Jump to content

User talk:Valjean: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 324197033 by BullRangifer (talk)
Line 636: Line 636:


Sorry to be cryptic, it's a long-running oversightable issue. - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 17:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to be cryptic, it's a long-running oversightable issue. - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 17:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

: I AGF. Keep up the good work. It's just a shame that Wikipedia needs to be protected. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 01:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


== Cookies ==
== Cookies ==

Revision as of 07:28, 6 November 2009

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

  Some principles governing this talk page  

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette here. This talk page is my territory, and I assume janitorial responsibility for it. I may, without notice, refactor comments to put like with like, correct indents, or retitle sections to reflect their contents more clearly. While I reserve the right to delete comments, I am normally opposed to doing so and use archives instead. If I inadvertently change the meaning, please contact me! When all else fails, check the edit history. -- BullRangifer (collaborate)
  Regarding posting (or reposting) of my personal info at Wikipedia  

  DON'T DO IT!!  

Lately I have become more sensitive to the posting of personal information about myself here at Wikipedia. I am the target of cyberstalking and hate mail from some pretty unbalanced people and regularly receive threats (including occasional death threats). While I don't normally have any reason to hide my true identity, any past revealings by myself on or off wiki should not be construed by others as license to do it here at Wikipedia, where only my "BullRangifer" tag should be used. My personal identity and activities off wiki should be kept separate from my user name and activities on wiki. While such revealings here have often been done innocently, I still reserve the right to delete such personal information posted here at Wikipedia by others. My own and my family's security is at stake here, and I would appreciate support in this matter. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (collaborate)

What's in a name?

Name change.

Alternative medicine critics

Please help develop this. Use the talk page.

Stuff...

Wikiproject User Rehab

National Mentoring Month Logo
National Mentoring Month Logo
This user is a participant of the WikiProject User Rehab

List of scientifically controlled double blind studies which have conclusively demonstrated the efficacy of homeopathy

List of scientifically controlled double blind studies which have conclusively demonstrated the efficacy of homeopathy

Nullity? - 2/0 (cont.) 04:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth?

{{Adminhelp}}

Context: [1]

Chris G blocked me for 12 hrs.,[2] claiming I have done something which I did not intend. Nothing in what I wrote him could imply what he claims. (I wrote: "Please take a look here" with this link. That's all. I could have no way of knowing how he would react. There was no vote being taken, just a discussion. I wanted more eyes from experienced people, and I thought an experienced admin like him might provide some words of wisdom. Instead he blocked me.) This was done without even contacting me or warning me, so a misunderstanding based on "I personally think" has resulted in me getting a spot on my block log. Since when are experienced editors who act in good faith treated this way? I have not sought to get User:Pedro thy master blocked or banned, yet this happens to me. Very odd. I expect an explanation, an apology, and my block logged fixed.

I'm fortunately inexperienced with blocks, and to my consternation I note that (contrary to what the block notice states):

  • "Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail."

I am unable to contact Chris G by email. Something needs to be done about that message.

This block was given too fast and on a very shakey basis. Brangifer (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try an {{unblock}} request, you'll get more relevant attention. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to your block log, Chris G blocked your email. Sometimes it happens by accident (at least it often happened when the feature was new), but he may also have done it because the block reason was an email. I saw that Sandstein complained about an email from you. Was this about the same matter? In any case I guess Chris G saw the two emails as part of a pattern. Chris G forgot to leave an instructive notice and an explanation. I believe that's generally considered bad form. (Administrators should also notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page unless they have a good reason not to. It is often easier to explain the reason for a block at the time than it is to explain a block well after the fact. [3]) Perhaps he thought you were used to blocks and knew why you were blocked. Hans Adler 19:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The reason for the block review result doesn't seem to be any more helpful. I certainly don't see what's going on. Hans Adler 19:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It also assumes bad faith without knowing the basis for the problem. No one has asked for an explanation, or even contacted me by email to ask what's going on. They have just shot first, and aren't even asking later. There were some other emails about other types of problems, but without any expectation of action. Maybe those who don't want to receive emails should fix their preferences accordingly, or Wikipedia could make a policy that emails must never mention Wikipedia or anything happening there. Then the email function would just be a public email hosting function unrelated to Wikipedia. Hmmm. Brangifer (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OMG!!! I have just opened my email, and what is there, an email from the Sandstein. It's a totally unrelated matter, so I won't discuss it here. That's a freaky feeling, having just read and then written the above, and finding an email immediately afterwards. Brangifer (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Valjean (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See above

Decline reason:

Your block is of short duration, which reflects the tolerant approach of the blocking admin. Canvassing is naughty. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

