This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Valjean. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks
Hi,
Thanks for your comment on my talkpage. It's a pretty obscure topic that's besieged by sockpuppets and POV-pushers, so I can understand why many editors give it a wide berth! Anyway, thanks again. How's it going with pseudoscience? I haven't paid enough attention to that lately - need a hand with anything? bobrayner (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, the latest news is that a newbie pusher of fringe POV has pretty much launched a full out attack. Read my latest comment here (diff) and then follow their contribution history. They have started fires many places. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I have another concern in regards this same newbee. I general noted but didn't realise that Orrerysky has just created his sandbox document into a new article Plasma-Redshift Cosmology. There should be concern the he is building a case against this Plasma cosmology page by stealth, by nailing each of these alternative theories as validation this one. Is this not just avoiding this one per day edit ban on plasma cosmology? There is significant problems, because, like plasma cosmology, the so-called Wolf effect is another unmentioned subject by supporters of plasma cosmology, which is rejected by astronomers and cosmologists. In not understanding exactly if this current move is OK, and can you suggest what I should do if it is required to voice my concerns? Cheers. Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I am grateful for the people like you on Wikipedia who volunteer their time to remove vandalism. I also find that you sensibly direct users who do not understand Wikipedia policies to correct their practices. Thank you for doing what you do. You are a big support to what I do and to what so many others do. Blue Rasberry (talk)16:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello BullRangifer. FYI, that particular paragraph of Political activities of the Koch brothers has had several reverts. The version restored is the earliest (and, IMO, worst). A BRD was started and the particular source is under discussion. I request you do a self-revert. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. Has anyone warned Arzel for tendentious editing (outright aggressive whitewashing)? IIRC (I rarely edit that article), he has aggressively removed this content before without good reason, other than his own political POV, rather than following the sources, which directly relate that content to the subject of the article. In fact, why hasn't Arzel been topic banned yet? This is a pattern over several articles. Expert wikilawyering, all designed to whitewash Tea Party and Koch brothers type articles.
When did this particular round start? The material was removed and a BRD was opened. I've given my two bits. But we do not have consensus. (Is it "aggressive whitewashing"? At present, I don't think so. The sources dance around whether the Kochs are directly supporting this-or-that. It seems to me the Kochs support different lobbying groups that in turn support different causes.) Thanks for considering my request. I look forward to seeing your input in the BRD (tomorrow). – S. Rich (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of any BRD. I just noticed the edit on my watchlist and reverted, with a proper, although untruthful, edit summary. (Twinkle only gives the options of "good faith" or "vandalism", and we know that Arzel's edit was neither good faith nor vandalism.) I had no intention of dropping into the middle of some edit war. I have nearly 9,000 articles, plus just as many talk pages, on my watchlist now, so I don't notice everything.
Like I said, I don't edit there very often because either Arzel owns it, or Arthur Rubin owns it, or they both own it in tandem, so it's hopeless to get even well-sourced criticism in the article, even though it is abundant. Arzel is definitely the most aggressive, while Arthur, as an admin, is more careful. This has been going on for month after month. I think this same content has been deleted by Arzel several times some time ago, so this is his version of slow edit warring. According to them the Koch brothers must be the most holy angels in Heaven, and no one has ever criticized them in any RS!
I don't really care one way or the other, because I'm quite good at WP:Writing for the opponent. What counts is what we find in RS, and we know the Koch brothers have been criticized a lot in many RS, including by Jane Mayer, an extremely experienced and highly awarded journalist and author. Arzel has also fought to keep her big report about the Koch brothers activities out of the article, even though it was from The New Yorker, a RS. If that isn't POV politically inspired whitewashing and very unwikipedian activity, I don't know what is. It certainly deserves a topic ban, because he literally owns the article to such a degree it drives other editors away. I see that Mayer's article does receive some coverage now, but it wasn't with Arzel's help.
What about when Wikipedia caught a PR agency hired by the Koch brothers to use many sock puppets to edit content here? We caught them redhanded, banned a bunch of them, and that was described in RS, but that isn't even mentioned in the article. Strange....NOT...with Arzel there. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
If you are going to bitch about me I prefer you do it to my face. If you think I am behind some pro-Koch conspirosy than I suggest you take it up in the appropriate place. It is a little tiring to see the same crowd consistently using WP to attack their percieved enemies without regard for basic WP policies. Good job! Arzel (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see it as a conspiracy, but as a personal failure as an editor to abide by NPOV, which requires the documentation of relevant and opposing POV. That is the most basic and important WP policy which you are violating. In this case, the views of critics are very directly relevant to the subject. By constantly fighting to keep them out of articles you are whitewashing the subject and violating NPOV. Follow the sources, not your own personal political bent. You may not like the content, but it is your duty as a wikipedian to ensure its inclusion and help to frame the content so as to reflect the true intent of the authors. Maybe you need to read WP:Writing for the opponent. Whether there were a conspiracy to do what you consistently do or not, you certainly do it as well or better than anyone paid to do it. The end effect on Wikipedia is the same, and that's not good.
Topic banned?! Well, that makes sense, but Arzel is certainly more deserving. They both have exerted very strong control and censorship on right wing, Tea Party, and Koch associated articles. I really think that Wikipedia's no censorship policy needs to be explicitly expanded to cover whitewashing as a form of censorship exercised by editors to keep opposing POV from being documented. It happens all the time and it's very unwikipedian. Otherwise I have always had a lot of respect for Arthur as a fellow skeptic. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia can't afford to scare off anyone with expertise, so the goal here is to encourage him to edit where he brings value, not bias. Still, there's a strong bias on the drama pages towards supporting whitewashing and other forms of censorship, perhaps as a backlash against embarrassments of the past. If something is attributed to a reliable source, we should feel free to include it. MilesMoney (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Your last sentence is spot on. Our job is to fulfill Wikipedia's mission, which is to document the sum total of human knowledge, and that includes opinions and controversies. That necessarily means including POV we may find abhorrent, but some editors fail big in this regard. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Gotta agree with you there. I think some editors are working under the impression that WP:NPOV means every source is neutral. It doesn't. It just means that the article includes statements from non-neutral sources in a balanced way, so that the end result is neutral. The related error comes from thinking a neutral result is one which doesn't make the subject look good or bad. In reality, neutrality on our part is not supposed to undermine the non-neutrality of reality. Or, to Godwin myself, it's really not our fault if Hitler's biography makes him look like a bad man, and it's not our job to try to correct that by removing "biased" sourced. MilesMoney (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Like, except the "balanced ..., so that the end result is neutral." NPOV doesn't refer to that kind of balance or neutrality (and the rest of your comment makes that clear!). We just keep neutral and let the chips fall where they may, and in the case of Hitler the picture ain't pretty !! I think the policy which applies to seeking some form of balance, of the type you mention, is WP:UNDUE. If there are opposing POV, we try to let each get the coverage they are getting in the real world, without allowing the article to become either a hit piece or a hagiographic sales brochure. The end result may still have a preponderance of one or the other type of POV. So be it. Those who are offended by that will always complain, and their complaints carry zero weight. The main point of NPOV is that editors stay neutral, and thus it has little to nothing to do with the POV of sources or the content of articles. Other policies seek to deal with that in some manner.
