User talk:BullRangifer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Editor banned from this talk page

Johnvr4 is banned from this talk page. The aggression and personal attacks are too much. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Convenience links:

Message for IPs

If you are an IP and need to contact me, you can leave comments on this subpage. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

How Wikipedia is misused to censor real world information

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 for use as sources (per WP:PARITY) and should be used here. Why PARITY? Because when mainstream sources fail to deal with a subject because of successful censorship, we must use other sources, usually partisan activist organizations whose POV can be cited as their opinion.

The same thing which applies to pseudoscience and other fringe subjects 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)

dihydrogen monoxide

Please do not revert valid, reliably sourced contributions as collateral damage in order to make a WP:POINT in a content dispute, as you did here. This is vandalism and will be reported. K7L (talk) 02:23, 9 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:
  1. The two reverts had nothing to do with each other. They were different types of content and I used different reasons for removing them.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
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 [1] 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)
Sorry about doing that, but I was only replying to K7L, who is the one who brought you into it. I would never have mentioned you if he hadn't done that. Don't worry, I have no desire to escalate this. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

29 June 2014

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)

Accusation of edit war at New Azerbaijan Party

Moved to editor's talk page since he is blocked and this doesn't belong here. I added more to the comment there. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable .com sources

Where would I go to get a reading on whether the following are reliable sources:

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)

Please comment on Template talk:Cite doi

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Cite doi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 16 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)

I'm editing wikitravel and so I may not post here (on wikipedia) for some time (I told you I'm an astral projectionist and have travelled worldwide).—Khabboos (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

Please stop Wikihounding me

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)

If you think I have a COI

Please go to WP:COI/N instead of making personal accusations like you did here. They are completely untrue. -A1candidate (talk) 18:14, 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.

more compromise  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshilts (talkcontribs) 18:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, BullRangifer. You have new messages at Talk:Chiropractic#Kshilts' edits 15-18 July 2014.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jim1138 (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Race Differences in Intelligence (book)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Race Differences in Intelligence (book). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

Editing archived pages

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)

I can understand how that could happen. No harm done. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

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)

Your good work did not go unnoticed. Keep it up! -- Brangifer (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks and you keep up the great work too! :) –Davey2010(talk) 23:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Your AE request

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)

He clearly did violate his topic ban, Sandstein. AcidSnow (talk) 08:40, 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)
Though it has not been finalized, it's clearly a duck. Do you mind looking in? AcidSnow (talk) 09:03, 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.
Start here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. On that page is a section which may be hidden. I had trouble finding it. You may have to click the "show" link. It says "How to open an investigation:" Follow the instructions there. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
I think I got all the things missing now. AcidSnow (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Want to laugh?

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)

Sadly, it did not go through. AcidSnow (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
AcidSnow, thanks for the good work. I really did laugh! I commented here. Would you be interested in a proper AE request? I'm not up to it. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:05, 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)