User talk:Friarslantern

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

You have now added an URL to the Weston Price foundation several times to cholesterol. I fail to understand why you cannot place this link on the relevant article (hypercholesterolemia). Can you explain on Talk:Cholesterol what you are trying to achieve? JFW | T@lk 19:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to email me. When it comes to unconventional theories, the "external links" section is not the place. Clearly, the article is about the problems with high cholesterol, not cholesterol in itself. If anywhere, it therefore belongs on hypercholesterolemia.
I will keep on referring to Weston Price as "the dentist", and we already have plenty of material about Dr Ravnskov and his noisy bunch. WP:WEIGHT is the relevant policy here. JFW | T@lk 05:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have psychological problems[edit]

I am currently really depressed about Wikipedia and need some help. OK, I'm being a little funny on purpose here, no serious 911 situation here. I saw your name on the Editor Assistance list, and decided to go to you, as a starting place. I see your main area of interest and expertise seems to be on the technical side, and my concern is policy-related, but I also sense you have a good grasp where to send me for what I need.

I've been using Wikipedia as a reader for years now, but only in the last few months have made any real edits. I've been an avid fan of what Wikipedia is -- well, of what I thought Wikipedia was. I hit a roadblock, though, recently.

I'm a firm believer in a controversial theory -- that is, that cholesterol is not the initial or principal cause of heart disease. I understand this is generally assumed by the public to be true -- that cholesterol is the problem, or at least, the main problem. But I firmly believe otherwise. Accordingly, upon noticing that the Wikipedia article on cholesterol had no reference to any kind of alternative theories about cholesterol's role in health, I added a link to the end of the External Links list, called "Alternative hypothesis about cholesterol's role in health" that linked to an article by the main proponent of this admitedly controversial theory.

What turns out to be a very prolific user (he says he's no. 102 for number of edits) deleted the link immediately. I tried the next day, and he deleted it again, blah blah blah.... I was ready to defend my position (geared up since this user calls himself a doctor, is an administrator, and from the start used consdescending language -- I finally viewed the talk page and saw that other people had tried to argue about some inclusion of this idea in the article over time), etc., and this was the roadblock I hit: he directed me to the Undue Weight policy, which includes a statement that positions held by only a very small or tiny minority "do not belong" in Wikipedia.

This was news to me, and has really changed my whole view of Wikipedia. Since then, I've also noticed what seems to be a growing prejudice against "lists of things" such as references to popular culture references to X, and have realized -- many users, and Wikimedia itself, seem to have what I would call an overweening concern about Wikipedia appearing respectable. I'm sympathetic with the desire to remain user-friendly, and useful, etc. But to say that lists of trivia don't belong in Wikipedia (when clearly, there are people who will read a list of trivia and find it useful, for reasearch, or insight) or that views held by tiny minorities don't belong here (I'd always thought that Wikipedia ~would~ be the place for someone to report Copernicus's finding that the earth wasn't the center of the univers, but they would have had to wait several decades AFTER 1543 for editors of the time to no longer be able to say that it was a view held only by a tiny minority!). Thus, my current disappointment. I undertand the policy about emphasizing theories in relation to their popularity, but to not allow AT ALL the view of a tiny minority (like my cholesterol theory) ??? I believe that this guy who was deleting my links does not want any mention at all on what seems like His page on cholesterol, and he can use Wikimedia to back him up.

So, rather than get into how to go about referring to this other theory in the main Cholesterol article, I guess I should skip my denial and go straight to asking -- is there a place here for people like me? hehehe... I'd start my own ~Pedia website that corrected this, but I don't have my own server, etc.!!! But maybe there's another wiki-pedia (small w) out there you know of that's not as establishment-conscious? Or a group of similar minded people like me within Wikipedia? I'm of the opinion that articles about theories that have minority competing opionions, even if subscribed to by a tiny minority of experts, COULD have a section at the end, for example, that said (tongue in cheek, sort of) "Links to Disreputable Alternative Theories About this Topic" and it wouldn't tarnish Wikipedia's respectabillity; it seems to me that's what Mr. Wales intends -- to preserve at all costs Wikipedia's respectability. I'd ask about how to change policy (the Village Pump, right?), but I'm afraid it seems to set in stone, and I'm sure Wikimedia has no obligation to change it, even if it happen to become the consensus of the Village Pump.