Censorship in the real world isn't just about images or pornography, but often about suppression of political POV (think China, North Korea, USA, and Iran), and that's the type we are seeing here. It's extremely unwikipedian and undemocratic. In this instance it is an extension of the Koch brothers' well known fetish for secrecy, in which they use shadow groups and dark money to carry out their political activities. Since Fox News is on their side, mainstream coverage is limited, because they are successful at hiding and manipulating any coverage of their activities. Therefore any reliable sources from the opposing side (usually activists) are fair game (per WP:PARITY) and should be used here. (Why PARITY? Because when mainstream sources fail to deal with a subject, we must use other sources. The same thing which applies to pseudoscience applies here.) If we don't do this, their abuses extend to Wikipedia, and their real world political activities, much of which they seek to hide, are not covered at all. Arzel and others continually harp about our need to cover their charitable activities, but we already mention that and their charity balls and support of the arts. It's minimal and mostly directed at things which benefit other wealthy. Big deal. Their political activities do exist and need coverage. They learned long ago that democracy (one vote per man) does not work in their favor, so they are all about using their money to subvert it, and some editors wittingly or unwittingly aid them. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out the obvious fact I wasn't the one who brought this to AN/I. Someone else did.[3] I was simply responding as AN/I is on my watchlist. I'm not sure why you would want to warn uninvolved editors for participating in discussions at AN/I. Generally speaking, Wikipedia values the opinions of uninvolved editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Crap! You're right. I was editing the section which you started and it went from there. That was actually a subsection. I'll refactor. Sorry about that.
I still think that the demand for a "topic ban from all BLP content" is too far-reaching, given that he was making a direct quote that turned out to be accurate. This matter could have been settled much more nicely, but we have a likely blocking evading sock pushing this, and you just happened to jump on that bandwagon. (You may well have other reasons for teaching MilesMoney some lessons, and I agree that there seem to be some issues. I did give him a chiding there, and he seemed to take it well.)-- Brangifer (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
? I've said this to his face before. It's not new, or news to anyone who's been dealing with him. How do you think I should reword it? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
I have only restored to the default position when you and A1candidate have violated BRD after clear warnings to not edit war and to only discuss. I won't continue to revert, but you won't get away with trying to force such changes. You must stop edit warring and stick to discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
ANI is probably the best place for what you posted to ANEW, as no one is really going to pay much attention to a closed discussion, and normally only Admins read that page anyway. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Reddit, AM
Like you, I do not want to enlarge the "Reddit, AM" discussion[4], but may I comment here on your 08:03, 23 December 2013 comment, with which I broadly concur, especially "we resort to describing several types of definitions in the sections mentioned above (so the Reddittor is wrong), and use a defining watershed difference between AM and mainstream medicine as a suitable introduction to the subject"? You seem to regard the watershed to be what is quoted in the final sentence; "that which has not been proven to work, and that which has been proven not to work." For many that is or seems to be the crux. But to the unconverted or unconvinced it begs certain fundamental questions (about philosophic doubt, proof in general, proof in science, or in "medical science" and mainstream practise and so on). So let me mention explicitly what you may have seen in the course of earlier discussion: I believe the wording "not based on evidence gathered using the scientific method...(and) using alternative medical diagnoses" is better suited to the article because it is what AM practitioners themselves (unarguably?) profess. The next step for those who reject such AM is to point out that AM "has not been proven to work (or) proven not to work." My feeling is that to take this latter as the crux for others (and may be for oneself) is inconclusive and leaves the matter open to further argument. As it happens I had never heard of Reddit before, and see your critique as wholly justified. Qexigator (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The two quotes I threw in at the end of my comment are not intended for the article. They are from Tim Minchin's brilliant beat poem "Storm". Previously those quotes were in the article, but for some reason were removed, even though he is a notable skeptic whose views are widely cited. They are parallels to our introductory statement, in that they also address the question of evidence as the watershed difference between AM and mainstream medicine. Obviously even that doesn't totally cover it, as other definitions are needed to adequately describe AM. It's so diffuse that it's impossible for one definition to do the job. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and the paragraph on Dawkins comes close to the quotes. Comedians or poets may not be RS but can certainly be effective communicators. So Minchin gives Wikipedia a mention (unless I misheard that). Qexigator (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you heard right. He talks pretty fast, but he did mention Wikipedia in a nice sort of way, that essentially said that if someone can't even take the time to get basic information by using Wikipedia, they are pretty uninformed. That beat poem isn't just funny, but very carefully written. He's a wordsmith. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Brangifer, happy holidays to you! Any thoughts on this comment, and preceding couple comments? It looks like Quackguru is trying to gut GERAC (with typically obtuse arguments like "too technical" and "coatrack") because he's misreading it as a pro-acu result. In fact it showed verum acu = sham. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course I know who Morten Frost is. Saw him play in person twice. At the the Canadian Open in the fall of 1980 when he was just coming into his own as one of the world's top few players, and at the Singapore Open in 1990 when he was a few years past his peak. At either time he could have beaten me by whatever score he chose. Great footwork. A few years ago he spent a day or two as a guest coach at the club I was long a member of in Wellesley, Massachusetts, but that was a couple of years after (in my late 50's) I had stopped playing. As for Denmark, my wife and I spent four days in Copenhagen just this past spring at the end of a cruise. We enjoyed it very much though not, perhaps, the city's idea of budget hotel accommodations. Reminded me of the nights I spent in the New Haven YMCA while playing in the Connecticut Open badminton tournament. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
That's pretty cool! For someone interested in badminton and its history, that must be a great experience. I have lived several places in Denmark, including northern Copenhagen. Unfortunately my badminton skills are strictly child's play, but it's a fun sport. The Danes tend to do lots of indoor sports, likely because of the unstable weather. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember hearing they were also very good at team handball which is played indoors. For a nation with a smaller population than the state of Massachusetts the Danes have really done remarkably well in badminton, producing a number of the sport's "all-time" greats. Impressive considering how popular badminton is in the Far East, particularly Indonesia, Malaysia, China, and South Korea. Unfortunately they've never quite captured the Thomas Cup, the international world team championship which is still something of the Holy Grail for countries where the sport is popular. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
