told me they "couldn't join the organization", because I initially was calling it Fédération Internationale de Chiropractic Sportive, and there is a law in Canada against using Franglais. I had researched this prior to naming it. And was told by the then Presidents of the French, Belgian and Swiss Societies that they just use the English, "Chiropractic". So, we brainstormed, and I suggested the spelling "Chiropractique". He demurred, indicating that it was "still too Franglais". So I shot back, "how about chiropratique"? That was accepted, and this was the origin of the French neologism. It has since then become ubiquitous in French usage. I have a 1987 Larousse Dictionary, which does NOT have the word in it, and all subsequent french dictionaries do. Other than that, Jacques has passed away. Any thoughts as to how I can be appropriately credited for the invention? Obviously I can;t write this anyway, due to COI... I learned that lesson the hard way.Д-рСДжП,ДС 17:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Oh, I probably have the original charter with the Chiropractic spelling in it, and then the charter filed in NJ with the correction! Д-рСДжП,ДС 17:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Very interesting! I don't see any reason why you couldn't be the originator of the term, so we're left with two options: Documenting that you are the originator (and leaving it at that), and/or Attempting to get that into Wikipedia. The first will no doubt be easier than the second, but if there are enough secondary sources independent of yourself that establish the fact, it might be admissible if properly sourced and notable. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Ping Hi, you have email. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Re: admin help at User talk:59.95.199.105 Hi BullRangifer. Regarding your {{adminhelp}} request at the above IP's talk page, when an IP or user commits vandalism, warn them. Many types of warnings messages are at WP:UTM. Here, the common and generic series {{uw-vandalism1}} and escalating by number ({{uw-vandalism2}}, etc.) is appropriate. I have warned now. When the vandal continues vandalizing after a seriers of warnings, you can report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Normally a final warning should have been given, though we take the nature of the vandalism into account. In any event, IP addresses are not are not normally blocked indefinitely as "vandalism only" accounts are for users with accounts, because IP addresses get reassigned.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Hulda Regehr Clark‎ Thanks for helping out in the matter of her death. I'm concerned that it's a bit long for the lede, but at least we're avoiding the OR and NPOV problems. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Woo-woo Just a heads up that I've nominated woo-woo for deletion, as I'm not convinced we can expand it usefully from a simple dictionary definition. If you've got any thoughts on that, post them here. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Email In regards to your email, no problem. I try to help around here in ways that I think are worthwhile, and yet will keep me away from drama. Sometimes that line is thin ;) The drama has pushed me away before, and I'm hoping to stay away from it enough to not have to take another long break. DigitalC (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009 Fundraiser: Controversial "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser to start 10 November New pages experiment: Wikipedians test the water at new page patrol German controversy: German Wikipedia under fire from inclusionists Multimedia usability: Multimedia usability meeting concludes in Paris Election report: Arbitration Committee candidate nominations open 10 November Book review: Review of Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures: Cybercultures in Online Learning News and notes: Ant images, public outreach, and more In the news: Beefeater vandalism, interview, and more Sister projects: Meta-wiki interview Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Chiropractic is Quackery With all do respect, I think chiropractic is more accurately defined as quackery than as health care. It is a cult with no scientifically proven results. It instead relies upon the placebo effect and psychology for people to think it works. If you believe and want something to work badly enough, eventually you will believe it. I have a degree in the sciences, and have studied microbiology and immunology. Chiropractics believe that vaccines are dangerous and that fixing your spine fixes everything is negligent and a public health hazard. I had the most amazing girlfriend in the world until she started chiropractic school. She changed, it was like they were brainwashing her. Chiropractic is clearly a dangerous cult that must be stopped. It is my mission in life to inform the world of this, so know one unknowingly gets hurt by this quackery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.226.158 (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC) There is no need to start with "....all do(sic) respect". First, it's "all due respect", and we basically agree in many ways. My objection to your edit was as I stated. It violates polices here and is unconstructive. Wikipedia isn't the place to "spread the word". When discussing the subject, it often becomes necessary to state what you're stating, but only in the context of that subject matter. We have been over this ground countless times at Wikipedia, so you aren't adding anything to the discussion, or saying anything that hasn't been said. That information is already included in articles and thus your