H E L P !!!

-Bummed out in Berkeley Friarslantern 16:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm always glad to help.
Let's see, where to start? Hmmm... Wikipedia is a diverse community comprised of volunteers with a wide variety of attitudes, approaches, styles, and philosophies. Personality clashes and disagreements are inevitable. Don't let it get you down. It comes with the territory. See Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies and Dispute resolution.
With respect to your current predicament, check out Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Consensus, two key policies that probably apply to your situation.
There are a heck of a lot of heart diseases, so let's narrow the discussion down to the one I believe you are talking about. While cholesterol is certainly a correlative risk factor in atherosclerosis, at this time it appears that inflammation is the primary culprit in the pathology of that disease. So let me use inflammation as an example... The inflammation theory has gained enough momentum that it is no longer held by a tiny minority -- a significant number of scientists are studying it these days.
There's a great deal of web traffic on inflammation in relation to heart disease. For example, on google, a search for cholesterol and "heart disease" comes up 2.6 million times, while a search for inflammation and "heart disease" comes up 1.8 million times. Inflammation as a cause to heart disease is no longer a tiny minority position.
Google searches provide us with clues, but they hold little weight in Wikipedia discussions on the weight of positions and the factual basis of claims . For that, we must rely on the policies on Notability and Verifiability. The opposing editor stated that the position you tried to include was a tiny minority. Well, how many professionals in the relevant fields support the theory? If you can establish a number that is clearly not "tiny", then what you are dealing with is a minor position, and minor positions warrant mention in articles on relevant topics. If you can find a reliable source that establishes that the cause of heart disease to which you are referring is not a tiny minority position, via numbers (like the number of members in a relevant professional association, number of papers being published annually on the subject, etc.), then you will have a strong argument for its mention.
Keep in mind that "undue weight" applies to the treatment of a topic in an article not specifically about that topic. Stepping back for a wider outlook on your situation, Wikipedia includes articles on very esoteric and miniscule topics, so your topic probably warrants an article of its own -- encyclopedic means "covers everything", well, just about. For a topic's treatment on Wikipedia as a whole, as opposed to within an overview article or specific related article, again see Notability and Verifiability.
Wikipedia wishes to be factual, but we have to guard against tiny minority positions (including activists, entrepreneurs, etc.) who wish to use Wikipedia to promote their causes, companies, and products. Yes, this risks falling prey to the logical fallacy Appeal to the majority, but that's just a price we have to pay. They key is to find the proper balance.
So, my advice is to report the facts as supported by the evidence, somewhere on Wikipedia, and then provide links to those articles wherever those links are relevant. The Transhumanist    23:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 23:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy rewrite draft[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you've had some edits to the Homeopathy page and I just wanted to let you know that I've re-written the article with the help of numerous editors and it is a great improvement on the current article. I thought that you might want to contribute to the draft before it goes live. Please don't edit the draft directly, except for minor changes. Make proposed changes on the talk page of the draft so that we can all discuss them and add them if there is a consensus. The link to the draft can be found here: Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Westward Ho[edit]

Hi there. Just to let you know, the best way to contact people about wikipedia stuff is on their talk pages. Thanks! — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 14:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine[edit]

I'm going to be nice, because you appear to be a good editor. But you have violated WP:3RR. You really should revert your last edit, and we'll come to a conclusion, I'm sure. I think Alternative medicine is the biggest bunch of hogwash ever (short of Creationism and Republicans); however, your edit is highly pejorative. BTW, I won't revert your last edit, because it would be 4RR. I think you should show the same consideration and revert. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be really clear with you, OrangeMarlin. Three reverts is too many -- you cite the rule yourself. And, since you did 3 before I did, I'm going to let this one go and revert it tomorrow morning, eh?
And what in the world do you mean by pejorative edits? Ummm.... I think my reasoning is pretty clear: I put reasons in my edit summaries, and then a section on the article's talk page, which you STILL haven't replied to (ie, build consensus?) I'm sure you have something to say about it. I just don't get it. Mine is a point of style that effects POV.
But for tonight, let's just sleep on it, what do you say? Friarslantern 02:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul Davies[edit]