As an American, team handball was a new sport to me. I had to get used to it, but it's a very exciting, fast paced sport, somewhat like basketball. It has that same intense, non-stop, dynamic, with lots of goals, trick, and team tactics, unlike soccer. Here are a couple videos: Anja Andersen with her tricks and from the finale of the Olympics, when Denmark met their match in a very strong South Korean team. They could just as well have lost, but they won: Denmark & Korea Battle For Olympic Handball Gold - Athens 2004 Olympics. Denmark won Europe, World, and Olympics. Can't do better than that! -- Brangifer (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Biased Sources
Your insistence on using biased sources only show just how biased you are. By your logic that article should be full of MMfA crap because all they do is criticize Fox News. By your logic I should go use Newsbusters (the ideological opposite) and put a bunch of crap onto articles that they criticize. I don't because I am not an ideological warrior. I believe in NPOV and use of Reliable Sources. I suggest you do the same. As a side note, there is nothing to suggest that their study is notable, it certainly didn't get any notable press, thus it is also a violation of WP:WEIGHTArzel (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I opened up an ANI regarding this issue. It is not directed at you, but since you are mentioned I thought I would notify you. Arzel (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I have had this on the back burner for a while, but have decided to go public now. There are many more sources below which can be used. They all mention "Charlotte's Web". To comply with WP:MEDRS, no direct medical claims are made, only documentation that such claims are made. Although the focus is on the CW strain, Charlotte Figi, the Stanley brothers, Sanjay Gupta, and CNN, are directly incidental to the story and must be mentioned. Other subjects that are relevant are how CW has spurred marijuana exiles. Other children than Charlotte Figi are potential subjects. I'm sure there are many other possibilities for article development.
You've presented helpful arguments on both sides of the issue. On the whole, your remarks seem to indicate you favor the move but you haven't actually weighed in officially with a !vote. Are you still trying to consider the evidence and come to a decision? Don't mean to pry. Just curious. Fwiw, I thought a lot of your remarks were very good. Regards, Msnicki (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow! Weeping big time. That's one big mass of unsourced OR, and many violations of MEDRS and NPOV. The focus of that is totally different from the focus at Charlotte's Web (cannabis) (CW). I'm not even sure there is any of that which I could use. (Keep it anyway.) It would become a huge coatrack for cannabidiol, and that is not my intention. My content comes only from sources which mention Charlotte's Web, and where their other comments are made in the context of CW. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep, that article is gone (I save a copy in my userspace as an example of why the education program is a problem :) The prob is, Bull, you're really talking about one show, but readers will see advocacy for cannabidiol treatment of epilepsy. There's a problem, still. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
BR, I'm not ignoring your article talk posts-- got halfway through my morning work and realized I had forgotten an appointment, so dashed out, researched from my phone while in waiting room, came back to update article to newer sources, and will respond to your posts after evening activities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest BR! Also, I mentioned you at the edit-warring noticeboard - called you a "critic of chiropractic" - please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken there.Puhlaa (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
You are more correct than you may have realized. You are correct in restoring the consensus version. Just be careful about getting close to 4rr. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback BR; I definitely need to pay better attention to # of reverts in future. Best regards, Puhlaa (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I have already been put in a negative spotlight at 3RR and have agreed to cease with reverts until discussion is complete at the talk page. As such, I don't know how to deal with QG and his/her decision to disregard everything that has been said at the talk page and still remove the "profession" from the lede at chiropractic with this edit. Subsequent edits have now hidden QGs edit, but I noticed that while Bobraynor has reverted a pro-chiropractic edit, he did not bother to also revert QG for their anti-chiropractic edit. Any advice on how to effectively battle with behaviour like this? I clearly cannot revert QG; there is no pattern of edit-warring from QG yet for this specific issue that I can use to report him/her at ANI; there is a growing # of these editors that are clearly displaying a POV that they want expressed in the lede; and many rational/reasonable/helpful editors avoid such a controversial article. Advice is welcome! Puhlaa (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Please, really this is not appreciated or productive. It is becoming a distraction and a disruption. I'd like an apology and public retraction and a truce. This is becoming an argument that is not good for the community. I'm not especially good with intricate guidelines, policies, and nuances of administrative or bureaucratic process editing. I am good with facts and details. What exactly is your concern with my sourcing? I don't not care to edit about the stupid beliefs. I do wish to edit about how the topic is defined. Public psyche etc. kernel of truth. nothing more. There has to be some common consensus here between skeptics. I see we do have some common interests. ThanksJohnvr4 (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I can tell that you are obviously upset, but your language is too convoluted and filled with spelling and grammatical errors (especially at the article's talk page) for me to understand all of it. What is your mother tongue? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
English, but I can barely type. Dude, I asked for a truce but the responses you've provided have not really calmed me much. Your questions indicate you couldn't ID a reliable source if it was handed right too you (it was). You had a chance to respond and back up your offensive and unfounded comment about me with even one specific example or back down. Instead you pressed on, and I have to call you out.Johnvr4 (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
That was a really bad idea. I suggest that you apologize immediately, and review WP:NPA. Regardless of what you think of another editor's edits, name-calling (a personal attack) won't go well. -- Scray (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Johnvr4, a difference of opinion is a totally different matter than a lie. Even an untruth is not the same as a lie. It's a matter of motive. For you to violate NPA to such a degree doesn't help your case at all. I have lots of things on my plate in real life, so don't interpret a lack of response in ANY manner at all. Sometimes, when editors get as unreasonable as you are, I just walk away. It's not worth it.
I rarely ban anyone from my talk page, but I'm going to do that to you. Don't post here again. People who are as aggressive and unreasonable as you are not welcome here. Use the article's talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
From UK, I would like to know whether or not Obamacare covers anything which is within the term Alternative medicine as used in that article, and my first point of reference would be Wikipedia, but I have seen nothing there. A websearch has not been helpful. May be I have missed something. Is there any citable source you know of? Qexigator (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks- it seems that particular groups such as chiropractors are informing themselves and others about their position. If US editors are not wishing to add something in the articles, others had best leave it alone, without comment. It occurred to me that it could have a bearing on the persistence of the "definition" question (Reddit etc), which continues to lack useful input when invited. Qexigator (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
why won't you let anything positive be said in the Jenny McCarthy article?
