User talk:Cjwilky

Welcome

Hello, Cjwilky! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing!   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Curious..

From the perpective of a homeopathy beleiver, and I don't mean that to be perjorative, I'm just curious. What would happen were an homeopathic remedy or its components be added to a large body of water? I haven't done the math, but the dilution might end up similar to a final homeopathic product. So could that potentify a lake, for example? Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hiya there, nice for you to pop in for a cuppa ;) Not so much as 'would', but does do nothing. Its not just about dilution :)Cjwilky (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What is it about then? My best understanding is that one add a bit of whatever, dilutes and then shakes. Repeat until we reach desired potency. Is there something I'm missing? Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You're missing succuss not shake. There's an article on wiki about it, though its somewhat unclear and confusing ;) Cjwilky (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

So shaking doesnt work, stirring doesnt work, but smacking it against your hand does? Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently so, though more "hard strikes against an elastic body" hmmm... even that part of the quote is inaccurate. I guess with someone like you where logic is a stranger, its a case of suck it and see - so long as its not one of those poisonous arsenic remedies, lol! Cjwilky (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a tick, you've been a practising Homeopath for 22 years, how have you been doing it? Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hearing peoples problems and giving them a remedy that matches the state. Info on what the remedy is from the provings. Understanding of the remedies from lots of study. The remedies are in the form of pills (note the normally used language there), mainly dry ones as it happens. Strangely, they work the same whether wet or dry. Strangely again, one person I gave arsenicum to for a good few years, daily too, and didn't die from it, in fact she reported being better. When I gave her placebo, thinking thats maybe possibly that the process that what was happening, she noticed no effect, then better agin when I gave her the non placebo. I say strangely, but it happens all the time. I wonder how that happens...? Cjwilky (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You wonder why placebo didn't work as well as the homeopathic pill. Have you heard of double-blind tests, and why they are essential in scientific studies? Also, no scientific study has proven the efficacy of homeopathy, why would that be if it works for your patients? 80.217.8.62 (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

In reply to the first part of what you say, I don't get your point. You tell me why the homeopathic remedy worked and the placebo didn't? There are plenty of studies demonstrating the efficacy of homeopathy. Thanks for your interest all the same on that one, but really is too much of a potential discussion given what I guess is your perspective, and I haven't got the time. If you have a neutral perspective and a genuine interest, I'm sure you are able to look at the well documented evidence. Try google for starters. Cjwilky (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting, but I have to say, I'm still confused. There aren't any studies that I'm aware of that prove the efficacy of homeopathic remedies. Not at least in what I consider credible literature, perhaps you could point me to some? At least I can understand the physical mechanism for most medicine even if I don't quite understand it. With homeopathy you have to get very creative to even conceive of a mechanism by which it could work. Just the fact the the remedy only works if succussed, not if stirred, but does still work when dropped on to a sugar pill then the liquid evaporates away... this seems so very inconsistant. Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the uncredible literature you have looked at? Maybe with that excluded we can more easily get to looking at the key topic. Cjwilky (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Doncaster Rovers F.C. players

Thanks for your additions to this article, although on the talk page you state that appearance stats (and presumably career years as well) have been taken from the Wikipedia articles and not from the direct references. Please can you check your additions against the listed sources, as the stats on Wikipedia pages may not be correct (unfortunately). Also I'm not sure about the notability of some of the players with less than 100 caps - is Cowan notable as a Donny player as a result of winning the FA Cup with City? Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hiya, its been fascinating! I'll check all the stats with the references given though the pre war stats are not now available unless anyone has downloaded the lot somewhere. I'll do this once have gone through all the players in the list of DRFC players. Some of the players there are current rather than former. I think that including them makes for a more interesting read though can see the stats will need updating - I clocked the date at the top of the 100 appearances list. Sam Cowan is in the list of internationals and not in the list of 100 caps - although as he was captain of city and actually lifted the cup it does make him 'notable'. I'm very strict about the list being 100 caps, and not even 99! There's room for other lists later, maybe. As for that list of internationals, its done now and is interesting and does put forward those who were internationals during their donny time and includes those who went on to be internationals which to me is more interesting than those who were internationals before coming to the club. I'd like to make a little table out of them at some point including a column for caps won whilst at Donny. Not too tricky to find all those stats but a job for the future. Maybe better to discuss all this on the talk pages for the articles concerned? Nice to know someone noticed all the effort anyway ;)Cjwilky (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. You may have noticed that I was the only real contributor to the article before you, so we're probably OK keeping the discussion here for now, we can always move relevant bits later. Thanks for agreeing to check the stats - we want to ensure they're right, but if we don't know for certain we should make that clear as well e.g. the excellent Neil Brown site only indicates the season the player first played in the Football League, and not which actual year, nor whether they played earlier games in cup competitions. I have access to pre-war league player records via the Michael Joyce book. The wording at this article (and at a number of other club lists) indicates that players with less than 100 appearances (note "caps" tends to only be used to refer to internationals) can be included if their claim to notability is noted. I think some of the notes you've added are a bit long. We only want to establish main notability, more details are at the player article. Also, thanks for the Keetley article, although have a look at other articles as to how to "cite" references e.g. Noel George. That's all for now, keep up the good work. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you'd done something there, didn't realise it was mainly your work. I'll shorten the notes, agreed. There's no doubt a few other pre war players to add to that list plus others on the Neil Brown list who aren't in wiki eg Clarrie Jordan, Bert Tindill and Steve Lister already (I saved a penalty from Steve when at school ;) maybe I can enter that? ;) ). All interesting and work to do - was in the same class at school with Bill Patersons son - had no idea he was such a big presence at Donny, that was the highlight of doing this.