So this is about WP:Canvassing? Hmmm...so a friendly and completely neutral message is considered improper canvassing? Hmmm...no AGF here I see. Brangifer (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously without knowing the emails and going through all your recent contributions I can only guess, but it looks to me as if you posted to ANI with a request that needed attention by experienced editors but not necessarily by admins. This is apparently being interpreted as an underhanded request for a block – something that I believe would be completely out of character for you. Hans Adler 20:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have clearly stated that I am not interested in a block or ban, only more eyes to follow that user's contributions. I think it's an immature user who is blundering along, and by ignoring much advice and many warnings, is constantly violating policies and guidelines. That makes them a disruptive factor here that wastes a lot of people's time. They need mentorship and possibly some form of topic ban until they learn how to do things. I really am looking for more input on what to do. I don't know, that's why I took the situation to the board. I acted in good faith and got punished for it.
BTW, the content of my email is mentioned above. It was totally neutral, which is why I was shocked by the block. Never has anyone warned me that this type of email was considered improper canvassing. These types of emails are sent all the time to and from me, often with admins. No one has ever uttered any doubt about it.
What is really ironic about this situation is that what the blocking admin suggested I could have done, and gave an example, is precisely what I deliberately avoided doing, because THAT really would have been canvassing to get a definite result. I didn't do that, and chose a totally neutral "Take a look", and that got (using very bad faith, and assuming I wanted the user blocked, even though I had already stated I didn't want that) mistakenly interpreted as an attempt to influence the discussion in some undetermined manner. This is a really weird situation. Admins who shoot first, without AGF, are really what makes this project not worth it sometimes. Brangifer (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, please explain

Now that my block has expired, please explain to me in what manner my email fits what you wrote in my block log:

  • "Spamming people to change the outcome of a dissusion (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Numerous_problems_caused_by_User:Pedro_thy_master) is unaccpetable."

I just want to understand this so as not to repeat some apparent error in judgment. (It's too late to undo the damage that has been done to my honor.) Brangifer (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris ultimately apologized, so this unfortunate incident can be layed aside. Now my block log just needs fixing. Brangifer (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have written some of my thoughts here:
Brangifer (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came here via ANI (just caught my eye). Unfortunately we lowly admins can't alter your block log, but one method that's been used in the past to get some kind of explanatory note into the log is to block again. No, seriously. If you were to be blocked with a duration of, say, one second, we could use the summary to create a permanent record explaining the previous block - you could provide the text if you like. Only an idea, and not really what you're after, but I'd be happy to assist if you like. EyeSerenetalk 19:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about getting the blocking Admin, ChrisG, to do this? He's apologised and agrees it was wrong, so he should be willing to do this. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A better idea, thanks Doug :) EyeSerenetalk 07:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to do this? --Chris 09:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, since there apparently isn't any better method. The suggested text is: "My July 27 block was a bad one. Sorry about that." Brangifer (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting this taken care of. We can lay this incident behind us. Good luck in your future here. Brangifer (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punitive model

From the diff you posted, the blocking admin seems to be an adherent to the punitive model of administration. Admins should really think twice before blocking just because they don't like an activity that someone does. I'd like to see the blocking admin's thoughts on the matter. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 08:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Sockpuppet investigations

Are you trying to request a new SPI on this user with a CheckUser request? MuZemike 18:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The template at the top of this page:
is incorrect and unhelpful. After adding my request on that page, I then discovered that this one is also historical. Maybe they should be replaced by redirects? Brangifer (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll repost the case under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr.Jhingaadey. In the future, use the request form under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Instructions to request a sockpuppet case, as there are bots that will automatically sort previous cases as well as CheckUser requests. Thank you, MuZemike 18:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr.Jhingaadey contains a link to the prior pre-SPI cases near the top of the page for future reference. MuZemike 19:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. I'm sorry about placing it wrong. I just started wrong and got confused. Brangifer (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What?