When a journalist as eminent as Barbara Walters showers Jenny McCarthy with praise, that's note worthy yet it seems the pro-vaccine advocacy groups are monitoring this article, making sure nothing positive gets reported because they want her to be a pariah. I'm as pro-vaccine as anyone, but I don't like wikipedia being used for smear campaigns and this kind of POV pushing and bullying. Wikipedia must meet the highest standards of journalistic integrity and that means giving equal weight to all notable content, not cherry picking to push an agenda. Historyhorror (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
(1) AGF; (2) There are other reasons for why that content has been rejected in its current format. I have my reasons, but I don't know the reasons of the others who have reverted this. Please take this to the article's talk page and discuss it there. I would advise that you not start with an accusatory tone which violates the AGF and NPA policies. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for sounding accusatory, I just assumed from your long edit history as an opponent of alternative medicine, you were some kind of advocacy type. But since you're actually an objective editor who is interested in building consensus, rather than just reverting the edit, can you please go back and improve the edit. Than you so much for your help and good faith Historyhorror (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Apology accepted. My basic reason for reverting is that it doesn't belong in the lead. Our rules for article format dictate that the lead mentions nothing which is not already in the body of the article. If that content has a logical place in the body, that might be okay, but it still wouldn't deserve mention in the lead. It's far too promotional, and the context makes it even less usable. Because of the instant controversy created by McCarthy's appointment to the position, Walters was in a defensive position, so hyperbole and praise were the order of the day. A laudatory statement about McCarthy's outstanding performance as a Playboy model would likewise be ignored, even though she was indeed one of the greatest! She's still a very beautiful and vivacious woman. Basically we're rather cautious about including too much praise of anyone. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Brangifer. The reason I didn't revert Jenny McCarthy was that I wanted to take an adminning, not an editing, role at the article. Adminning — issuing warnings, perhaps in the future blocks, or protecting — seemed more urgently needed, and it's not supposed to be mixed with editing. This is the principle of WP:INVOLVED. I was rather hoping somebody else would revert. I quite understand that you didn't want to, but there are always other people. At least the Wikipedia principle assumes that there are... though it's only really true for high-profile articles with many eyes on them. Thanks for trying to keep the article NPOV. Bishonen | talk13:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC).
That makes perfect sense. It appears that a push is on to whitewash the article of criticism, even removing properly sourced content en masse. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic treatment techniques until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
According to RFC/U closing instructions, the most uncontroversial way to close an RFC/U is by agreement of the certifiers and the subject. "WP:RfC/Us which are closed by agreement require a motion to close; this motion should be visible on the talk page of the RfC/U. Here, other participants can either express their support or opposition to closing at this time. Closure by agreement may or may not include a summary of the dispute or agreement." I have set up a space for you three to discuss the summary and closure of this RFC/U. Please see here. Thanks.--v/r - TP00:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
TP, I have made a statement, but Arzel's response reveals a total lack of understanding of the problem, hence I'm calling for a topic ban. Editors are allowed to be imperfect and make mistakes, but a negative learning curve is an incurable problem, so such editors need to be curtailed to ensure the safety of this project. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Alright, but be aware that RFC/U's cannot "Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures;" You'll have to get Arzel to agree to it or move on to AN.--v/r - TP18:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll let the one who started the RfC or someone else do that. If others don't see a problem, then there isn't much hope for protecting the project. The damage being done by someone whose main activity is deletion of properly sourced content is problematic. If sysops can't deal with that, there isn't much hope that I can. I do have a life outside Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Sysops can't settle content disputes and neither can Arbcom. Your only options are to gain a consensus at AN or seek MedCab help. Unless you can gain a agreement of behavioral problems at the RFC/U and then Arbcom can handle that.--v/r - TP18:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand, but that is far too complicated. I just don't have the energy or time to pursue this. Let the raging bull keep plowing through articles and deleting properly sourced content. Maybe if they irritate enough other people something will happen. This is the type of time sink which makes Wikipedia less enjoyable to edit. I thought there were available sanctions in this topic area allowing any sysop to singlehandedly stop Arzel, but I guess that's not going to happen. I know that editors like Arthur Rubin (a sysop) have been topic banned for less egregious behavior in this topic area, but Arzel is allowed free reign. Keep in mind that I don't normally edit these articles much at all. I just noticed that very blatant removal of all properly sourced critical content was occurring at a very rapid rate, with that being Arzel's sole activity. That's not good behavior, and it's not backed by policy. Arzel still refuses to accept that we use biased sources here. If we don't, NPOV cannot exist. Opposing POV are needed to provide that balance, and Arzel deletes them. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I mean, you say that this is a time sink and makes Wikipedia less enjoyable, but there are other areas of Wikipedia. I'm working on the Admiral Clarey Bridge. Have you considered finding something other than politics to edit? You might find it more enjoyable.--v/r - TP19:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You may have missed it, but I just indicated that I don't normally edit political topics. It's very occasional. My watchlist currently states: "You have 9,114 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." That means that all kinds of subjects and editors pop up on my radar, and I noticed that Arzel's pattern was very disturbing, akin to a hit and run vandalism account, but this was a constant and consistent pattern. That's why I finally made any comments and endorsed the RfC. I'll support the efforts of good faith editors to stop this type of activity. It's totally inappropriate.
Normally such actions are reverted on sight as clear and blatant POV vandalism, and not even treated as a content dispute. I haven't followed Arzel's activities since I endorsed the RfC, but before that it was a constant, single minded, activity. It was Arzel's only activity, with few exceptions.