comment is only editorializing, and that's not allowed. If you will search the chiropractic article, you will find that a properly sourced statement is included which states that "abuse, fraud, and quackery, which are more prevalent in chiropractic than in other health care professions,...". In the Chiropractic controversy and criticism article you will find plenty of criticism. Don't overkill this matter or you'll get blocked. Wikipedia isn't a battleground or a place for you to force your opinion (with which I basically agree) into articles. Until you have gotten about 5,000 edits under your belt here, don't try anything more about this matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Controversial chiropractic Here's a quote from a reliable source to support a (properly qualified) claim that chiro is controversial: "There is no question that chiropractic has been, and continues to be more controversial than traditional medicine, although less so now than in the past." This is the lead sentence of: DeVocht JW (2006). "History and overview of theories and methods of chiropractic: a counterpoint". Clin Orthop Relat Res. 444: 243–9. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000203460.89887.8d. PMID 16523145. I couldn't offhand find a better one. Eubulides (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC) That is a response to an article by chiropractor Samuel Homola ("Chiropractic is one of the most controversial and poorly defined healthcare professions with recognition and licensure in the United States."). As a "letter to the editor", it probably wouldn't be considered a reliable source. Although it's an apologetically written response, it is also an admission from the chiropractic author that Homola is right on that point. Of course Homola's article is a RS and could be used. Together with other sources we could build a well-sourced paragraph which would deserve mention in the lead. That's the proper way to go about article writing. There are other RS that make the point, many of them chiropractic, and, while non-chiropractic RS can be used, if chiropractors make the same point, so much the better. Here's another one: Chiropractic: a profession at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine. Meeker WC, Haldeman S. "Chiropractic theory is still controversial, but recent expansion in federal support of chiropractic research bodes well for further scientific development. The medical establishment has not yet fully accepted chiropractic as a mainstream form of care." Meeker and Haldeman are correct about "theory". It is often the basic theories that are controversial, but of course the widespread quackery and unscientific claims are controversial, so the profession as a whole is still controversial. The paragraph about "controversiality" could use various sources which mention these various aspects, and then a generic use of the word "controversial" in the lead would be justified, without having to go into detail there. That would be overkill. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC) WCA in template BR - I placed the extra spaces to deliberately space the WCA from the legitimate International agencies. Maybe we need a line for "wannabe" governing bodies? Д-рСДжП,ДС 19:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Ah ha! I understand your thinking and can sympathize.....but we can't let our private editorial thoughts influence such things. Sticking to the alphabet is usually the simplest way to organize such things. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Historical Figures in Chiropractic BR - I think this should be split into two pages. One to remain under the present heading, Historical figures (deceased), and another for "Prominent Figures in the Chiropractic Profession". See [19]. I'm not sure of the correct procedure to do this. Do we start an AfD or can this be done another way?Д-рСДжП,ДС 21:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Articles can sometimes be split if necessary. Start with a discussion where you air the idea. If there is sufficient interest, an RfC on the talk page is a common way to search for a consensus to back up such a change. OTOH, one can get into problems doing that with living people, since their notability may not be established sufficiently well. Historical persons are easier to deal with without risking OR, since their real impact has already been established, and if they were notable, there will be abundant secondary and tertiary sources to prove it. Living persons are often documented using primary sources, and that is often problematic, but not necessarily forbidden. The way to establish notability in the Wikipedia sense is to create a biography on each person. If those bios survive, then they have passed the notability test and one doesn't have to constantly fight battles over that when one links to or mentions them. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC) PS - are you going to Columbia tomorrow? I'll be there.Д-рСДжП,ДС 21:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC) What's going on there? Post a link about it. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC) NY wikipedians chapter at Columbia Univ. 2:30PM later today. [20]Д-рСДжП,ДС 07:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC) As to the business about Dr. Dardik you removed. Then we need to remove nearly all the others too, and there will be no article. 