Re Tom Keetley, if you know anything else about him would be fascinated to know. I'm thinking of making an article about the Keetley brothers at some point down the line - pretty unique family. For now, knowing how many games he played for BPA before Donny would be good if thats in your book. But any info on him or his brothers would be great if and when you have the time.

I'm rabbiting away here assuming you're a Donny fan... but having just looked at your contributions it seems that you're preobably not!

Think I'll have to get hold of Joyces book to complete this. Cjwilky (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you have added a number of other players to the list, but I think a number of them would benefit from a note explaining that not all of their stats are known/included. You can see I added one for Rhodes. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Thank you for stating at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Homeopathy that you are a practicing homeopath. I urge you to make yourself familiar with our conflict of interest guidelines. These do not preclude your participation at Homeopathy, but rather guide how you should go about it to preclude possible problems. Regards, LeadSongDog come howl! 03:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been practising for 22 years. I didn't realise it was an issue. And makes no difference apart from it shows my understanding of the topic in certain ways. Thats not to pull the expert card, not at all. But I do know how homeopathy works. It would be fitting to see other homeopathy editors declare their interests and associated activities ie those activities that can be *in any way* associated with the subject of homeopathy or medicine. Cjwilky (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What you or anyone else knows is irrelevant on wp, the important thing is what you can cite. If readers can't wp:Verify it in those cited sources, it just doesn't belong. That is iron-clad policy. Look at the line directly under the edit window: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." LeadSongDog come howl! 22:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thats the long and short of what I said, thanks for the advice all the same. As for what is verifiable and what isn't, and the hierarchy of all that, thats something to describe acurately without judgement or conclusion. And your interests and other involvement with anything whatsoever to do with homeopathy or criticism of it and other such medicines are what?Cjwilky (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

'Italic text'== WP:TE on Talk:Homeopathy == I posted a reply to you before closing the section on the talk page, which I will copy here to be sure you've seen it.

I'm closing the discussion per input from multiple editors above. Cjwilky, I'd urge you to read the policies which have been provided carefully, in particular WP:TE. Your behavior started as good faith inquiries, and has now become blatantly disruptive. If you continue in this way on other sections or areas of the site, it will have to be reported, and you will end up blocked. You've had ample warnings. Please stop.

Please note that this is the final warning I'll issue you this matter, after receiving a multitude on Talk:Homeopathy. If you have questions about this, or any policy, please stop and ask questions of another editor on their user talk page. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Tell me about your ranking here. Cjwilky (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ranking?   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Mann Jess is #1 in my book. N^oformation ^Talk 19:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You closed a discussion and threatened me if I were to open it. You are acting as if you own the place. As someone who I guess has been around here a while you should be helping and supporting. The way you're handling this could be said to be one sided and bias. So no ranking... sorry mate, if I'm asking the worng questions, I am new and trying to understand what on earth is going on! Cjwilky (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol. Thanks for the laugh, Noformation. That was unexpectedly funny :)

@Cjwilky I was "helping and supporting" for quite a while. I explained our policy, civilly pointed out why things are the way they are, welcomed you to provide contrary sources, and even invited you to ask further questions. However, you chose to ignore input from me and other editors in favor of arguing without citing your claims. I'm not going to do that. I have better things to do with my time than argue with strangers on the internet. I'm here to write an encyclopedia, not debate the merits of CAM. If you have legitimate questions about how things work here, you are still welcome to ask. I'm sure we would also welcome new sources, since as a practicing Homeopath you probably have access to many. However, I'm not going to continue your argument on the Homeopathy talk page. As far as I'm concerned, that's been settled by overwhelming consensus.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the links you've given. I also thank you for putting up my talk page - tried to find out how to thank you but was new to the system and couldn't see how! I haven't ignored your input as much as you might perceive.

I have found the discussion on the talk page unfriendly on the whole. I'm not aiming that at you, as you have been one of the more calm voices there, though I do feel you as much as anyone else have stuck to the where's the reference angle rather than looking at the issue. (I know the reference is important, essential even, but you do know what I mean here).