Yet another person defending his removal and refactoring of comments. Very disappointing. ThuranX (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned that, so I can hardly be accused of defending it. I was commenting on your attacks, but since you bring it up, refactoring, as long as it doesn't change the meaning, is allowed, and deleting other's comments is forbidden, so don't do it. You can politely object, but don't edit his comments. Brangifer (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His refactoring DID change the meanings, in that it completely altered the context. He removed his section starting post, leaving it to look like OTHERS dogpiled him and he was defending himself from unwarranted comments. That's not what occurred, and his deceptive and unethical editing was to blame for that malfeasance. He's got either a huge CoI or serious POV issues. You don't want me to stand up to his bullying and sneaky tactics, that's fine, but then you ahd better get him under control. Pseudoscience has a huge arbcom structure around it, and he's playing games with that by this editing nonsense he engages in. ThuranX (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could just point out that he should have left that one part in place. Instead you actually deleted his comments, even the new one(s?). That's not nice. I have no control over him. I have advised and warned him many times on-wiki and by email, but he won't listen. You're welcome to start an RfC/U on him. That's the proper place for carefully worded charges, as long as you have the evidence. Don't do it elsewhere, including my talk page. BLP applies to everyone (including editors) and everywhere on Wikimedia. Don't violate it with your undocumented charges of COI. Don't confuse a COI with a shared POV. If you continue this campaign against him, you're going to end up reported at ANI. I'd rather you start an RfC/U on him, but you are weakening your case by continually attacking him. In closing, let me make sure you understand one thing. I may largely share his POV in matters regarding pseudoscience/alternative medicine, etc., but I don't share his talk page methods. They need great improvement. Start that RfC/U. Brangifer (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I always sign using the four tides!

And sinebot would still put unsigned and post reminders on my talk page. That is why I made this comment User_talk:Slakr#About_SineBot_comments. Please learn to investigate first before saying anything, it would make you appear competent. Your opinions on the Clayton article are just that, opinions. It is within my right to remove comments on my talk page. Kindly desist from abusing your admin privileges and stop threatening me. – Shannon Rose 18:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon Rose (talk • contribs)

First, I am not an admin, just a concerned editor. I have been polite and have not threatened anything. Please be civil.
When Sinebot is always after you (and no one else in that context), then it's reasonable to assume that something you were doing wasn't being recognized by it. If you've been signing properly and Sinebot is screwing up, then by all means continue to attempt its owner to fix it. Bots do make mistakes.
As far as the Clayton article goes, we are both expressing our opinions, but mine and Ronz's are based on a much longer history of editing at Wikipedia and at that article, and also working within those policies, so it wouldn't hurt for you to listen to other's opinions. Even if you don't agree, you should still be polite and do what you can to encourage a collegial atmosphere here.
Yes, you are "allowed" to remove comments, but no matter what policies or guidelines say, it still can make you look devious when you do it to hide things that are uncomfortable for you. Best to be open and show that you can deal with those warnings and advice in a contructive and civil manner. That makes the situation end up a positive for you, because you can show that you can be taught and can learn from your mistakes. You need to show a good track record and a positive learning curve here, and how you deal with warnings is one way.
I have just gotten some good (uncomfortable) advice myself and I'm going to be acting on it soon. Watch my edit history and learn how I deal with such things. Brangifer (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you manage a large watchlist?

I don't have 3,000 yet on mine, and I drastically slowed down additions over a year ago. I find myself spending more time just following up on my last couple of days editing than I do with my watchlist. Do you have any tricks/advice for managing such a large watchlist?

What a bizarre last 48 hours or so! Strange things have been happening in my world here.
My watchlist grows automatically because I have my preferences set to automatically add everything I edit to it. Occasionally I go on a deletion rampage and delete a number of the items, but then it grows again. I guess it's time to pare it down again. I do cover a lot of territory, even though my greatest focus of interest is fringe stuff. I usually take a few looks at the watchlist when people in the US are sleeping or at work, since I'm normally located in a very different timezone, except when travelling, like right now. I'm usually a nightowl and try to edit while they are also online, since most of the ones who reply seem to be in the States. I also check my own user contributions and see if anything's been changed, and whether the changes are of interest. I also check the user contributions of people of interest to see if we have intersecting interests.
There is no system to it, but more often a rather random series of clicks, saves, occasional findings of gold flakes, or even gold clumps, and sometimes just bumping into real flakes and idiots. This place is populated by some very weird people, but also some very interesting ones whom I would love to meet. There are some very intelligent folk here whom I greatly admire.
I can't really admire you much, since I'm supposedly talking to myself. Talking to one's own sock is a rather weird pastime, but apparently this Shannon Rose character thinks that's what we're doing here. It's enough to make one sympathize with those suffering from dissociative identity disorder....or sock puppeteers....or puppeteers pulling strings! -- Brangifer (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"My watchlist grows automatically" The horror! Thankfully, I didn't know that was an option.
Yes, it got a bit bizarre there. I'm not in the habit of checking editors' block logs, but that was another case where it would have helped me set some more realistic expections. I guess that's why AGF is only a guideline. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AGF is not a suicide pagt. It shouldn't replace common sense, which is quite uncommon. That is proven every day here. The very wording of Wikipedia's description seems to attract too many flakes, jerks, and immature people:
It should also include:
which I have added to the top of my user page.
Brangifer (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing format

