User talk:SlimVirgin/History 2

Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper. — Robert Frost

Shlomo Carlebach I was hoping to enlist your help, since you've been involved in this issue before. An anon user insists on continuing to add a link to an article alleging sexual abuse by Carlebach. Despite the fact that I have tried to add this information before, I have warned him that the decision was made to leave it out by an admin, after a very long discussion. I'm bordering on 3RR on this page, and don't want to violate the rule. Thanks. 05:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC) "Ckessler, please stop adding the controversy section until you've reached an agreement with the other editors on the page. First and foremost, you have to find reputable sources, then stick very closely to what they say, without adding your own opinion. See WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)" "When writing about individuals one must be even more careful to include only verifiable information from reliable sources; I'm dubious of the sources listed here, and the nature of the anonymous allegations. Jayjg (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)" I could have sworn that at some point I tried to use the Lilith article as a cite. I'll look through the history and see if I can find it. Ckessler 05:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Can you help ? I am not familiar enoug with the process and how to undlete that article. Can you undelete it. What about due process and AFD ? Thanks, Zeq 08:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=Iranian+involvement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CJCurrie#Please_reconstruct Tnx. Zeq 10:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC) maybe of intrest http://www.axt.org.uk/essays/sacks1.htm Zeq 10:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC) BLP defamatory statements need immediate deletion/ammendment Hello SV, I dont know if you missed this. Omura article again. Please take a thorough look at this, as it really is clearly defamatory and anti BLP: [1] and [2] I set the argument out twice as clearly as I could, but Crum375 did not actually address the point made. The lead in paragraph is factually incorrect - confirmed by both the summing up Tribunial statements that are given lower down. What is needed is to insert that the decision of the Tribunial in both cases - in the Tribunial's own words - was because BDORT/PMRT etc was used to the exclusion of standard tests to confirm findings. Anyone can read that what the lead says is that Gorringe was found guilty for using BDORT (ie just for using it); and also because they opined that it was not scientific etc - which is also not what the Tribunial actually said - again as explicitly quoted lower down. This, left as it is, is obviously not only totally inaccurate - but damaging to Dr Omura, as it says that a doctor who used BDORT was found guilty. Which I am sure will please anyone with a (hidden) bias against Omura/BDORT. However it puts an official medical opinion on BDORT that does not exist - which is not just to Dr Omura and of course suggests strongly that no one should use BDORT and that Dr Omura is the proponent of a technique that's use has been declared inappropriate by medical people - which to repeat, is not what the Tribunial ruled, in both cases, as confirmed irrefutably by the Tribunial report summing-up statements quoted in the article lower down. This is the main point. The first part of the sentence also sings loud and clear with the WP:OR that the only scientific etc claim, which is not citated and is an 'anti-information' sentence - ie proposes a fact based on lack of refuting information, and also breaks BLP as it suggests something without proper citation that is very potentially damaging, if not already, and so needs speedy deletion/ammendment. Not to mention that basic accuracy is needed. I also asked you to comment on Crum's rationale for the 'disclaimers' that he has previously been told by two Admins that they are not appropriate to WP. Again, someone anti Omura/BDORT would relish them. Please act speedily re the BLP issues - as again WP may not be party in any way to defamatory statements as J. Wales is quoted himself in the BLP page: Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. [2] These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim. Only scientific etc is not citated. The inaccurate representation of the Tribunial in the lead in is not only inaccurate very negative statement refuted further down in the article but as is, is potentially highly damaging and influencial as such to Dr Omura and his reputation and work, and all the other MDs/PhDs that use his work. It is also damaging to Gorringe himself, as the sentence ignores para 292 of the report where he is quoted as saying (with emphasis recorded on his behalf) that he knows that BDORT/PMRT etc findings need to be backed up by standard lab tests. But because he did not do this he was dismissed. That is, currently the article also completely misrepresents Dr Gorringe and his actions and the reason for his dismissal, which is not OK. Thanks for the attention.Richardmalter 11:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC) IMO BLP would not apply in principle if Mr. X invents a machine (let's say) and the machine, when used by someone else, does not work as expected. Also, if that machine is evaluated by some group, which says that the design is defective, that would not invoke BLP rules, IMO. BLP would kick in when we say that Mr. X cheated, lied, stole, or otherwise did something illegal or immoral. Creating an invention that is controversial or deemed defective by some, would not be defamation of the person's character and hence would not be considered 'derogatory' to the person. Lots of people invent things that don't work (I have myself ;^)) - that is not a BLP issue per se. Having said all of that, we still must meet all of WP's normal attribution rules, and the stronger ones that apply to controversial material in general, just not BLP. Crum375 13:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC) I'm confused as to why it matters so much to focus on the Tribunal's finding (if indeed this was their finding) that BDORT/PMRT etc was used to the exclusion of standard tests, and that it was this, rather than the use of it in and of itself, that was problematic. What they're saying, in other words, is that BDORT doesn't work, so any medical practitioner who uses it may only use it as an adjunct, and must also do the regular medical things with the patient too. That doesn't strike me as much of an endorsement. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC) DRV issues I'll fork the general discussion about deletion review issues over here if you don't mind. Of course, Wikipedia talk:Deletion review would be an even better place. My current number one concern about deletion review is that it is being used more than I'm comfortable with to contest keep (and equivalent) closures of AFD. Sometimes they feel like claims that a closure was clearly wrong, and it makes sense to leave DRV as a venue for discussing that. But sometimes these reviews feel like forum shopping, which shouldn't be allowed. Mostly both groups make claims that the AFD closing admin allowed the numbers in the discussion to override policy and guidelines. I end up with just my own gut feel to classify the cases, and that isn't great. I think deletion review should never do more than relist these unless the closing admin agrees that they got the close wrong. I understand your concern about needing a consensus to keep something deleted at deletion review. Not to say I agree with it, but I do understand it. Part of why I don't agree with it is that Wikipedia's normal and preferred decision model is consensus, so I had no objection to swapping DRV from vote to consensus. As a deletion review regular, I quite certain we haven't seen anything that has bounced AFD-DRV-AFD-DRV-AFD. I know that AFD-DRV-AFD is a very common pattern, but even there the usual result of the second AFD is keep (or merge, or no consensus). I can't recollect any AFD-DRV-AFD-DRV cases, but we've probably had one or two that died there. Another common pattern, but not a problem at all, is AFD-DRV-DRV-DRV-DRV... Well, ok, it wastes time and energy, but not much; the second and later deletion reviews usually get short shrift until someone actually writes a new article in user space. We did have one of those recently, on the pattern AFD-DRV-DRV-userspace-DRV-article... but since that got us a total rewrite ineligible for G4, I consider that a deletion review success. Having thought about the statistics, my current mental image for the function of DRV is the backup safety valve on a pressure cooker. The primary safety valve is discussion with the admin that acted. Most of the time, we aren't used - less than 2 in 1000 deletions during December got brought to us. Most of the time, we turn requests down (the 30%-33% overturn rate). Our actual overturn rate for December was about 5 in 10,000 deletions I also believe that those statistics show that the normal functioning of our other deletion processes (speedy, prod, XfD) is quite healthy. If there was a major problem with them, deletion review would get more cases opened. I know I couldn't really handle a doubling of deletion review volume without looking at a much lower fraction of reviews. I look into at least 80% of them, though opine on fewer. GRBerry 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)