I put comments on the talk page, and I believe you are an excellent editor. So I would appreciate your guidance. I feel bitten again. There was a consensus discussion. I was given a fair opportunity to raise legitimate issues. I conceded the point. Then something happened that had nothing to do with the consensus. Perhaps this was a mistake. Perhaps the outcome was something I should have predicted. But I believe the issues I raised turned out to be true, that the intent of the consensus was different than the question. I believed you when you told me not to worry, and then I was surprised to discover that the intent was to start over with the article. I intend to be a good editor, and I took the consensus process as a legitimate way to take days or weeks to bring RS facts to help editors make good decisions. I am left to feel that the process is more aggressive than objective. Thanks for your insights and help.Bob the goodwin (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I have replied at the talk page. Part of what went wrong here is that the Lyme "wars" article was created in the first place. That should not have happened. It would never have survived an WP:AFD. Since it did contain some stuff that might be worth saving, I figured it was time to create that fork article, and then work on merging that content into it. We start with the existing content from the section in the main article, and then merge the newer content into that. That's still the idea, so start working on that. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I did not understand the canvassing rules. I don't seem to understand the culture. Please keep advising me. I am trying super hard to learn, and keep getting surprised. I still do not think you did what we agreed to, but apparently there is a culture which has different rules than are explicit. Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. There are indeed many written and unwritten rules and customs here, and it's very confusing to newbies. I suggest that you concentrate on proposing a few sentences or a paragraph (to begin with), including sourcing, which might be added to the article. Also suggest where it should belong. Then we can work on it and see if it's good. If so, then you can add it and we'll all defend it against attempts to delete it. Do this in a separate thread on the talk page just for that purpose. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Quotation
To avoid any edit conflicts, we should discuss any disagreements here. :) I apologize if you think I'm going at you in any negative way whatsoever. FaceOffTournament (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Since your insistence caused me to doubt, I accepted your revision (but corrected a stray quote mark you left), but you didn't notice that. Read the edit summary. I have since fixed it (again). I'm American, and have lived in Europe for many years, so I admit I do get confused and caught between British and American rules. After investigating Wikipedia's stance on this particular matter, I see that it settles on a compromise which is not the American rule. I have started a thread seeking others' opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Surrender, not resistance
This reflects very poorly on you. "admit you don't have a clue about how Wikipedia works", " I haven't seen an iota of indication that you're willing to learn", "reaction to the topic ban has been very counterproductive", "We need to see surrender, not resistance"....
Maybe I just have more experience at WP:FTN than you do, but what I'm seeing is an editor who was responsive to discussing the merits of his edits and the sources he was using, and who really held up quite well under a barrage of people who were reminding him he was a moron. He was too smart to continue edit-warring, persistent enough to not leave, and in the absence of any mentoring the topic ban was going to be pretty much inevitable. When it happened, he agreed to a two-week editing break and mentoring, which is just about the most productive response that I've seen come out of a topic ban.
Your response has been much less productive. We don't demand that newbies admit they don't have a clue. We don't ask for surrender, just cessation of disruption.
I expect he really got on your nerves at homeopathy. That happens; I get it. I also expect that you're a good enough editor that a simple request to put down the stick will be sufficient.
Yes, I'm irritated at him and said it like it is. What I wrote is accurate. It's frustrating to see that after all that's happened, he still doesn't get it and still thinks everyone else is wrong. That's unfortunate. It's also frustrating to see some other editors supporting him and enabling him in such delusional thinking. He doesn't need any sympathy from anyone. Such enabling doesn't help. Otherwise you do have a point. I'll back off and see where this goes. I'm hoping for the best. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Just in case MarydaleEd (talk·contribs)'s talk page is not on your WP:Watchlist, and you want to respond, I'm letting you know MarydaleEd has recently replied. I'm not responding there again on the matter, considering that I don't have to validate myself to anyone at this site, and certainly not my knowledge of anatomical and sexual topics (many at this site already know that I am well educated in those fields anyway). Similar to what you stated at MarydaleEd's talk page, I don't need the grief from editors who carry themselves the way that MarydaleEd does. In that latest reply, you will see that MarydaleEd has again claimed that I was wrong about assuming what article was being alluded to with regard to my "stated plans," despite the fact that, like I stated before, "we were discussing the Virginia E. Johnson article" and MarydaleEd even stated "earlier this month in the history of that article." MarydaleEd has once again referred to me as a teenager, and has stated that "[f]urther research of this editor revealed she'd had several problems with other editors resulting in warnings, which served only to further justify my assessment of her and the situation." Sigh. What warnings are those? As you know, just about every regular Wikipedian has warned another Wikipedian at one point or another, and warnings issued to me usually are not justified. Nor is it usually considered acceptable to template an experienced Wikipedian, which is why the WP:Don't template the regulars essay exists, is widely practiced and cited on Wikipedia. Do I warn a lot of editors? Yes, I do, usually WP:Newbies while using WP:Huggle or WP:STiki.
Anyway... MarydaleEd, if you are reading this, and you don't want to interact with me, then I suggest you don't edit in the fields that I edit in (anatomy, sexology, psychology, and other scientific fields). Otherwise... Flyer22 (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Smart. I have a feeling that MarydaleEd would have bitched you out as well. And teenager? While I certainly look young, there is nothing teenage or otherwise childish about my age or knowledge. But, yes, this is another one of those times where the person making the wrong claims gets the last word on their talk page. As we both know, WP:Drop the stick has advice on that. So does WP:The Last Word. Flyer22 (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I often go through and fix bad sources. MMfA is no different. Could have approached me about it if there was an issue, Doug. Thargor Orlando (talk)
No, I hadn't noticed. Is this an Arzel type of situation? Do we need to take this to Arbitration and seek a topic ban or total ban yet? It's unfortunate when such sources are deleted. I guess removal of Fox News as a source would be the equivalent, since they are an extension of the GOP. We certainly wouldn't want any sources documenting a POV at Wikipedia! By all means, hide any controversy and only present one side. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The opposite of MMfA is Newsbusters, but at least you acknowledge that MMfA is simply the propoganda arm of the DNC. Arzel (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)In general, if we find that a source poses particularly serious problems, to the extent that we should not trust it by default, then it's quite reasonable to search for that source and remove content which depends on it. I've certainly done this before with Global Research, and a couple of publishing houses which systematically published copyvio, and with particularly fringey alt-med sites, and so on. Some sources are pretty much a red flag for neutrality problems. However, I don't hold any opinion on whether MediaMatters is that bad - that's for you guys to argue over. :-) bobrayner (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Without looking through any diffs, and just remembering the history of such deletion attempts, I suspect that these sources are being deleted because they are not neutral. Is that correct? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