Thanks for doing it - I appreciate it - and I apologize. I will try harder.--JeanandJane (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to this. Glad to help. Please notice what you have done by using the preview button and correcting things before saving. This post was placed in the wrong spot, so I had to move it. Things like that are a constant irritation. Keep trying and you'll get it. Brangifer (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Correct. Thanks again. --JeanandJane (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troll socking

Remeber that conversation we had about User:Free Hans and other Troll socks? Well, they have been appearing more often and I thought I'd see if they were related. Do you remember any users that this has happened to? It would help in the SPI.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 19:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

I just opened this report. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 02:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion:
Resolved
 – No outing has occurred due to the fact the information was voluntarily provided by the complainant, which is an exclusion under the outing policy. Sarah 02:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only obvious conclusion, since IPs and geolocation are necessary in any SPI, and no personal information (names, addresses, places of business, etc..) was divulged. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deletion of Talk:Quackwatch/FAQ

The page was speedly deleted because the talk subpage was not linked to the main talk page. Now that I look at it more, I see how the page was used in an archive, not sure if the page is best way of doing things but as I see it now it doesn't qualify for a speedy delete but it would for an MfD. I just undeleted the page. I know nothing about the subject matter, but the content doesn't seem like it fits. Sorry about the time for a response, but I was on vacation without internet access. --Michael Greiner 22:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BullRangifer: Declined

For the record:

First there was this one Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BullRangifer/Archive by User:Shannon Rose (blocked for two weeks on August 10). A first. Of course it was declined.

Then there was this one Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BullRangifer by User:Stmrlbs and also declined.

More here:

Brangifer (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnometer "stolen"

You might be interested to know that User:Pedro_thy_master duplicated your barnometer including all your barnstars and comments. I don't feel qualified to edit this user page directly, nor requesting the removal of theses so I didn't act upon it myself but I was kind of shocked to see someone "steals" something as personal as the barnstars. Ksempac (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. I've been on vacation and have been very busy, and am slow in catching up with wiki matters. I'm also doing some interesting research. Yes, Pedro_thy_master did some very odd vandalism of my userspace, including copying my material. He ended up using quite a bit of it. I don't mind him borrowing the non personal stuff, but using barnstars he hasn't received is very dishonest. Maybe someone should notify him that it's not proper to do so, and that it has been noticed. I'd rather stay away from more conflicts with him right now. Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one has said anything to him yet, I left a message for him. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This[4] wasn't particularly helpful. Taking the high road always works to your benefit in the long run. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have stricken most of the comment. I mailed him the URL for the account of the raid. Keep in mind that we're dealing with a multiple blocked sockmaster who doesn't deserve to be treated with much respect. His continued use of socks should now result in his dubious User:Avathaar account being indef blocked. Brangifer (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't give you license to engage in harassment or personal attacks, and I think you're stepping on the wrong side of the fuzzy line here.
Everyone deserves to be treated with respect. --SB_Johnny | talk 08:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To a certain degree I agree with you. Even sockmasters should be shown a certain amount of respect civility, which I have done, although they have forfeited any right to "respect". This guy has been gaming the system here for so long, creating so much disruption, and has openly lied to us so many times, even after being given second and third chances, that my patience with him has worn thin. I have already dropped the matter on the talk page. The details of who he is, his claims to be able to heal every imaginable disease, especially incurable ones, and of the raid, are all available on the internet. He came here and posted links, so we know exactly who he is, the various spellings of his name, his various email addresses, and his clinic address(es). I have collected a list of links that make interesting reading, if following the career of purveyors of quackery interests you. He actually has a very, very long list of diseases which he claims to be able to heal using homeopathy. It rivals the one made by Daniel David Palmer, founder of chiropractic, who made such a list and claimed to be able to cure 100% of all diseases, in his case using spinal adjustments. I obviously have no intention of posting such information here, but you're welcome to read it if you'll just drop me a line. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just to let you know about incident I filed on QuackGuru

I wanted to let you know about this since I mention you,not as an involved party in this incident, but in the events leading up this latest incident. The incident report [5] --stmrlbs|talk 03:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already over. QuackGuru blocked for 1 month [6] --stmrlbs|talk 03:41, August 23, 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations, and I totally agree. He's not very careful with his accusations and use of geolocation. Wild accusations and shooting around with a shotgun approach won't do. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 15:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to socking question

I responded to your question on "My Talk" page: --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result (multiple indef blocks) is found here. Brangifer (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced information on acupuncture talk page