The bias inherent in the homeopathy page is a very sad state of affairs. The editors that have been discussing topics there are not coming from a neutral point of view even if they are using supposed "netral" referencing - reading the discussion is the reference to that. The problem is an assumed view that homeopathy is bunkum, no matter what the evidence. Whether that is the case or not is not important, but the perspective that it is causes a great problem. There is evidence out there to demonstrate homeopathy works, and for sure we will be going there references rct etc.

Meanwhile, there are issues on the page that are messy and misleading. They need tidying. The arsenic issue is one, the pills another. I've started discussion by pointing out the issues very clearly. I'm new here so maybe not in the correct wiki way. However, its clear there are issues with the page and a truly neutral viewpoint in response to what I have suggested could be "interesting, lets see if we can get to the bottom of this" "okay, I can see medicating potencies is the term used, I need to see it defined in a scientific paper", not difficult is it?

Choosing the route of 'shunning' is poor showing. If you look through the deicussions, you can see comments that have been made by others and smokescreen is positively unhelpful. I've had to repeat myself endlessly on various relevant points which are ignored. I acknowledge I haven't been sharp on references, but like I said I'm new here. I will give plenty of references in the future, no problem. I expect references to be treated fairly with a view to putting a balanced view of homeopathy on that page. I expect discussions to be kept to the point.

A start in rebalancing this would be you acknowleding the way things have gone wrong, and without putting it all on me. Only blaming others is not a way forward and certainly not how a community is run. Cjwilky (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'm barging in here but we had a similar discussion above, concerning scientific evidence for the efficacy of Homeopathy. I thought the Wikipedia page was correct in saying that there is no conclusive evidence. Do you have access to scientific, peer reviewed evidence? I would be very interested, and I'm sure you could improve the Wikipedia page to your liking with such sources. (It's true what you asked that I have a preconceived notion on the topic but I'm not gonna shoot you down before listening to you.) 80.217.8.62 (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Cjwilky, part of the problem is evident in your comments above. We can't respond as you've suggested because each of your proposed responses indicates agreement with you. That's the issue... the editors on the page don't agree. When two editors don't agree about an issue, we settle the dispute by going to reliable sources. The problem is, you haven't offered any. Consensus on the page shows that all our editors (save you) support the way we're presenting our current sources, so the only way to change those sections is to present new ones. Until you do that, arguing won't accomplish anything. Really, it won't. "Repeating yourself endlessly" is less than productive, in fact, it's outright disruptive, because it's not presenting any new information to be considered, it's simply refusing to accept the opinions of other editors as valid.

When you say I've "stuck to the reference angle", it indicates to me that you still don't understand how wikipedia works. We run on references. Everything we do is from "the reference angle". You say that you have references which demonstrate that homeopathy works. Great! Please present them. (Read WP:FRINGE too) Doing anything else at this point is unlikely to get you anywhere but frustrated.

I will point out that the editors who've chosen to shun, have done so for positive reasons, not simply because they "don't like you", or your ideas. In most cases, it is to avoid causing disruption on the page, and avoid starting formal action on a noticeboard. In cases like this, it is the best (and most civil) of the options. I'd suggest reading the actual article about it: WP:SHUN. As such, those editors will very likely be willing to engage you again, so long as you demonstrate that you're willing to listen to their input, and that you're willing to provide sources backing up your claims. You have to do that first, however.

I know you're new here, which is why I'm spending time explaining this, and why I would expect you to listen to constructive input and the opinions of established editors as you familiarize yourself with how the site works. I don't know how else I can say this again, so I'm going to move on to other things.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that clear reply, appreciated. Just a shame there's a lack of acknowledgemnt of the rest of what I said. As for points I raised, some I agree need the reference, some are already referenced and that is consistently ignored. Hence my point re bias. But I get the idea and will engage in the wiki model. Catch ya later :) Cjwilky (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"some I agree need the reference, some are already referenced". I'm new to this debate and I might be able to see things from a neutral point of view, if you believe that the others involved cannot. Can you please repeat the sources that you have already referenced, so that I can look at them? I cannot find them when I look through the Homeopathy talk page, but I might have missed some, there's quite a lot of text there... Johanneswiberg (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance and interest. Can we go one at a time here to keep it simple. The first, and simplest, is the reference to remedy. That is already in the article and apparently has been discussed. My understanding is that is sufficient.

Homeopathy Article quote, the whole 2nd para so you can see the context, "In the context of homeopathy, the term remedy is used to refer to a substance prepared with a particular procedure and intended for treating patients; it is not to be confused with the generally accepted use of the word, which means "a medicine or therapy that cures disease or relieves pain".