In this case, yes. If a source strongly pushes a certain perspective which disagrees with the mainstream, then problematic editors who want to push that perspective will tend to cite that source because they can't find mainstream sources which support the content that they add, so citations of that source become a warning sign for problematic content. We can all agree that there's a line beyond which content is not neutral, but we can't always agree on where that line is - that's our bigger problem! bobrayner (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand you completely, but sources don't have to be neutral, and they are allowed to push a POV that is not the mainstream POV. Such sources are essential to fulfilling our NPOV duty to cover significant sides of a controversy, controversial POV, etc.. Mainstream sources often shy away from taking sides, so they are often useless for documenting the sides, and it's our job to find the sources which express those sides. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It's also about their basic reliability as a source, though, as they're not terribly accurate when it comes to their criticisms (a common issue when it comes to these highly partisan sources). When it comes to criticisms, too often it's just the equivalent of linking to an attack site from a criticism that isn't noted, leading itself to a lot of dumb coatracking. Neutrality is only one part of it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
That cuts both ways, as opinions are not the same as facts, and we document opinions. When in doubt, we attribute them. If something is undoubtedly, factually, incorrect, then that's another matter, but the source itself isn't the issue then. We don't delete all uses of the source because they made a mistake. We sometimes don't even use sources like the New York Times or Time magazine because they literally "got it wrong". Those situations aren't matters of opinion, and we are then allowed to use editorial judgment to simply use other sources or not touch the issue at all. We don't leave them out because we disagree with their opinion, or because their opinion isn't mainstream or is controversial. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
We document some opinions, yes. Not every one. Some discretion makes sense, and using sites like MMfA and Newsbusters when the opinions exist solely within their universe and nowhere else isn't sensible or logical, and using opinion sites to document facts should be a significant no-no. "When in doubt, leave it out" seems a lot more sensible when you're building an encyclopedia. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
We'll just have to agree to disagree, since I think your characterization of MMfA is wrong on both counts. Their opinions are supported widely, and they are usually factual. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
We can "agree to disagree," but the evidence isn't really on your side on it. After all, we could say the same about Rush Limbaugh, as an extreme example, and we're not going to put every one of his opinions in each article, right? It's really a common sense question. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a matter of doing this on a case-by-case basis, not a sitewide ban on using the source. If it's factually wrong, then of course we wouldn't use it. If it's an opinion you don't like, well, that's not a policy-based reason for not using it. I subscribe to it and don't recall anything factually incorrect at the moment. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it's a case-by-case basis. It has nothing to do with what I like or don't, but in most cases there are just a few truths: it's simply not a good source of criticism, it's definitely a poor reference for facts, and we should avoid it whenever we can. Sometimes their criticism gets noticed, that's worth keeping around. That those moments are few and far between, however, should tell us something. That there seems to be a concerted effort to keep this source in use when that isn't the case for other like-sources is also troubling to me. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.
Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.
Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!
We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)
Thanks for the notifications. It's always interesting to see the inherent conflict between deletionists and those who build the encyclopedia. I've gotten lots of thanks for this hard work I've done, and now this.... Being chosen to be a jury member is a very notable thing and a great honor, one of the greatest in the film world. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK[•]14:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The suspicion of such a state is, for better or for worse, not actionable. The user has in fact made article edits, though not many; I'd suggest MfD as the right venue for any subpages you think aren't compatible with NOTWEBHOST, for instance. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
CorticoSpinal
If you truly believe that CorticoSpinal has returned, please take the time to build a compelling case. If you persuade me, I will act.—Kww(talk) 00:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The similarities are strong, but CU fishing isn't allowed, and building such a case is simply too much trouble, so I'm not accusing, only advising Neuraxis [7][8] to avoid the same mistakes. Let's see how he reacts to that advice. Even CorticoSpinal had his good sides. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I just checked your page and see that it's not working. The "nowiki" parts need to be removed and it needs to be set to "yes". See above when not in the editing mode. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Got it bravo, TYVM, done. Cheers again. By the way, I also was outed in a former life here; I understand your views/feelings; am utterly amazed how disrespectful things can get at times.
Perhaps ping me... from an article you are working on somewhere, far outside the Alt Med / Chiro debate? Meanwhile, don't be alarmed if you see prose that "leads you be afeared" that I have gone soft (e.g., where I argue a multibillion dollar industry like Chiro needs another label besides fringe).
It will simply never happen. My going soft that is. (As a hard scientist from a Germanic tradition--see that User page you helped me get right-- there is simply no chance… )
But my training, background, and experiences are complex—besides the mentor story I begin to tell, there are stories in another disturbing vein… amazingly anti-empirical approaches in a top department at an Ivy, even bordering on "religious" (faith in ones own hypothesis, and "anti-Popperian" [9]approaches in general). (Chemists have long fallen into a "science as absolute proof" philosophical trench, more later.)
We will get it right, here, and in these arguments and in general, because I believe in "...Friede auf Erden den Menschen guten Willens" I will merely be trying to find a point for peace and productive editing for all (while keeping or raising the bar of verifiability and empiricism, high.) So let's have a word (ping me from Greenland, your turf, or from Sápmi more mine, and we will continue… Cheer, regards, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understood all of that, but I have met Sami people and bought some of their products in the far north in Finland, Sweden, and Norway. I love the northlands, the tundra, reindeer, rocky landscapes, fjords, etc.. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Bull, have a look at this
…where I am having an impossible time of persuading folks (well, one in particular) that the title "NP" term here: [10] and here: [11] (read through scope of each, to understand NP term) does not mean this [12]. Here is the current point of the discussion, [13]. And here is the introduction [14], (read at least throughout the bright green box). You see how hard it can be, even when the science is "hard" (i.e., chemistry). Here, I am clearly on the side of tight, non-fringe definitions. Cheers. (Oh, and I married a Finn/suomalainen.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I'll get involved there. I've got enough on my plate already. Here's what's at the top of my watchlist: "You have 9,652 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." -- Brangifer (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand not getting involved deeply. If time would permit a quick pass--to read the definitions (green box, [15]), and comment on the lean toward "nonscience" (nonsense) it could help. (Or even just that this source is not appropriate, [16]). This is an attempt to recapture a basic science article, originally a fringe encampment, from someone seemingly just stubborn to have no change. Even the obvious, that an article should lead with and focus on the most prevalent scientific information on a subject, is something missing right now. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
IMPORTANT: A last short needed look
Please see possible "closing arguments" here, [17]. Settling this there, in that way, would end the issues raised in inordinate length earlier. Consider a final persuasive comment, on any matter you wish? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk)
Reverted Edits
Please help me perform edits on Functional Medicine. My previous edits were reverted by you and others the only reason given being "irrelevant". I want to know why these edits were removed and establish consensus on new edits.