I hope you know that by reverting the last 5 edits of mine, you not only got your wish of having that original (yet unproven) statement back, but you also deleted all the new information I posted about acupuncture working for osteoarthritis in a recent study that was funded by the NIH and posted in a prominent medical journal. I'll quote you right here: "Removal of sourced information, including the opinions of a notable acupuncturist like Felix Mann, is a big no no". Congratulations, you win in your quest to make the article as one-sided as possible.99.255.196.199 (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but as I recall it was included with flowery language that was unbalanced and it was just easier to revert the whole mess. The one study could be reinserted, but using neutral language. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easier, but also correct - an earlier individual study should never be given equal weight to a later systematic review and meta-analysis. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brangifer, you could've easily just removed/edited any flowery language without reverting ALL the changes. That's specifically why I made many tiny little changes in many little edits instead of making one gigantic edit so you wouldn't have had to do that. 2over: there are 3 sources for that statement. One source is inaccessible- the link is old. One source is a study that concludes: "Sham-controlled RCTs suggest specific effects of acupuncture for pain control in patients with peripheral joint OA. Considering its favourable safety profile acupuncture seems an option worthy of consideration particularly for knee OA. Further studies are required particularly for manual or electro-acupuncture in hip OA.", which is pretty much the OPPOSITE of what the statement referencing it states. And the last source actually does match what the wiki statement says. Both sources were in 2006, have conflicting results, yet the statement on the wikipedia page states: "For osteoarthritis, reviews since 2006 show a trivial difference between sham and true acupuncture." Interesting. I posted a newer 2007 systematic review that also states that acupuncture is effective for chronic knee pain in OA patients in the discussion.99.255.196.199 (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the acupuncture discussion page. I'd like an explanation on why adding year of publication is whitewashing. Thanks.99.255.196.199 (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I comment in the east, and you reply in the west. That's devious. I didn't comment on the dates. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, here's your first few words: "SH is right. Your description of your edits isn't quite "straightforward". If SH is right, then I am indeed whitewashing the dates because that is included in what he said I did. He commented on removal of negative source, undue weight and white washing. I know the 2 edits he is referring to with his first 2 complaints, so the 3rd must be referring to the noting the dates of the studies. WLU has also argued that adding the dates is not-so-subtle criticism. I am not a mind reader, so I do not know that you mean you only partially agree with his edits when you say "SH is right." It's not devious- I was just very ready to believe that you actually think that adding dates is unacceptable as other seasoned editors here have done. I don't want to edit it again only to have you or someone else revert it, making it look like I'm continuing an edit war. That's the only reason I want to have this discussion with you. So what do you think of it? Is it whitewashing and overly critical to note the date of publication of the reviews that the statement is based on, or is it acceptable? Please elaborate if you think it's not acceptable.99.255.196.199 (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you are thinking of this edit. Looking at the section in question, it already starts with dating the AMA quote, so anymore than that isn't necessary. If the AMA had issued a newer statement with different conclusions, then we'd have to look at that new situation. Have you found anything newer from them, or even from any other medical society? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into whether the AMA has issued a new statement has nothing to do with dating the reviews. I've already accepted that we are going to keep this outdated, nonspecific statement on the page simply because the AMA hasn't updated their statement yet. It does date the AMA quote, but the recently added statement by WLU notes that critical reviews concluded there is not enough evidence, etc. is not dated and is separate since it specifically comments on acupuncture. In this context, it is important to note the date of the critical reviews. As stated, newer evidence has come out that makes this statement outdated, but the folks around here would rather keep it in, which I accept- one cannot move mountains. Do you not think it would be less misleading to note the publication date of the reviews which the statement is based on? I think that is as equally important as dating the AMA statement itself considering the context where it is perfectly reasonable that one might think that the AMA actually updates their statements by looking at recent reviews. I'm trying to look at it from your POV and I really do not see why we shouldn't note the publication date of the reviews. I do not believe that adding the 20~ letters & numbers will clutter anything or negatively affect the page, but rather make it less misleading. Question again: do you see this as whitewashing or criticism that violates wiki guidelines? If so, what is your angle?99.255.196.199 (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP guy here, just wondering if you have thought about the my question yet: Do you see noting publication dates of reviews as criticism or whitewashing?JohnCBE (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never considered it whitewashing. We do include publication dates in our references, but adding more is a form of adding editorial bias, and that's not allowed here. We present the sources and let readers decide for themselves. Adding editorial bias is a form of criticism that is not based in V & RS, IOW it is criticisms subtly introduced by editors. That's not proper. I'll copy your question and my answer on the talk pag. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit count

Actually, that is my full edit count - I just changed username. Hopefully this will not lead to too many fireworks if I pull an RFA in the, oh, let us just say relatively near future. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you do, drop me a dif for it please. You have my support! :) Hi BullRangifer, it's been awhile, hope you are well. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topics lists to outlines

Yes, I guess I tried to go too fast.