See Talk:Homeopathy#Homeopathic pills. A seemingly obvious statement I made was: "2) These pills are remedies, in terms of the article and in terms of what homeopathic remedies are. So to say there is no remedy left is logically wrong." The article says, as quoted above, "the term remedy is used to refer to a substance prepared with a particular procedure and intended for treating patients". The particular procedure goes from eg a herb all the way to a remedy that is administered to a patient. The remedy is nearly always in the form of a pill or powder. Indeed the article has a picture of pills labelled as remedy right next to the section I am dicussing in this talk subject, ie in Homeopathy#Homeopathic pills.

The discussion, amidst the smokescreen of claims that homeopathy doesn't work (and that is a significant issue in all the discussions, ie its off topic), includes claims that remedies are the liquid that is dropped on the pills. That doesn't concur with the description in the article, as it is not usually what is administered to patient. It is suggested the liquid aspect is referenced, though I cannot access that. I gave a reference to a pharmacy, one of the most reputable ones in the UK, that distinguishes between medicating potencies and remedies. What we are talking about here is bog standard basics of a term that is used in every pharmacy that produces remedies I've ever come across (I am interested in a reference that shows 'one' that describes it clearly in the way the other editors suggest) and every corner store that sells "homeopathic remedies" and online ones. As far as I understand, this is not the subject of a scientific paper, its a simple description as is cited in the second para of the article and used universally. Thanks. Cjwilky (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, and I have stated so on the homeopathy talk page. Still, this is a minor semantic detail, I'd rather go for the references we discussed earlier. Johanneswiberg (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Will do, just thought easier to deal with the less complex issues first. Lets see where this one goes and then move on one at a time. Cjwilky (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

But if you have a list of sources for the points that you said you referenced, I can take a look at them. The important issue here is whether there are any sources backing up the claims of Homeopaths, right? A couple of words being changed next to a picture doesn't really matter if the entire article starts by saying that there is no evidence for the efficacy of Homepathy and that it is considered pseudo science. That's why I want a look at the sources you mentioned. Johanneswiberg (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed thats the ultimate point. There are sources for that, but I can see how tight it is as to whats considered okay and not. Unless I have a bit of time to go through the hierarchy of sources and check out what I have against that I'd be wasting peoples time. I'm not a researcher and sources is not my forte so am on a steep learning curve here amongst the rest of life. The arsenic poisoning topic is similarly a logical point where the consensus was that it was right to miss out the key "1x" from the article, where it is clearly stated in the summary of the source, because the one line conclusion stated at the end of the source doesn't include it. To not include it, and indeed say how it is in effect a material dose, gives a totally different slant on how homeopathy can be dangerous. The article as it is scare mongers. Anyway, will get back to you next week with the things you mention.Cjwilky (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

86.**_IP

There exists a regustered username 86.**_IP (see User:86.**_IP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ) who used to edit from various IP addresses on 86.0.0.0/8. Not surprisingly this occasionally causes some confusion. Cheers. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks mate - I assumed it was just the IP, should have checked, doh! Cjwilky (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jordan Ball

The article Jordan Ball has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jonathan Maxted

The article Jonathan Maxted has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Liam Wakefield

The article Liam Wakefield has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paddy Mullen

The article Paddy Mullen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jake McCormick

The article Jake McCormick has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

PRODs

Hi, thanks for your understanding. Once they play they should be good to go back in. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Look forward to doing battle with your lot in the Carling Cup :) Cjwilky (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

SkepticalRaptor

You really need to stop this. It's beginning to be harassment. If you've got evidence that this editor is doing something wrong, bring it up somewhere. Dougweller (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Its ONE question that he fails to answer, its not harressment. He could of course answer "This is my first ever account on wiki", but it seems he has a conscience of some sort, so he can't do that. No probs, will take it further as you suggest. Cjwilky (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Welcome back, Cjwilky! As you can see, the battle for neutrality goes on. I wonder, though, would you be able to add a few paragraphs to the body of the article explaining the homeopathic theory of disease: miasmas, why dilution is thought to help increase potency, etc.? Also, could you take a look at the good-article reassessment page? You can probably identify some very specific improvements that are needed to bring the article up to Good status. It would help us all to have a list. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Ben :) Yes, I'll get onto that - I "know" the answers easy enough, just need to build it up via good references.

More generally , I do understand the need to qualify the "scientific" side of it, but I think it can be done clearer without it detracting from the readability. Cjwilky (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic posts