80% of these entries are unsourced. Д-рСДжП,ДС 07:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC) That is basically correct, but read on. I assume you are referring to this edit of mine. You are basically correct. All unsourced material, especially of a controversial nature, should be removed. When it's about living people the WP:BLP policy applies and unsourced "negative" material "must" be removed "immediately". In this case, we're not dealing with sensitive information, so I added citation tags to most of the remaining ones. That gives a little time for editors to find refs, otherwise they can be deleted by anyone after a short time (from days to weeks). Those who have articles have proven their notability by Wikipedia standards and can remain, so I didn't tag them. Their articles should contain the proper references. If not, fix it fast or the article is also in danger. So the job to be done is to quickly create properly sourced articles for these people, or at least provide good secondary and/or tertiary references that document them as significant and notable persons who do/did what is claimed in the list/article. That should be done before the article can "go public". As long as it's in your userspace and not being found by search engines (it would need a tag to prevent that), there is no problem. Otherwise, unsourced material can be removed. I notice that I mistakenly placed a tag by Sid Williams (and it's defective!). He doesn't need a tag since the Life University article establishes his notability as its founder, and nothing more is being claimed that would need a reference. I'll remove it. He really should have his own article, and there we can document his notable contributions, both of a positive and negative nature. He's a very notable and controversial person. OTOH, as you have discovered with your father, sourced material, even of the most negative nature, is allowed to stay, so don't list anyone or start an article on anyone who has a dark past that you don't want publicized. It will surely be found and spread to the whole world. If it should be published, then write the article and source it meticulously. At Wikipedia, SOURCING IS EVERYTHING. Repeat that 100 times ;-) We are always supposed to be "behind the ball". We only document what has already occurred, usually using sources unrelated to the person involved, except in their own article, where some use of their own sources is allowed in a controlled manner, but most of the information should still come from other sources. That way we are not guilty of engaging in OR or SYNTH. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Hello, Valjean. You have new messages at Drsjpdc's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Drsjpdc (talk) The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009 Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser begins Bulgarian award: Bulgarian Wikipedia gets a prestigious award Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Several candidates standing News and notes: Kiswahili contest, new advisory board members, Foundation-l and more In the news: German lawsuit, Jimbo interview and more Sister projects: Wiktionary interview Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Bolognia push 2009 Would you consider making sure wikipedia has articles on every dermatologic condition. There are many new articles and redirects to be made, and we at WP:DERM are looking for more help! I can e-mail you the login information if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Another noticeboard idea Hello. I think that this might be a good idea,Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Need_for_WP:MEDRS.2FN_noticeboard I shall wait to hear views from other wiki med participants before commenting. I think that there should be a noticeboard for disruptive editors to cover WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT. There needs to be a board to discuss complex disruption. I dunno if you have had problems with disruptive editors before.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Trouble with them? Sure!.....but so far I think AN/I works pretty well. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Yea but not just myself, it just seems most of the major drama on wikipedia involves complex, often civil trolling and admin noticeboard is too large and admins make quick decisions due to its huge size that it is not equipped for looking at complex cases. AN/I is great for things like vandalism or "acute disruption", not complex under the radar chronic disruption; it can be especially difficult to find out who is lying and who is telling the truth. Anyway just a thought. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC) I agree. When a noticeboard tries to cover too much territory, it can easily get inefficient for specialized topics. If you've got a proposal, then describe the need and make the proposal. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC) BTW, you're welcome to comment at the discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC) I might make such a proposal next time I am dealing with a disruptive editor. :) I have commented on the notceboard. Sadly it looks like there is not enough enthusiasm for a MEDRS noticeboard.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC) SJP article spacing of footnotes? I appreciate your comments. I can usually take constructive criticism. However, I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to the spacing of references . I made sure to place a space before each reference as someone else told me this. Am I missing something? Can you give me an example of what you mean? Д-рСДжП,ДС 16:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Also, I do appreciate your expertise on this. Everything, and I mean everything written, is referenced with secondary sources or more. Could you find the time to edit the article in: [[21]] as you think appropriate, and let me comment? I have it backed up, both on and offline.