You reverted my edits to the page about Paul Davies with the comment "not a soapbox, duh", which I presume to mean that you thought my edits were in some way inaccurate. However, the article was inaccurate in referring to Davies as a physicist. He has not worked in physics for more than 20 years. He was a physicist, but he is not one now, hence my correction to the article. He has not published articles in peer-reviewed physics journals relating to new research in physics since the mid 80's. If you check Davies own bibliography you will find this to be true. Please do not change my edits without evidence to support your actions. User:Stuart.Allie —Preceding comment was added at 05:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Links[edit]

Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_19#Directly_opposed_to_what.3F

and

Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_19#Third_para.2C_first_sentence

Out of curiosity, which of the three references supporting this sentence did you read? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I will read up on these. To answer your question, I read both articles cited in the section you reverted. There are two references there, I'm not sure which would be the third (?) Friarslantern (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you must have looked at the citations to read these references I'm a bit surprised you didn't see there were three of them. They all say much the same thing, which is not really a controversial statement. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. Ernst E (2005). "Is homeopathy a clinically valuable approach?". Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 26 (11): 547–8. PMID 16165225. 
  2. Johnson T, Boon H (2007). "Where does homeopathy fit in pharmacy practice?". American journal of pharmaceutical education 71 (1): 7. PMID 17429507. 
  3. Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, et al (2005). "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy". Lancet 366 (9487): 726–732. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2. PMID 16125589. 

Homoepathy article probation notification[edit]

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your ?warning ...to my talk page... was this meant as a specific notice that you feel I've been disruptive or simply a notice given to all involved? Please reply. Friarslantern (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a notice for the record. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

SF Meetup #6[edit]

  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup # 6
GG-bridge-12-2006.jpg
  Date: Saturday, June 28th, 2008
  Time: ~1:00PM
  Place: Glen Park Branch Library
  prev: Meetup 5 - next: Meetup 7

You received this invite because you added your name to the Invite list. If you don't wish to be invited any more, simply remove your name. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

SF Meetup #7[edit]

  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup # 7
GG-bridge-12-2006.jpg
  Date: September 6th, 2008
  Time: 3 PM
  Place: Freebase HQ, San Francisco
  prev: Meetup 6 - next: Meetup 8

You received this invite because you added your name to the Invite list. If you don't wish to be invited any more, simply remove your name. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

SF Meetup #8[edit]

  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup # 8
GG-bridge-12-2006.jpg
  Date: November 8th, 2008
  Time: 2PM
  Place: Metacafe, Palo Alto, California
  prev: Meetup 7 - next: Meetup 9
You received this invite because you added your name to the Invite list. If you don't wish to be invited any more, simply remove your name. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

SF Meetup #11[edit]

  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup # 11
GG-bridge-12-2006.jpg
  Date: Saturday, February 6th, 2010
  Time: 15:00 (3PM)
  Place: WMFoundation offices
  prev: Meetup 10 - next: Meetup 12

This is posted to the groups by request. Please sign up on the Invite list for future announcements. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Great American Wiknic[edit]

Hi there! In the past, you've expressed an interest in local meetups of Wikipedians. Well, here's your chance! On Saturday, June 25, we'll be joining Wikipedians in cities all over the country for the first annual Great American Wiknic -- the picnic that anyone can edit! We'll meet up at a park in SF -- hopefully in the sun -- all other details are still in deliberation!

If this sounds fun, please add your name to the list: Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Wiknic and add that page to your watchlist. (And of course, feel free to edit that page with your ideas, questions, etc.) I look forward to wiknicking with you! -Pete (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon[edit]

San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon!
Who should come? You should. Really.
We Can Do It!.jpg
The San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon will be held on Saturday, March 17, 2012 at the the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco! Participate in editing subjects about women's history and beyond! Workshops will also be hosted. New and experienced editors of any gender are welcome!
We look forward to seeing you there!

You're invited: San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2![edit]

San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2! You are invited!
We Can Do It!.jpg
The San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2 will be held on Saturday, June 16, 2012 at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco. Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join us! This event will be specifically geared around encouraging women to learn how to edit and contribute to Wikipedia. Workshops on copy-editing, article creation, and sourcing will be hosted. Bring a friend! Come one, come all!
EdwardsBot (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC) · Unsubscribe

San Francisco Wiknic 2012[edit]

Wiknic logo.svg San Francisco Wiknic at Golden Gate Park LA Wiknic 2011 Group Photo.jpg
You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Golden Gate Park, in San Francisco, on Saturday, June 23, 2012. We're still looking for input on planning activities, and thematic overtones. List your add yourself to the attendees list, and edit the picnic as you like. Max Klein {chat} 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Invite.