You apparently didn't see the part about off-topic posts. Do not use article talk pages as a soapbox or discussion foru, That is disruptive, and if you continue to do so, you may be blocked. See: WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:TPG. WP:DE and WP:TE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(Discussion on this is at User_talk:Dominus_Vobisdu#Dominus_Vobisdu_deleting_my_talk_posts where it was originally raised.) Cjwilky (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would be on Dominus's talk pag but s/he has deleted from there too! Cjwilky (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that Dominus' message was quite clear. Quit making disruptive posts in Talk:Homeopathy or you might find yourself blocked or topic banned from that article. He gave you several links to guidelines, I suggest you read them and you take them to heart. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting how you're involved... I have read them and make the same request to you to be specific, as per the post on Dominus's talk page which he (assuming you know him/her) deleted. If you aren't wanting to discuss this then maybe you could do with reading some of the guidelines too. Cjwilky (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that you should understand that talk pages are not debating other people on the finest points of a topic, and they are not to exchange blows with perceived ideological opponents. Debates in talk pages are not fencing championships and you don't get points for making witty remarks. talk pages are for discussing changes to articles, they are not for asking people what they think about the topic, looking like the opening to a long discussion unrelated to changing the actual article. About WP:TALK, you quoted the part about not removing other people's comments, but you should dedicate your attention to the sections named "Maintain Wikipedia policy", "How to use article talk pages" ("Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal.", "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue." and others), and "Behavior that is unacceptable" (Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article.). And of course, under "Editing comments" you have a point for off-topic posts (that includes, among others, posts that are not about changing the article, posts discussing the general merits of the article's topic, etc).

If you have suggestions to change the article, you need to make clear proposals for specific changes. And the article is already very mature with many citations, so you need to explain how the available good-quality reliable sources back your changes. If you want to make idle discussion about how homeopathy is good and sceptics are biased, then wikipedia is not the place for doing that. Go to some internet forum and post there. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position :) However, you seem to ignore the fact that I made an attempt to raise a concern about a seemingly unsubstantiated sentance in the first para of the lead that is at best rhetorical. On the whole, other editors failed to engage in civil discussion on topic and so the dicussion degenrated. This is very typical of the style on talk homeopathy. Cjwilky (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You were dismissing sources of the sole basis of your personal impressions of the content. When you asked to remove a sentence, you gave a very strong impression that you hadn't bothered to check at all the source that supported that sentence. Literally, you said that ""I don't see the evidence for the statement. I don't have the book (...)"[1], but it's actually an article in a journal, and you didn't comment on the actual source until after someone posted a direct link to the abstract. Wikipedia is not a place for dismissing sources that you disagree with, without ever bothering to read them first, or even clicking on the links that are given in the relevant footnotes of the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I was questioning the source (there is only one cited), not dismissing it. Of course I could see the summary via the link, its strange that you conclude I didn't as I referred to that summary. I politely asked for clarification on where there is evidence of the use of quackery from this article, as there is nothing to suggest that in the summary. Of course I can research it further myself, but from reading past discussion on this, it seems that no one has read the source. It is very POV to accept the summary as evidence if that is the case, or maybe you have some evidence? I look forward to your positive engagement here :) Cjwilky (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Updating stats

Hi - it is standard practice at WP:FOOTY not to update stats until the match has actually finished, due to the changing nature of games. I have therefore reverted your changes to Dave Syers. Regards, GiantSnowman 20:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough passing on the info and I take that on, but a bit pointless reverting the fact that he made an appearance when he has. Are you thinking the match may be abandoned? ;) Cjwilky (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, when updating stats please can you also rememeber to update the 'Career statistics table' if there is one on the article? Thanks, GiantSnowman 18:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Liam Wakefield

The article Liam Wakefield has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Football player who has not played a professional match and fails the GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cloudz679 16:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

He has played a professional match - see the article :) Cjwilky (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

So you're not the original author of the sentence

You're right, that was JzG. Yet, you undid DV's revert - half a day later. That's not an accidental slip (and if it had been, you'd have had enough time to fix it) so please don't insult my intelligence by claiming you didn't mean to do that. Why you did it is a different question, but to tell you the truth, I'm not really interested in the answer. --Six words (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Your fear of having intelligence insulted is your stuff :) I didn't spot the "supposed" bit when I reverted Doms revertion, its was late, and I read Doms reasoning, that I don't think stands up, and so reverted without fulling checking. So not accidental in the edit but accidental in the "supposed" :) My learning. Though for some reason you say you don't want an answer :/ just needed to vent something here then I guess? Cjwilky (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkepticalRaptor

Hello Cjwilky. This note is to let you know that I have suppressed some of your edits to this SPI because they were violations of our outing/harassment policy. It is not acceptable to post on-wiki the personal information of another editor (or just what you think is their personal information) if they haven't chosen to share it on-wiki for themselves. This includes linking to off-wiki content that contains personal information, as well. Even if you feel the information clinches your case, you still aren't allowed to do it publicly. In cases where private information is relevant to on-wiki behavior, your only option is to email the evidence to the Arbitration Committee. They are the only body cleared to handle dispute resolution in relation to private information like you were attempting to use on the SPI. If you continue to post what you believe to be someone's private information on-wiki, you may be subject to a block to prevent further violations of our policies. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, will do :) Cjwilky (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Bert Cook