I've done larger moves, but those were in less traveled/watched areas of Wikipedia.

Have you had a chance to look around the WP:OOK yet?

You might also find the support pages at WP:WPOOK useful, as they explain outlines, etc.

Any and all feedback is welcome.

The Transhumanist    21:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to stop immediately any and all work with such matters. Changing of titles and categories has far reaching consequences, and it should all be done following a consensus of the involved editors on the given article or topic. I don't know if English is your mother tongue, but some of the changes you have made create titles that don't sound very good in English. The original "lists" format is grammatically clearer, simpler, and unambiguous, even if it might be a couple words longer than your new format. It's going to be a miracle if you don't get blocked.
What this all comes down to is consensus. That's how we work here. Everything should be done by consensus, not solo editing. Listen to the criticisms and don't continue, even if you don't agree with them. Right now you are giving your project a very bad name. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi I liked your Simon Singh user box but was unable to access inside the page to copy it. What's the secret? The Rationalist (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I think) I've placed the relevant code on your talk page. It's everything after the title and before -- Verbal chat 16:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Your civility regarding supporters of outlines is pretty bad. May I ask you to tone it down a little? It's not like we are enemies or anything, we're all on the same side! -- penubag  (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm irritated with The Transhumanist for his disrespect for other Wikipedians. He needs to listen and stop. He doesn't have to agree or even understand. He just has to recognize that he's irritated lots of people and needs to become more collaborative. His refusal to use consensus is a major slap in the face to the whole community, and if your project thinks that's OK, then it needs to be shut down. It is being watched more now, and endeavors to stop it will be made if it doesn't advocate abiding by consensus. Projects are not above policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL is there for a reason no matter your excuse. Even if you're irritated you shouldn't make other people haywire as well, as that makes it all the worse for us and for you. Also note that the majority of us haven't done any of the moves and your negative comments hurt everyone. I'm not going to force you to, but just try see why we spent literally years of our free time to make outlines. We believe it contributes to the "sum of all human knowledge" or we wouldn't be doing so. and such attacks are detrimental to the moral of the contributors. Thanks for understanding -- penubag  (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against outlines as a format. It's the anal obsession with using the word "outline" in titles that is the problem. It doesn't always sound good. Your project needs to distinguish between using outlines as a format and the practicalities of using titles that aren't simplistic and slavish uses of the word. That's about as foolish as the idea behind the doctrine of signatures, and in some ways is very similar. Common sense gets thrown out the window as an illogical and rigid thinking takes hold, preventing the consideration of other possibilities. None of this preclude using outlines as a format at all. There is one objection, and a potentially serious one, against outlines. They can easily be representations of editorial POV, whereas lists are often strictly alphabetical. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't an anal obsession with the word. As stated by many others, the use of this term is common-practice among renowned works and daily use; users coming across a page titled "Outline of x" would know what to expect as they are already familiar with outlines. Again, I am not saying all lists should become outlines. There are lists that serve better unorganized where formatting topically would be inapplicable. -- penubag  (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, what have I said that you consider to be incivil? Please provide a diff. I may be blunt, but I assume I'm talking to adults and not to children. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's your tone when talking, it reads like you are shouting. Saying whether I deserve to be treated civilly is in question: [7] A big no-no infers that you're talking to a child, which wasn't necessary: [8] You tell transhumanist multiple times a block is way overdue, which is no way to speak to a user who is trying to help the project...and I believe it was you that said to AGF! Don't try and counter this argument, no matter your excuse, it wasn't necessary.-- penubag  (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing the diffs. I see what you mean and I apologize. With the first diff I did mean the collective "you", but that is not clear at all, so I did goof up there. My main beef is with TT, not you, and I was letting off my steam at him when talking to you. Sorry about that. The "no-no" is a common term that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with children. I'm pretty sure you're not a child, and my comment was to make it clear that plain speech can be tolerated by adults. They are usually more capable than children of understanding the nuances of language because of their greater experience. Children often take things very literally and understand what is said better than what is intended. Adults usually can sense the difference and don't get hung up on details. Of course adults who don't have English as their mother tongue should be excused in such situations. Anyway, I'm trying to tell you that I definitely wasn't trying to treat you or TT as children. Discussions about civility, the boundaries of civility, plain speech, bold speech, honesty, real discussion, etc., often deal with what is appropriate, what is tolerable, what is honest, what is truthful and blunt, what is abrupt, yet still allowable, etc.. I don't beat around the bush, that's all. I expressed my concerns and made it clear that TT was being disruptive. Don't be too sensitive or take it personally. It is TT my ire is directed at, and only secondarily toward those who aide and abet him.