Д-рСДжП,ДС 16:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Note my edits there and see what I've changed about the spacing around refs. Then remember it and keep doing it in the future. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009 Uploading tool: New tool for photo scavenger hunts Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Nominations closing November 24 Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser continues News and notes: Government stubs, Suriname exhibit, milestones and more In the news: The Decline of Wikipedia, and more Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Talk:Aspartame You've defended the reference discussed here, would you care to weigh in on its inclusion? (This is going to other users similarly involved as well). --King Öomie 21:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Taptotalk So are you saying that thisitem can be re listed in Wiki? Deben Dave (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean by "re listed". -- Brangifer (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009 Election report: ArbCom election begins December 1, using SecurePoll News and notes: 35k donated, WikiProject for Wikipedia-Books, 2M rated articles, and more In the news: Reports of Wikipedia's demise, prescriptions for its ills, and more Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Barnstar The Surreal Barnstar Great addition to the new essay Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of. Sebwite (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks! You've started a great essay, and it deserves more attention. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC) I was inspired to write this essay following what I have seen Tiger Woods go through for a seemingly minor incident just because he is famous. I have always felt bad for all celebrities whose common mistakes turn into tabloid smears. I feel bad for Tiger and so many others who must be publically put to shame, and it is worth this warning to spare others from that over what could be an irreversible decision. Sebwite (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC) I see you made another great addition to this essay. I find it really flattering to see so much interest in and contribution to an essay in its infancy. This is extremely unusual. Most essays, (and in fact, many articles), receive little or no contribution from anyone but the creator for at least several months following their creation, and many essays, after they are written, disappear into the world of orphanage, with little prospect of being read again. This is an issue I am currently trying to address. Sebwite (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC) I think you struck a nerve that is shared by other Wikipedians. Your concern is very legitimate, and if we can spare someone from needless problems, then all the better. Too many biographies exist here on people who aren't really all that notable, but by squeezing blood out of their pitifully few turnips, they end up with a biography. They may think it's good, but I suspect many end up regretting it. Biographies should be just that, and not autobiographies. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC) I think you should write more in the essay about your concerns and motivations for writing it. Others can add why they also feel it is important, since this is a jewel whose qualities will be viewed and noticed from different angles. I really mean that. This essay has qualities that are worth promoting. All editors, but especially newbies, need to understand these matters better. The essay needs to sell itself to skeptics who at first don't see its worth. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC) User talk:Canadaman1960 I put a {{unblock}} template there as, based on that discussion, I think there is a better than even chance that they can become a productive editor. On the other hand, BLP is pretty serious. Could you help me keep a weather eye and point out the ropes if needed? Also - re your email, that certainly looks like a viable article. I will see if I can hack something out if nobody gets to it before I find a break from all this admin business. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009 From the editors: 250th issue of the Signpost Editorial: A digital restoration Election report: ArbCom election in full swing Interview: Interview with David G. Post News and notes: Wikipedia's death report premature, fundraiser, usability, new CSD, noms, and more In the news: Ron Livingston sues vandal, disclosure of IP address ordered, brief headlines Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Speedy deletion declined: Acupressure mat Hello BullRangifer, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Acupressure mat - a page you tagged - because: not a valid criteria. Will PROD it. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  20:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) You are absolutely correct. Thanks for fixing that. I'll try to remember that tag. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Homeopathy analogy How's your Spanish? http://lh6.ggpht.com/_CWGYdx1rTnM/Sx2VIwnJnfI/AAAAAAAAAoA/ASne9q4TMJs/homeopatia.png I hope Dana Ullman doesn't see this, or he'll write a new book about it and post it all over the internet. PS: Merry Christmas! Cheers, Verbal chat 10:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Not quite good enough to really understand that. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Something like: "You just saw how a fuel molecule diluted in 500 liters of water can extinguish the fire effectively, yet you still insist that the theoretical basis of homeopathy is not valid?" Verbal chat 16:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the joke (and the translation!). Brunton (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Ping I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC) User:Quantummech You've added sockpuppet templates, but the account is not blocked. Is there an SPI, or is this just speculation? If there is no SPI, you shouldn't add the templates. Fences&Windows 23:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC) It has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roger13Zimmerman. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the heads-up on the SPI that you've requested. I'm still willing to AGF for the moment (but it does look rather Anatidaen), so I'll continue to try to explain to QM how he should be editing. At best, we'll have avoided biting a newbie; at worst, I'll be left with egg on my face. No harm, either way. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009 Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections News and notes: Mapping geotagged articles language, import sources enabled, and more Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Mass changes to block templates Hello. While I appreciate your boldness, I am undoing your good faith mass changes to all of the block templates. The current design -without an automatic section header- is as per the generally accepted format at WP:UTM and WP:UW. In the future, I might suggest discussing these sorts of changes on the talk page(s) and seeking consensus prior to making large changes to a dozen heavily used templates. Thank you, — Kralizec! (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Before you take such an action, let's discuss this. I made such a change and waited for a couple days. No one complained, so I proceeded. We constantly have the problem that these templates get added to existing threads and can lay there unnoticed. The heading makes them appear in the edit summary and the TOC. What's wrong with that? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC) All of these have been undone. I agree with Kralizec! that this should have been discussed first. If you want a header, add one when you use the template as there are cases where a header is not necessary or helpful. Thanks. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC) User talk:Drsjpdc I agree he is definitely trying to discredit medicine and promote chiropractics. Has not attempted to add much though.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009 Election report: ArbCom election result announced News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Speedy deletion declined: Mohd Fouzuddin Hello BullRangifer. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mohd Fouzuddin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Sacred Cow Looks like someone objects to criticism of Oprah. One reference you may have missed is Newsweek's article, at <http://www.newsweek.com/id/200025> I seem to recall Oprah once featuring ear candling on her show, in an approving though perhaps not entirely credulous manner, but can't find mention of it in a reliable source. - Nunh-huh 22:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC) I agree. Since certain aspects of the objections aren't totally off-track (I could have done it better if I'd taken the time), I'll do it better next time, and any help is welcome. I actually have the other articles open right now! (I usually edit with 10-15 windows open at a time). Here is the link to the Salon.com article: http://www.salon.com/news/environment/vital_signs/2009/05/15/oprah_winfrey_health/print.html and a research article it links to: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15167316 I'm sure there are plenty more RS of criticism out there. We just need to find and use them. When she started acting irresponsibly by promoting alternative medicine, and promoting those who do so, she opened herself up to lots of criticism from mainstream RS. I like Oprah, and she has done a lot of good in many ways, which makes it especially tragic that she's so uncritical in this area. Hopefully the criticism will get her to reform and think more carefully about how she uses here enormous influence. People, and especially children, die because of this, so it's not an innocent or neutral matter. The article, without the criticisms, is a hagiography, so they are important in balancing the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Agreed. Oprah says she's "just putting out information", but she needs to remember her duty to distinguish between information, misinformation, and disinformation. If I find an ear-candling ref, I'll let you know. - Nunh-huh 14:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009 News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news In the news: Criticism from climate change sceptic, decade in review Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Chief Neurologist cite BR- you redacted the title of my former partner, Prof. Dr. Anatoly Fedin, whose title was "Chief Neurologist, City of Moscow" (in Russian: Главный Невропатолог Город Москви). I must admit that until then I had never heard of such a position. But it turns out that each medical specialty had a Board of sorts which governed that specialty for the City. He was thus a VERY powerful person in Soviet medical circles. Somewhere I have a copy of his visiting card with that title on it. This guy's friends were the Minister of Health of the USSR, he knew Gorbachev personally, he was the head of the medical committee for their Afganistan Veteran's Association, etc., etc. . Д-рСДжП,ДС 20:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC) That may all be TRUE, but "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." (All emphasis original. Read our Verifiability policy.) The only reason I changed the wording was because the source that was listed said that. There was no source provided to back up your version, which may be TRUE, but was unsourced. If you have a better source, then please provide it. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Important Wine Project discussion needs input! Hello, the Wine Project is currently in the process of hammering out a proposed policy relating to Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics). As Wikipedia and its wine coverage continues to grow, the need for a clear, concise guideline on how Wikipedia's notability policies such as WP:CORP, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTE relate to wine articles has emerged. Please review the proposed policy and take part in the talk page discussion Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(wine_topics)#Ready_to_go_live.3F. All input and view points are welcomed. AgneCheese/Wine 21:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Quackwatch Thanks. The occasionally kudo is much appreciated. Nightscream (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC) You're welcome. That doesn't keep some editors from insisting on misinterpreting something or other I wrote there. I'm not sure how, but they've now done it. It seems like they just have to get a sly punch in against QW whenever they can. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC) January 2010 Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Racism [[22]] ?! Maybe you should read this... Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Ahh! I took your snide remarks about Iraqis as the cue. Maybe you didn't mean what you wrote? BTW, don't template the regulars. Even though I could pull rank on you in any other place, we don't do that here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I could give a crap less about templating a regular when you pull newbie stuff like that. Maybe you thought being a regular exempted you from assuming good faith?04:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I only have what you write to go on, and now your attitude reveals that your feelings are getting tied in a knot. Is this really that important to you? Why? It's just a picture. Nearly every section in that article has one, and this particular section is much larger than many with an image. The image was removed wihout consensus. See my comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Try not being narrow-minded about things. My main concern is that there was no consensus on the removal or input to begin with. I personally think it shouldn't be in the article. It's off topic in that one. Now the picture was not related to him other then the fact that it happened during his presidency, this is why I used the example of George Bush and the Iraqis. This article is about FDR not the interment camps, the picture of some random Japanese American just really hits me as off topic. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Take a look through the article. Just like every other article with images, the image is relevant to the adjacent section, not directly to the topic of the article. In this case it is quite relevant to that section. Everything you've said so far sounds like you haven't even looked at the context. It's the section, not the article as a whole. Your reasoning would remove lots of images that are also relevant to the sections they are with. As an aside, my family was interned by the Japanese in Santo Tomas and Los Baños for three years. I know something about internment camps from what they told me. I was born after the war. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I do understand the context of the article at that point. I just do not understand how a random Japanese woman is on topic with FDR's biography. I<HO it should be included in a article about his presidency or main article on Japanese interment camps. It strikes me as off topic is all. Sorry if we disagree. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Regarding you comments on the Fringe talk page... In response to Simonm223, you said: I apologize if my comments gave the impression that skeptics were fringy types. Not at all. It is the theory itself that's considered a fringe theory. Many reasonable people believe it, in fact some are extremely intelligent and very well-articulated. I meant no aspersions on the skeptics as persons. I just believe they shouldn't feel threatened. You seem to have a healthy skepticism, and that's a good thing. It is Christians, OTOH, who have a lot invested in whether Christ existed or not. They are the ones who would become unglued if their beliefs were shown to be false. They are the ones who have something very fundamental to lose. Skeptics have nothing to lose, so they shouldn't get emotionally entangled in the subject, and yet some of them do. I suspect some of them might be former Christians who realize that if their skepticism is wrong, they are lost. I could well be wrong, but I suspect that in some cases that's why they react so strongly. It's just my opinion, so it really has no weight in the grand scheme of things. I think you are wrong regarding Christians, when you say: "They are the ones who have something very fundamental to lose." The fact of the matter is that everyone is invested in their own particular world view, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Atheism, or whatever. And when that investment is heavy, everyone is prone to become "unglued" if their beliefs are shown to be false. Those with weakly held, or vague, world views are not as susceptible to emotional outbursts when their world view is overturned. You said, "...but I suspect that in some cases that's why they react so strongly". That is certainly true. However, I'm fully convinced that some people want to believe that JC never existed because they don't want to make a decision about his various claims ("I am the way, the truth, and the life...etc., etc., etc."). Since this is all POV, I decided to post it here rather than on the talk page. I hope you don't mind. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I don't mind at all, and I think it's wise to discuss it here. I'm a preacher's kid with a strong theological background. Everyone in college wondered why I wasn't a theology major, since I knew a bit of Hebrew and Greek, was self-taught in many ways, and could discuss practically any theological subject, as well as non-religious ones. My main point was what you describe, that some atheists and other skeptics are pretty much "religious" in their skepticism, and that they needn't be so. If they are secure, they'll react more calmly, but if they are basically insecure, they come unglued and react very emotionally, which can make such discussions very unpleasant. You're very right that this definitely doesn't apply only to religion. What is the saying about "never to discuss religion or politics"? There is often a lot of truth to that. OTOH, if one can discuss such subjects with someone comfortably, there may well be a good foundation for a lasting friendship. Thanks for dropping by. You're welcome here any time you want. Well, I'll get on with cleaning up my iTunes library. Right now my headphones are blasting Huey Lewis and the News, "The Power of Love", a great song! -- Brangifer (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010 News and notes: Fundraiser ends, content contests, image donation, and more In the news: Financial Times, death rumors, Google maps and more Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia email In regards to your email, I will look into it. I can't say I'm familiar with the award, or if there are reliable sources that can be used to verify the information. DigitalC (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC) After looking into it, I was able to find WHO makes the list, and how they determine who is included. Personally, i think the points system they use is flawed, but that is besides the point. If someone has access to the primary source that lists him, then yes, that primary source could be used. From my web searches, there are no secondary sources that can be used to verify this fact. I do not have access to the primary source.link DigitalC (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010 From the editor: Call for writers 2009 in review: 2009 in Review Books: New Book namespace created News and notes: Wikimania 2011, Flaggedrevs, Global sysops and more In the news: Wikipedia in British schools, Hitler's Downfall meme, and more Features and admins: Approved this week Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC) I have taken YOU to ANI Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. for slander. Д-рСДжП,ДС 04:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Wow what a civil message.....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Your Comment on ANI I don't know if I removed the comment right after you, but if it was me, I apoligize. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Those kinds of things can happen, especially when there are edit conflicts. No problemo. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC) SPI case Feel free to comment here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Check your e-mail. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC) DigitalC I disagree with you about DigitalC in relation to the Stephen J. Press article. Press included a section that he was the founder of FICS in the article. When I read the references, they carefully did not call him the founder, merely noting his idea was an impetus for starting the organization, and that the organization was started at a meeting of chiropractors in Europe. Also the FICS website does not list him as the founder. I pulled the information from the article based on this. To counter my pulling that I was shown a picture of an article in a paper from almost 20 years ago listing him as the founder. But this article cannot be found on the source's website, only in this picture, while other articles from the news page in the photograph are searchable. DigitalC will listen to nothing that contradicts Press's assertion. He is aggressive and starts out by attacking anyone who disagrees with Press's self promotion. This is no friend to chiropractors and anyone on wikipedia. And, by the way, I'm pro-chiropractor. I would like to see good articles about chiropractors, but as long as we're just fighting about Press's right to self promote, with the help of DigitalC, writing about chiropractors is not going to happen. Press's article helped me find a major omission on wikipedia: team physicians, a number of whom are chiropractors, something I have excellent and reliable resources on, and a high interest in. Please inform DigitalC of this thread if you get a moment. Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 18:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC) You're talking about one specific issue, but my comments were about the general tendency of his edits and dealings with Press. As to that issue, I tend to side with Press and DigitalC. That doesn't mean I approve of Press's self-promotion. Since this particular issue is in a deadlock, I think the best solution is to take the next step in DR. Since it's a RS discussion, it should happen at the RS/N. Take it there and get a decision from others. In the mean time I'm going to cast my vote in the ban proposal for Press. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you for notifying me of this discussion. The founder issue has been discussed elsewhere, and doesn't need to be discussed here. However, Brangifer is likely right that we should probably take dispute resolution further to try to come to some sense of consensus. We have already been to WP:RSN, and IP69 seems to be ignoring the outside opinion that came of that. I deny the allegation that I will listen to "nothing" that contradicts Press's assertion. All I ask for is a reliable source that actually contradicts the fact that Press was the founder (that is, a source that states that he was not the founder). As for aggressiveness, I refer you to WP:POT. I have tried to be as civil as possible with you, while you have misrepresented my comments several times, called me a meatpuppet of User:Drsjpdc multiple times, as well as accusing me of having a COI towards Press - which has no basis in reality. Thankfully, your focus seems to have shifted away from me, but I do not find you to be a civil editor. As for Press's self-promotion, I don't find that I have helped him in that regard. I refused to take his biography article into mainspace, editted the article in his userspace to try to make it more aligned with WP's policies and MOS. For his other articles, I started International Federation of Sports Chiropractic from scratch after his was deleted - based only on sources I found, and not based on the old article. I still have a draft in my userspace as well as my working process of collecting the sources and their relevant content. I have performed some cleanup on his other articles, such as Howard Press and Tom Hyde, but I don't believe that I have contributed to any form of "self promotion". I guess the only thing that could be considered contributing to his "self-promotion" is that I believe that he is notable, and accept a place for his biography on Wikipedia. I can't be alone in that regard though. DigitalC (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for replying to IP. Before we close this thread (not much point in continuing the debate here), please leave me a link to the RS/N discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_52#Advice_request DigitalC (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC) You're right, there is not much reason continuing the debate here, or arguing it endlessly on the talk page. I have decided to follow your advice to pursue dispute resolution, and have opened a RfC at Talk:Stephen J. Press. Hopefully that will allow this issue to be resolved. Thanks again, DigitalC (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC) SPI Can you change/delete your comments at the SPI to just this: "He has also made very poorly disguised legal threats and supports the active efforts of another indef banned user who is actually proceeding with attempts to sue Wikimedia. The legal dept. knows of these legal threats and is in contact with that user, but this last stuff isn't your concern. I'm just relating this to show the gravity of the situation." It's just too much information, and it's too confusing, and it's started up a conversation. Bongomatic has summarized, but the checkuser is going to be stopped dead in its tracks with too much information for the actual person who does the CU to follow. Add name of indef banned user, also. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 19:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC) I'll take a look at it. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010 News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Wikipedia's birthday and more In the news: Wikipedia on the road, and more WikiProject report: Where are they now? Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC) That made my day Seeing the sock template in my user page's history gave me a good chuckle. :-) Come to think of it our* editing behavior is similarly passionate, isn't it? (* - 'Our' is simply a three-letter abbreviation of "my and Shannon's", and does not in any way imply that we are related, IP-sharing, twins separated at birth and psychically linked, or some other randomly generated coincidence.) --112.203.97.53 (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Yes. Sorry about that. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Unblock Hi, I've recently become unblocked, and I wish to start off my second chance with an apology. I am sorry for any attacks I made against you, I hope that we can work together to make Wikipedia a better site in the future. Macromonkey (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC) It's a deal. I believe in giving people a second chance when they show evidence that they'll reform. Good luck, and if you ever need any help or a second opinion, drop me a note here. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Qigong Regarding this query, the duplicate is in the second paragraph of the psychosis section, beginning "Also known as". Greenman (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Great! Thanks for finding that. I had searched the page for a key phrase and not found it, but apparently the "duplicate" is still there, but with some slightly different wording. Problem solved. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010 BLP madness: BLP deletions cause uproar Births and deaths: Wikipedia biographies in the 20th century News and notes: Biographies galore, Wikinews competition, and more In the news: Wikipedia the disruptor? WikiProject report: Writers wanted! The Wikiproject Novels interviews Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)