Hi - I noticed you updated Bert Cook with some info on his Doncaster career - does your reference book not have his number of appearances listed? Just wondering as you'd only added in the number of goals? Thanks Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No team lists for the midlands league games, just the results and scorers, frustrating is that. The goals all in October and November, plus one FA cup goal at the end of September. Donny were scrimping and saving at that time so wouldn't be surprised if he was only there a few months. Cjwilky (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. + Crashdoom ^Talk 11:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As an update, there is a potential resolution been suggested at the noticeboard, we would like your opinion on this in order to resolve the dispute. Crashdoom ^Talk 08:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

John Mitchell (footballer born 1800s)

To be honest, mate, my sources are probably in worse shape than your own. I didn't even know he played for Doncaster before Newton Heath. According to The Definitive Newton Heath F.C. by Alan Shury and Brian Landamore (2002), he played 39 games in the Football Alliance, 11 games in The Combination, three FA Cup matches, three Lancashire Cup matches, 20 Manchester Senior Cup matches and 128 other matches (presumably friendlies). His three goals for the club were all in friendlies. Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939 by Michael Joyce was even less helpful, although it did note that Mitchell made two league appearances for Bolton in his month there. – PeeJay 23:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

One interesting fact I just read in The Story of the Green & Gold: Newton Heath 1878-1902 by Charbel Boujaoude is that Mitchell played in six Manchester Cup finals, winning four of them. Might be worth adding. – PeeJay 23:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

In fact, that might be an interesting hook for a WP:DYK nomination, seeing as you only created the article today. Fancy a co-nomination? – PeeJay 23:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

According to my data, Mitchell re-signed for Heath in October 1888. I'll check when I get home exactly what his first game back was, but statto.com shows that there could be up to eight games that he might have played in for Bolton before moving back to Heath (and even if he moved before any games in October, that's still four September games). So I guess there's at best only a 1/4 chance of him having played in the first FL game. I'll see what I can dig up when I get home. – PeeJay 15:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, Shury and Landamore say that his first game back was a friendly against a Canadian XI on 6 October 1888, and given his status as a regular starter from that point onwards, I very much doubt that he signed before any other games were played. Nevertheless, that leaves four league matches to choose from as the two he played in for Bolton before moving back to Heath, against Derby, Burnley, Preston and Everton. – PeeJay 19:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed, if we want to nominate the article for DYK, the prose needs to be at least 1,500 characters, and I think it's only on about 1,200 at the minute. I'll look for some more info in my books, but I don't know how much I'll find. – PeeJay 21:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to the wording, but there's one statement that I just don't understand. When you talk about the possibility that he played for Doncaster against the Yorkshire School for the Deaf and Dumb, what do you mean by "just hours before they named themselves"? – PeeJay 00:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see! I thought that statement was referring to the Yorkshire School for the Deaf and Dumb naming themselves! It's a bit clearer now, but I'll see if I can do even better now. – PeeJay 09:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, do any of your sources actually say that it was likely that Mitchell played in that unofficial match? That's the sort of speculation that I think is just about on the wrong side of WP:OR. – PeeJay 10:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, I think we're all set for a DYK nomination! But what's the hook we're going to go with? That he won four of the six Manchester Cup finals he played in? Would be more attractive a hook if it was all six. That he played for Bolton on the opening day of the inaugural season of the Football League but only made one more appearance for them? That could be good. Or that he played in Doncaster Rovers' first match under that name? Could also be good, but I prefer the Bolton fact. – PeeJay 21:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

My only worry is that combining the two makes it a bit wordy, and they prefer hooks that are under 200 characters. The one you sent me is on 198 characters, and WP:DYK says even that might get rejected. How about "...that footballer John Mitchell not only played in Doncaster Rovers' first match in 1879, but also played for Bolton Wanderers on the first day of the inaugural Football League season in 1888?" It's not cut down much, but I think it sums up the hook better. – PeeJay 23:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The quote from Boujaoude is: "A new left-back was needed. J. Mitchell, the incumbent of the last three and a half years, had joined Wully Tait and F. Poland in an exodus to the Promised Land of the Football League. Mitchell went to Bolton Wanderers and a historic role in the inaugural weekend of league football..." It's not overly specific about him actually playing in that first match, but it's good enough for me. – PeeJay 12:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, nice one! And yes, I do think the article is too small to need subheaders for the time being. Maybe if it gets expanded any more, but the guy is pretty obscure. – PeeJay 22:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for John Mitchell (footballer born 1800s)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cjwilky. You have new messages at Gaijin42's talk page.
Message added 14:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Homeopathy

Your recent editing history at Homeopathy 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. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

PMSL! You're the one who refused to discuss on the talk page. AND your reverting was reverted. Check it out, and check yourself out bully boy. Cjwilky (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer, I'm still waiting for an explanation of your eagerness to revert without following established procedures. Without your willingness to communicate, how can I understand what you were thinking and not make the obvious assumptions about why? Cjwilky (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice of ArbCom discretionary sanctions

Please carefully read the following notice:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised Wikipedia administrators to impose sanctions on editors who are active on pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science. If anybody disruptively edits any page relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, an administrator may impose sanctions on their account. These sanctions may include blocks, a ban on reverting edits, or a full ban from the article or topic area.