This belongs on the article's talk page, not here, so I'm copying it there and we can all discuss it there. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
When you make so many edits and sneak consensus violating content into the mix, it's simply easier to revert to the consensus version. You are welcome to gradually reinstate edits which do not challenge or overturn the consensus arrived at in your failed attempt at a name change. BTW, please keep this discussion at the article's talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
You just unilaterally deleted a third of the article, much of it existing, validly-sourced content. So much for a "consensus version" of anything. When your vandalism was reverted, you repeated the offending edits in an attempt to make a WP:POINT despite being explicitly warned. I've taken this to WP:AIV. Don't do this again. K7L (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's get a few things straight:
The two reverts had nothing to do with each other. They were different types of content and I used different reasons for removing them.
The second revert did remove properly sourced content that had been there for some time, but it didn't belong in that article at all. It was off-topic and OR.
Based on those two explanations, I hope you can see that there was no POINT violation. I NEVER make POINT violations. It's childish and stupid. I have an excellent track record, in spite of editing lots of controversial stuff all the time, and I don't want to spoil that record.
If you had followed BRD, instead of defiantly trying to reinstate the content, we could be discussing this peacefully on the talk page and work this out. Instead you chose to edit war and do battle. That's not good. Be more patient.
If you had AGF and just asked, there would be no problem, but your failure to AGF, which is a serious policy violation, only creates disruption. Don't create such disruption again. Try being collaborative, instead of going to battle.
I've been here a heck of a lot longer than you and have much more experience here. I don't make such reverts lightly, and you really should treat other, more experienced, editors with more respect.
Having said that, I know I can make mistakes, and I'm certainly willing to discuss the matter on the talk page. Let's do it there.
Your idea of WP:BRD is that it only applies to other editors while you repeatedly remove a third of the article for unknown reasons in an edit war? Wow. I don't care how long you've been here, if you think that WP:BRD is a club with which to hit other users over the head while repeatedly re-instating your preferred version then you clearly do not understand, or choose not to understand, BRD. Unilaterally removing a third of the page was dumb, edit warring this was dumber. If you want my respect, earn it instead of disrupting to make a point. K7L (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
"Repeatedly"??? I made two very different reverts ONCE. You should have then started a discussion on the article's talk page. That's how BRD works. The first reverted all your BOLD edits. My REVERSION was the R in BRD. You were supposed to then start a DISCUSSION. Instead, your next edit reverted mine, which was the beginning of an edit war and I warned you to keep you from persisting and getting into trouble. Since you didn't start a discussion, but reverted my reversion, I took it back a notch to give you another chance to then start a discussion. You didn't start a discussion on the article's talk page, but you at least didn't continue an edit war. Next time do that, instead of starting lots of drama all over the place. My talk page and notice boards are not the place to do it. Follow BRD and do it on the article's talk page ALONE. Nowhere else. That's keeps things much simpler. That's how we do things here. I know this can be confusing, so let's just deal with this on the talk page. It's all spelled out very simply there, with separate sections where you can express your concerns. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
There's no need to drag me into this [18] dispute you're having with K7L. Please do not do this again and poison the well I made a mistake, owned up to it and moved along. This is my only warning. You've accused me of a lot of things lately, and are personalizing our professional differences. Diffs are adding up and both you and I don't want to see this go any further than it needs to. Thanks. Neuraxis (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Well you know that many edits are politically or ideologically biased, and like i say that are not sourced, unnecessary edits. And that's why Rangifer. Adn1990 (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Follow BRD and start a discussion on the article's talk page. Don't edit war. Your explanation doesn't cut it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
there are others. I notice that these sources are cited occasionally, but they dont seem to be particularly convincing, esp answers.com and about.com doing so is equivalent to citing Wikipedia as a source, which I understand is not acceptable. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Your suspicions are correct. There are differences. The first two are generally considered RS for general medical information (but not as good as reviews), but the last two are practically never considered RS, and many uses should probably be substituted with better sources; IOW, don't just delete the content, but check for RS, since the content might be okay. If there aren't any RS for that content, signal the need for assistance using a {{cn}} tag. Of course, if the content is obviously bogus or doubtful, remove it and leave a good edit summary. Be prepared to follow BRD if necessary by discussing the matter. That's my general M.O.. I hope that helps. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Follow your conscience
Dear User:BullRangifer, We (Saharadess, BonjourMM, TopGrad/JoeEverett and me) are all new or relatively new to wikipedia. Please follow your conscience and help us in whatever way you can (for now, with the Shang, Egger et al. clinical trial) on the Talk:Homeopathy page. I promise to follow all the rules. Thank you!—Khabboos (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be following me around to every page I edit and attempting every block every effort I make to get a wider community view on these topic. You've been warned. - Technophant (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Your paranoia and repeated personal attacks against other editors is tiresome. Stop it. Your editing is very controversial and you edit the same articles I have on my watchlist. I'm just doing what we do here. Pushers of fringe POV do get watched more closely, so get used to it. Wikipedia needs protection from people like you. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, BullRangifer. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Manipulation vs mobilization
Mr. Rangifer,
I believe my tweaks support your wish as a PT to use the term "Grade V mobilization" in describing the manipulations that you perform. At the same time it's essential to show that the terms are not interchangeable in (most U.S) jurisdictions where PT's are not permitted to perform manipulation by statutory law.
A link from a Talk page took me straight to that section; I had no way of telling it was part of an archived discussion. I was given to understand the discussion was still live. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi BullRangifer,
Thanks for the thanks :), It seemed like you went through some effort with the 3 thanks so thought I should thank you :) (I never thank anyone who "thanks" me so today's your lucky day lol :)
Have a nice day,
Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk)23:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I have summarily declined your AE request as severely deficient. Please resubmit it with a link to the specific remedy to be enforced and to dated diffs that explain how exactly the edits by the other editor are problematic. Be advised that continued unspecific or unproven accusations of sockpuppetry may result in sanctions against yourself, see WP:ASPERSIONS. If you suspect sockpuppetry, you should make the case for it at WP:SPI, not at WP:AE. Also, you should not refer to another editor as "topic-banned" unless this is relevant to the request and you explain how. Your request gave the impression that the other editor violated a topic ban, whereas they are in reality (if I remember correctly) topic-banned only with respect to a different topic area. Sandstein 08:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
You link to an open sockpuppet investigation, not to a topic ban. Sorry, people, I'm here to help you if somebody did something wrong, but you've got to communicate more clearly. Sandstein 08:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I will explain it. Khabboos was topic banned from editing article and article sections relations to Islam. However, he has chooses to ignore that. Instead he has chosen to become a sockpuppet master by using Raam2. Doing this he has violated his topic ban. That is why I showed you in user investigation page. AcidSnow (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I prefer to leave SPI reports to admins who specialize in them. If it results in a block, a (comprehensibly written) AE report can then be made with regard to the topic ban violation. Sandstein 13:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
AcidSnow and Sandstein, I have notified NuclearWarfare here. I'm not up to doing a proper AE request, but Khabboos needs a topic ban in: the homeopathy/fringe/alternative medicine area, and really should be indeffed completely. He's created lots of disruption. Even his spurious Afd was closed as a speedy keep. The closer's comment is significant. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, but whoever makes the next request should try to make clear whether this is about India/Pakistan misconduct or about pseudoscience misconduct, which is unclear to me, and just provide the diffs and links as provided for in the request template. No allegations, no long-winded stories, and as an explanation, write simply: "User:Foo was banned from [topic] at [diff] on [date], but now they (as their sockpuppet User:Boo, as established by administrators at [SPI link]) have violated that ban by editing about that topic at [diff] on [date]." Sandstein 17:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Sandstein, I do apologize for not making a very good report. An admin encouraged me to do it and when I got there, a complicated form was provided. The instructions said to use the form or to just write out my complaint in my own format, with some good links. Since I had already written a report to an admin, and he thought it was worth reporting, I submitted it, with some tweaks. The links and my comments make it clear that the existing topic ban is about some "political" thing (I wasn't sure, but it's apparently some Middle East/Hindu type issue.) You were the Arbitrator who imposed the sanction. According to Khabboos it's "with respect to religion and ethnic conflicts in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan."