TT has been very rude in his behavior, even if his words may sound nice. He's been very disdainful of the concerns raised by his mass moves and renamings and has treated the community with an uncollaborative attitude that is unbecoming of a Wikipedian. I wish he'd have taken the high road, as I suggested to him, by apologizing and stopping his disruptive actions. Instead he kept on discussing, arguing, stonewalling, and repeating his actions, just on a slightly smaller scale. Instead he should have heeded the warnings and advice he was given by so many different editors and admins. Although I have seen some attempts by (probable) project members at damage control, any support he is given only makes him feel he's right and justified in ignoring the concerns that have been expressed about his failing to seek consensus. That's what it all comes down to. He feels that the project is above policy, and that he thus has the right to ignore all objections and continue to repeat very controversial actions. That's not wise and is a very blockable offense. The degree of disruption he has caused is worthy of a very long block.
You mention TT as "...a user who is trying to help the project...". It could well be that he felt that way in the beginning, but after all the concerns that have been raised, he and his supporters should be very aware that he was helping his "outlines" project at the expense of the Wikipedia project. Anything that causes disruption is damaging to both projects. If the concept is good and right, then get a change of policy that is arrived at by a very large consensus before proceeding with such renamings and moves. If you all succeed in that, then I'll support you. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for apologizing and understanding your wrong doings. I can tell you mean it and forgive you.
You mention that your ire is directed secondarily towards those who aide him. May I point out that we have not aided him, but are doing what we think is best for the encyclopedia (which is why we are here). We may have common interests and beliefs but that is very different. I do agree that TT's method was far from ideal but look at all the good work that resulted from the project. He may have moved a few pages (ok, a lot) but there were hundreds of outlines created during the process, all of which are extremely handy (I actually make use of them IRL every once in a while where I couldn't before). I understand his pain when he endures only words of complaint and no words of praise. Yes, TT should have gotten prior consensus, I admit, but it just started as a few bold page moves that didn't seem too controversial but in the end amassed to more and became that way. Transhumanist has stated on his talkpage that he will not be moving any more pages so it would be nice if we stopped criticizing individuals and opened a formal discussion on the naming of outlines, if that is what the opposing side would like to do. -- penubag  (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proper way to do this would be to seek a change in the MoS, probably by discussion on the talk page and then using an RfC located there. By getting things approved at a policy level, a major obstacle will be removed. I could imagine that some approval might be achieved, but I doubt that permission for wholesale changes would happen, since there will be individual situations where using the word "outline" in the title just results in an odd or ambiguous title. I think that's the major objection, and that won't disappear, regardless of any policy change. Titles should remain flexible, being guided by common sense rather than a rigid rule. I like the idea of an outline format and think it's usually a good thing. I doubt that many would have objections to adopting that format as a more or less universal rule.
Basically outlines and lists are duplications of categories, but in a different format. Our current policies allow such duplication because it can aid readers find things. Some people like categories, while others prefer lists or outlines. We're all different and policy allows such duplication in the interest of easing the process for different people. While categories are indispensable, I personally like lists or outlines, where all the links are on one searchable page. Categories can't be searched in the same way, and that makes them have a limited function when I'm searching for information. If all the links are on one page, I can use a Google search, or even better Google Toolbar, and find exactly what I want. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree titles should remain flexible and don't support every list be converted to outlines. Outlines are superior to alphabetical lists in most cases and support such lists be converted to outline format. I think seeking a change on the MoS page would also be the best course of action, but I heard there is already an RfC draft in progress that is going to have a full report on the conduct of the outline wikiproject users. This is the wrong venue to resolve this matter; the Rfc should happen on a policy page like the MoS and start on the right track, not a derailed one. -- penubag  (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My article