Before you make any more edits to this topic area, you must familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. The arbitration decision affecting your edits can be read here. This notice is given to you by another editor and a record of it will be kept on the arbitration case decision page. You must understand that this notice serves to formally make you aware that discretionary sanctions have been authorised, and if anybody disruptively edits these articles in the future, sanctions could be imposed on them with no further warning of any kind.

Brangifer (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Warning logged. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Bullran that's simply bullshit. What it is about you that is incapable of following wiki precedure and discussing on talk pages as others do and thinking you have some authority to decide what goes in the article and what doesn't. You're a weak keyboard bully mate, be off with you. Cjwilky (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Cjwilky, whatever interpersonal issues you and BullRangifer may have, he is correct inasmuch as there are some troubling aspects to some of your recent edits to homeopathy and its talk page. I do acknowledge that because of that sometimes-less-than-collegial relationship you two share, you probably don't find him the most effective or persuasive messenger—nevertheless if it hadn't been he who called your attention to the discretionary sanctions in this area, it probably would have been me. I am concerned that your recent edit summaries over at Talk:Homeopathy aren't conducive to...harmonious editing.

1. same old skepto POV
2. the lengths some skeptos go to
3. skepto klan in action

The first thing is that you lump together any or all editors you disagree with as "skeptos". Grouping one's opponents together under a derisive or diminutive nickname is a cheap rhetorical trick. It's petty, and it's annoying, and it should be beneath you. You're literate enough to express yourself clearly without resorting to that sort of thing. The only thing it accomplishes is to be mildly and unnecessarily irritating to the exact people with whom you need to be collaborating to write a Wikipedia article. You're shooting yourself in the foot. (The second diff has the added incitement of intimating a racial motivation for other editors' actions; while I am sure that it was just a bit of hyperbole on your part, it's a kind of 'joking around' that doesn't work in a tense editing dispute.) As an incidental note in the same vein, I've also noticed you've recently come up with your own abbreviation for BullRangifer's username. Unless he invited your version, you're best to stick to either his full username or the form he uses (Brangifer), lest someone suspect that you're doing it deliberately to nettle.

The second thing is more serious. In that last diff, you again use a derisive term to refer to the people with whom you disagree: "skepto klan". Now, the letters k and c aren't exactly adjacent on the keyboard, so I can't help but think it was a deliberate choice of word. The problem I see is, the only klan that most folks are familiar with is the white supremacist group from the southern United States—you know, the one that liked to leave burning crosses on people's lawns, and that got their kicks murdering innocent black people.

I get the impression from your non-homeopathy editing interests that you're not from North America. On account of that, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Once. I'll assume that you didn't think through what you were typing, and that you didn't understand – despite being otherwise literate and educated – how appallingly offensive it is to invoke the Ku Klux Klan in referring to your opponents in an editing dispute. Whatever critical or unkind things they might say about homeopathy, and however much you might dislike what they say or how they edit Wikipedia articles, they are not going out and lynching people over the color of their skins. You need to step back from any language that intimates, suggests, or alludes to any sort of racial prejudice (literal or by comparison, meant seriously or as a 'clever' turn of phrase) on the part of people with whom you disagree. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no interpersonal issues here with BullRangifer beyond the manner in which he acted in this specific incident. That was an attempt at bullying and I don't, and nor should anyone, put up with it from anybody.

Skeptos - lets be clear about this. The majority of editors on the Homeopathy article are signed up Skeptics, and you do understand what I mean by signed up, I'm not being radical by stating that, you only need to look at some of their wiki member homepages. There is a difference between someone who uses skeptism as a tool and someone who follows it as a way of life. The majority there fall into the latter category. In a general way, the language of people who are signed up to this group, both on and off wikipedia, is pejorative to people who can see things in a different way to the dogma they adhere to. The language on that talk page if rife with it, not from all editors, but most - are they pulled up for that? No. Well, skepticalraptor was but only really because he was a sockpuppet for the abusive and banned Orangemarlin. Dogma may be how they see what homeopaths are signed up to, but it goes both ways. The reference to homeopaths in various pejorative ways happens too. Thats not been pulled up. So why not Skeptos??

Keffiyer - it makes a clear point of how separate items can be lumped together in one convenient way and the individuality is ignored. Anyone who does that can be racist though they also may not be. I was making a point not calling him racist (otherwise I would have simply called him a racist and given evidence to that), to assume otherwise is in my opinion being oversensitive especially in the case of that editor who projects anything but oversensitivity, but I take your point and will be more careful in my use of similies in future. Bullran is a self confessed killer of beasts with a gun, hence my reference to shooting.