My complaint then mentioned and provided links to the homeopathy issues. They contain links describing what's been happening. Sorry it's not very nice and neat, but it's there. I'm sorry I wasted your time. Someone else can do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but Khabboos' socking on Islam has not much to do with the other problems he is causing. All it really does is than that it supports the possibility that he is socking there as well. How long does a Sock Investigation take? AcidSnow (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
AcidSnow, you may need to refile that SPI. Format is more important than content here. The proper format will include links which summon check users and admins who deal with SPIs. It's been a long time since I've filed a proper SPI. They're just too damned complicated. Often it's easier to just let vandals and socks create disruption. If you start on the initial SPI page and push a link, it opens a page with a form to fill out. Use that one.
I just did it and got this link. It's a form to fill out. You should probably do it yourself. There is stuff in that form which is missing from your report. It needs to be there. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey do you want to laugh? Take a look at this, you will laugh a lot. In fact, why don't you add it to you report on him? Cya later :) AcidSnow (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I have been observing Khabboos since his original edit after his block, it's clearly that he has no idea what he is talk about and is just wasting everyone's time over there. I am not sure what exactly to put in this AE request. It's best to not worry about it for now since he will be blocked for a few months for violating his topic ban. In fact, why don't you add in the sock you found to make it last even longer? AcidSnow (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Chiropractic page edits
Mr. Rangifer:
You have shown yourself as someone who appreciates a collaborative effort, so I'm somewhat surprised that you would revert my edits within the "Chiropractic" WP page's, regulatory section. Since your a licensed professional, if a "physical therapist" WP page had a regulatory section would not information on the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy[1] be an appropriate addition? Kshilts (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what the consensus of editors decides. Each profession's articles have their own developmental history here. That's how it works here. The chiropractic suite of articles (there are many!) cover various aspects of the profession in detail, with the main Chiropractic only touching briefly on many aspects, such as this issue. Apparently the other editors feel you're providing too much detail for that article. Maybe it should be covered more in depth on another chiropractic article which deals with such matters.
You need to be asking these questions on the article's talk page, not here. Continue in the section already used for that purpose here: Talk:Chiropractic#Controversial changes. All the editors who have that article on their watchlists should see your comments and have an opportunity to reply if they wish. That's how disputes are settled here. When an edit is challenged, it must not be forced into the article through edit warring, but it is discussed (sometimes to death!!) on the talk page until a consensus determines how to settle the issue. Sometimes a simple rewording or better choice of sources is all that's needed (generally speaking, not specifically about this issue). Other times things don't go your way and you'll have to drop the stick and stop kicking the dead horse if you don't want to get topic banned or worse. So make sure a discussion gets good responses and keep at it until a consensus forms. Be patient. There is no rush. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I have only just seen your email sent about a week ago (it was buried among many unread ones), which is why I didn't respond at the time, so apologies. I just wanted to let you know that I was aware of all those changes and did not really mind, as I have a good relationship with Technophant who has been working on the same pages as I do (Iraq-related). But thank you for your message about them. I think I have always known how he is and make allowances. He is by no means as disruptive, for me at least, as another editor I have had a lot of trouble with lately. An admin has been supporting me through that and fortunately, again for me at least, it has blown over. I haven't been editing in Wikipedia for long and have been struck by what a major problem this is; it must be a huge headache for admins, not to mention all the wasted time involved. But with a free encyclopaedia where no-one is screened before editing I suppose it is inevitable. Thanks again for your solicitude. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be no limit to the weird ideas people make up out of thin air. That isn't a reason for deletion, but in this case we haven't been presented with evidence of notability or any independent RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I really think it would be best (at this point) to walk away from the page. What good are edits like this, really. Just a suggestion. Feel free to take it or leave it. I just think it's needlessly inflaming the situation. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
So sorry for the delay in replying. I was composing my response and, what with the edit conflicts and finally posting it, and then getting called away from my PC, I'm only now replying to you. Sorry about that. I can understand your feelings. If only admins would reign him in so he isn't allowed to ban civil editors and make false charges, then things could really calm down, BUT I really fail to see that would help anyway, since his responses to any criticisms are consistently negative. He is in total denial, and only admits to wrongdoing, including sock puppetry, when the evidence is overwhelming. If an admin will tell him to stop the bannings and allow the normal and intended use of his talk page, then he might be afraid to continue to make false charges. We need a level playing field, not giving a blocked editor MORE rights than civil editors. That's wrong. He needs to stop calling civil criticism "personal attacks". That is itself a personal attack and a failure to AGF, both of which are both blockable offenses when grossly and consistently repeated.
Why isn't he at least warned for repeatedly doing it? Will you step in and help stop this? Siding with a disruptive editor only encourages him. I don't mean to imply that you are truly "siding" with him and his disruption, but he will see any actions and warnings against his civil accusers as a defense of his actions. It only aids and abets him. Other comments which tended in this direction have been used by him to buttress his attacks on his accusers. He needs to know that his abuse of his talk page and abuse of others can result in the removal of his access. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Reply
Thanks, but it doesn't really bother me. Now the talk page as a whole is startling - I hadn't really looked at it before.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