History of this thread:

A troll, likely a sock of some blocked or banned user, stole an unfinished (and thus at present inappropriate) article I have in my userspace and went public with it. Before doing so, they left a message on my talk page (below). Here are some relevant links:
-- Brangifer (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my article, you might like it. Theirdelayvivid (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stolen article has been deleted. It isn't even finished and is inappropriate for "publication" at this time. It's a WP:POINT violation to do what you've done. Whose sock are you? -- Brangifer (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find that it has not been deleted. And take a wild guess Theirdelayvivid (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Macromonkey? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
guess again :-) Theirdelayvivid (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this game needs to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Sock indef blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After I think I've seen it all with vandals something like this shows up. Amazing, I'm glad you posted this here because I do a lot of vandal patrolling and it's just something else to make sure doesn't happen. Hope you are well, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a bizarre case. It helps one to understand just how deserving of being blocked or banned some of these people are. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Brandt

So why did you delete my cross-reference to the article denouncing "The Grape Cure" as quackery?

John Paul Parks (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. I only moved it up to a more appropriate location [9]. Something weird did happen then... Somehow I accidently pushed the redirect edit button, which added the redirect code without my knowledge. I had to then delete that. Your edit is still there. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see it, thanks.

John Paul Parks (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedal

WikiMedal for Janitorial Services
The WikiMedal for Janitorial Services shall be awarded to User:BullRangifer for good janitorial work, shown by adding an appropriate and much-needed image to this article. Mootros (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Thanks. Much appreciated. I'll copy it to my subpage. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:71.37.31.89

Re. the {{adminhelp}} posted on User talk:71.37.31.89

This type of request needs to go on the Administrator intervention against vandalism - so I removed it from that talk page, and pasted it there. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and for taking action. I wonder if a template could be designed that auomatically transcluded such requests to ANI? -- Brangifer (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milgrom and the BCA

Here is a thing that may interest you: http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/10/legal-scholarship-of-dr-lionel-milgrom.html Cheers, Verbal chat 17:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and what a coincidence. I just read this about an hour ago: http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/has-lionel-milgrom-libelled-simon-singh/ -- Brangifer (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

BullRangifer, you may want to review Wikipedia's policy on civility. You recent comment was uncivil - it certainly was not respectful or considerate. Remember that one way of avoiding incivility is to comment on the content, not the user. Regards, DigitalC (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get him to stop lying about my comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ICA

Hello, Valjean. You have new messages at Drsjpdc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drsjpdc (talk)

Д-рСДжП,ДС 00:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Valjean. You have new messages at Drsjpdc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drsjpdc (talk)

Д-рСДжП,ДС 18:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Valjean. You have new messages at Drsjpdc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drsjpdc (talk)

Д-рСДжП,ДС 20:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about that too! Any other ideas for that one? Perhaps you can re-think your position re my dad? The whole thing really stinks of yellow journalism and was obviously adversely affected by someone with a 40+ year old ax. - Д-рСДжП,ДС 20:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right about what? That's a detached comment. As to your dad, you're right that you have a problem, but it was created by an (as far as Wikipedia policies goes) improvement of the article. The following of policies was what resulted in what you don't like. Promise me that you won't try to write anymore hagiographies! Also please fix your sig, or the way you use it, because it keeps sticking out all the way to the left margin. It should be at the end of your message, or at least flush with the left margin of YOUR message. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AS the the sig. It's only when I use that template. See the paragraph above. As the that article, its not improved; its just not overt libel anymore. It still fails to meet the policy regarding criminals, in that they have to have committed somethign "major" AND be notable for somethign else. Since I have conceded that his patent was NOT the first, he fails that test. PROMISE no more hagiographies! As I said a dozen times there, it was started with the best of intentions, but as a NEWBIE. I think you can tell, i have picked up a LOT since teh about Wiki Culture and rules.Д-рСДжП,ДС 21:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sig issue is occurring quite often, and not just when using the template. I have corrected it many times now. As to the things you've been learning, yes, Wikipedia is complicated and there are lots of things to learn. We're all learning. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking...

But the Rehab Wikiproject seems dead. Is it still going?Abce2|This isnot a test 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true there isn't much happening at present, but there must be a need for it before it can get more active. Shortly after it started, and was harassed a lot, I posted this about other processes that might obviate the need for the project. As it is, the project does no harm and is waiting for a need. If those other processes don't serve the need, then the project may come in handy. Right now it serves as a place where one can seek interested parties, etc.. If a need still exists, then it can be developed and activated. There was one applicant, but nothing came of it. I'm not interested in forcing the project on the community. It was started as a service, and if the service is needed and someone applies for help they can't get elsewhere, then something might happen. Thanks for your interest. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the good old days. Well, thanks for telling me, Abce2|This isnot a test 20:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmanoia

You're most welcome to expand the page as an essay, turn it into a mainspace article, or link to it freely for information and interest-gathering purposes. I was planning on bringing it to WP:MED's attention once it was in reasonable shape, but don't know when I'll be able to do so in the near future. Please, be bold, edit freely, share the link and add/correct as much as you want! It may be in my userspace for now but it will ultimately end up in general circulation and I'm pleased if people are sufficiently interested to help with it as is, where it is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denialism afd

Hi, Thanks for your input, I hope that you will support your 'keep' vote with arguments from sources and policy. Unomi (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying blocked person

Sorry to be cryptic, it's a long-running oversightable issue. - David Gerard (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cookies

Hello, Valjean. You have new messages at Drsjpdc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drsjpdc (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valjean&oldid=324236783"