Bullran - its a playful nickname, you may have noticed I used to call skepticalraptor "skeprap" - exactly the same thing. But if that's a problem, I can be more decorous.

Skepto Klan - no, the KKK doesn't feature in the UK, I appreciate its an ongoing issue in the US. However, it wasn't in my intention to refer to racism but to a grouping that has certain cult, or kult, values. Certainly sKepticism does, and operates in a very cultish way. The essence here is in the K - scepticism is how its more formally known in the UK, the K version spread from the US and has a more specific meaning here ie the K version is to do with the cult and not merely the use of the tool or way of scepticism. So a piss take there can Skepto Klan, Skeptic Kult, or Skeptic Tank. Again, I see a lot of abuse to homeopaths, and see NOTHING mentioned. Sketics being a bit touchy perhaps? However, I take your point and can see some people are either unable to see the humour, or are too willing to assume the ridiculous, so I will refrain from the Skeptic Klan, though not the Skeptic Kult - not unless you also make it clear that the references to homeopaths are equally punishable? What's your plan there?

Unless you really point out similar to other eds on their talk pages, specifying their specific abusive terminology, it would be impossible to respect what you say as anything more than a further attempt of bullying. Or maybe you can explain why you do only choose to point this out to me? User:Bullrangifer or any other eds been messaging you perhaps? I don't know, come clean, be fair across the board and we can move on positively here. Cjwilky (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades not got anything to say in response? BullRangifer is a bit quiet too. Cjwilky (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure that it would be a constructive use of my time to engage with you further. You've already said that unless I comply with your specific demands you're not going to respect anything else I say, so why bother? (You've also slid into unfounded, unwarranted conspiracy theory, if you want to suggest that my strings are being secretly pulled by any other editor.) The purpose of my note was twofold - to reiterate your formal notification that discretionary sanctions apply, and to epxlain why your conduct was inappropriate. I've done both those things.

Moreover, you've acknowledged both that you're being deliberately, childishly insulting, and that you intend to carry on with it. I'm not sure why or how you come to conclude that "references to homeopaths" are problematic in the same way as your using obnoxious and insulting terms for your opponents (like "Skeptic Kult" or "Skepto Klan"). Please correct me if I am mistaken, but supporters and especially practitioners of homeopathy seem to refer to themselves as "homeopaths" all the time in their publications and professional organizations; I am not aware of it being a term of derision.

I do hope that you can move on positively, as you put it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a poor analysis of the situation. I asked you to apply the same to the skeptics as you do to me - hardly a wild demand, just asking for fairness. Is that beyond your ken?

The "conspiracy theory" was merely a way of suggesting you do the above. It was a question not a statement.

Yes you made your reiteration clear, though you fail to apply it evenly.

Childishly... really :) I'm making a harmless point. You managed to ignore all I said above and lump in Skepto Klan with Skeptic Kult... come on, its not that hard to see what I said.

The issue is not about being called a homeopath, its about the other abuse that is hurled from the keyboards of skeptic fanatics. Aside from missing what I wrote above, are you really saying you've not seen that? Come on, you've been here long enough to read the rants of skepticalraptor, orangemarlin, guy, and the others. There's some on the current talk page if you can choose to look. Thats poor.

And finally, you make it all clear. You consider it's about "me" moving on positively. I think you could very easily look at the situation as I have outlined it very clearly and see it's about "we".

I look forward to hearing of your reassessment. Cjwilky (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This message is very important. I am in full agreement that this should apply to you. Ranting against it won't help your case. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Barney the barney barney I suggest you keep your comments and attempts at "persuasion" at the discussion at arb com where you have already posted.

Cjwilky (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cjwilky (talk · contribs) - please do try to calm down. To clarify for you - you haven't been taken to WP:ARB/PS (yet). Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Topic banned

As you have read by now, the Arbitration Committee has authorized "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, [to] impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia." The purpose of Wikipedia is best described by Wikipedia:Five pillars, which includes as point #2 the sometimes misunderstood Neutrality—"We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them."

This you have completely failed to do. Your edits to the homeopathy talk page, which I was first made aware of by User:JzG's report to Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents, have been tendentious, dedicated to discussing the subject of the article and not how to improve it, and failed to make reference to reliable sources. Accordingly, I am banning you indefinitely from the topic of homeopathy on Wikipedia under the discretionary sanctions provisions linked to at the top of this section. That page also has instructions on how to appeal, should you wish to do so. NW (Talk) 13:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve Ellis Wright

Hi, I'm Pahazzard. Cjwilky, thanks for creating Ellis Wright!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The BMD searches have expired, and I'm not sure how well the ancestry.com refs will last - have you tried searching historical newspaper records?

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Pahazzard (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wilf Shaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reichswald Forest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Arthur Rodgers (footballer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Frickley

Ron Walker (footballer born 1932) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Belle Vue

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)