You're invited! - Wiki Loves Monuments - San Francisco Events[edit]

Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco

Hi! As part of Wiki Loves Monuments, we're organizing two photo events in the San Francisco Bay Area and one in Yosemite National Park. We hope you can come out and participate! Feel free to contact User:Almonroth with questions or concerns.

There are three events planned:

We look forward to seeing you there!

You are receiving this message because you signed up on the SF Bay Area event listing, or have attended an event in the Bay Area. To remove yourself, please go here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! Ada Lovelace Day San Francisco[edit]

You're invited! Ada Lovelace Day San Francisco[edit]

October 16 - Ada Lovelace Day Celebration - You are invited!
Ada Lovelace color.svg
Come celebrate Ada Lovelace Day at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco on October 16! This event, hosted by the Ada Initiative, the Mozilla Foundation, and the Wikimedia Foundation. It'll be a meet up style event, though you are welcome to bring a laptop and edit about women in STEM if you wish. Come mix, mingle and celebrate the legacy of the world's first computer programmer.

The event is October 16, 5:00 pm - 8:00 pm, everyone is welcome!

You must RSVP here - see you there!
SarahStierch (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon tomorrow (Saturday) in Oakland[edit]

Hi, I hope you will be joining us tomorrow afternoon at the Edit-a-thon at Tech Liminal, in Oakland. We'll be working on articles relating to women and democracy (and anything else that interests you). It's sponsored by the California League of Women Voters, Tech Liminal, and me.

If this is the first you are hearing of this event, my apologies for the last-minute notice! I announced it on the San Francisco email list and by a banner on your watchlist, but I neglected to look at the San Francisco invitation list until this evening. If you can't make it this time, I hope to see you at a similar event soon! -Pete (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiknic 2013[edit]

Wiknic 2013
Sunday, June 23rd · 12:34pm · Lake Merritt, Oakland
Theme: Hyperlocal list-making
Lake Merritt Wild Duck Refuge (Oakland, CA)

This year's 2013 SF Wiknik will be held at Lake Merritt, next to Children's Fairyland in Oakland. This event will be co-attended by people from the hyperlocal Oakland Wiki. May crosspollination of ideas and merriment abound!

Location and Directions[edit]

  • Location: The grassy area due south of Children's Fairyland (here) (Oakland Wiki)
    • Nearest BART: 19th Street
    • Nearest bus lines: NL/12/72
    • Street parking abounds
EdwardsBot (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You're invited: Art & Feminism Edit-a-thon[edit]

Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - You are invited!
Csaky madonna.jpg
Hi Friarslantern! The first Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 in San Francisco.

Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Wikipedians of all experience levels are invited! Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors.
Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here!

SarahStierch (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You're invited! WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley[edit]

Saturday, April 5 - WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley - You are invited!
We Can Edit.jpg
The University of California, Berkeley's Berkeley Center for New Media is hosting our first edit-a-thon, facilitated by WikiWoman Sarah Stierch, on April 5! This event, focused on engaging women to contribute to Wikipedia, will feature a brief Wikipedia policy and tips overview, followed by a fast-paced energetic edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend.

Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history!

The event is April 5, from 1-5 PM, at the Berkeley Center for New Media Commons at Moffitt Library.

You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You're invited! Litquake Edit-a-thon in San Francisco[edit]

You are invited!Litquake Edit-a-thon in San Francisco → Saturday, October 11, 2014, from 1-5 PM
Amy Tan.jpg

The Edit-a-thon will occur in parallel with Litquake, the San Francisco Bay Area's annual literature festival. Writers from all over the Bay Area and the world will be in town during the nine day festival, so the timing is just right for us to meet, create and improve articles about literature and writers. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. This event will include new editor training. Please bring your laptop.

RSVP →here←

Meetup: Wikimedia Foundation offices (149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105) – Google Maps view

--Rosiestep (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)