User:Atama: Difference between revisions
The site seems to be working fine again. |
regarding accurate edit of the Iridology page |
||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
'''If I have restored an article that was deleted through proposed deletion''', keep in mind that it's not necessarily "safe". I evaluate every article before deleting it, and if I deleted something then there was a reason for it. If I restore a proposed deletion, but it meets one of our [[WP:CSD#Criteria|speedy deletion criteria]] then I may delete it per that rationale (in which case it can't be easily restored). The article may also be taken to [[WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]] to be deleted (either by myself or someone else). In most cases, an article is deleted because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's [[WP:N|notability]] requirements, and the best way to show that an article is notable is showing significant coverage in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. |
'''If I have restored an article that was deleted through proposed deletion''', keep in mind that it's not necessarily "safe". I evaluate every article before deleting it, and if I deleted something then there was a reason for it. If I restore a proposed deletion, but it meets one of our [[WP:CSD#Criteria|speedy deletion criteria]] then I may delete it per that rationale (in which case it can't be easily restored). The article may also be taken to [[WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]] to be deleted (either by myself or someone else). In most cases, an article is deleted because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's [[WP:N|notability]] requirements, and the best way to show that an article is notable is showing significant coverage in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. |
||
===RedLeaf66=== |
|||
Dear Atama, I am having difficultly as I want to edit the Iridology page, which is factually incorrect, sites bogus research and is clearly written by someone who is not a neutral party. The description of what Iridology IS is inaccurate, and has been slanted so that the bogus studies can discredit it. The only external references are negative ones. This page does not represent a neutral view of what Iridology is, what Iridologists claim they can do, how Iridology is used in practice, etc. It is simply a page where someone got there first who wanted to discredit iridology and now his/her view is the accepted view and I am being told that I am being biased for pointing this out. This is not logical. I can point to a great many external sources about Iridology and NONE of them will say that Iridology claims to diagnose disease, yet this page is focused on discrediting Iridology for making this claim. I have tried to talk with OrangeMike about it but he isn't being neutral either. He claims that what is on the page is the 'accepted medical view' - the medical view of iridology is only relevant if they have a view '''based on what Iridology actually is''' and what it claims to be. The person(s) who wrote this article looked for references specifically to discredit this area of study. I wrote an edit that is factually correct about what Iridologists practice and what they claim and DON"T claim, and it was deleted immediately. This is at the point now of being extreme bias against this field. If the page is incorrect it should be fixed. If there is going to be a view by a non-iridologist citing (apparrant) studies that seek to prove that Iridology doesn't do something that Iridologists don't claim it does in the first place, then this needs to be balanced with a trained Iridologists presentation of what Iridology is, what it claims to do, and what it doesn't claim to do. Iridologists don't work with diagnosing disease AT ALL. The modern medical view of disease is contrary to what Iridologist's see in the iris to begin with. A medical doctor diagnoses disease based upon the theory that disease is something that attacks the body from the outside. This theory began in earnest with the discovery of bacteria. An Iridologist, and those who practice natural medicine, view disease as primarily when someone creates the fertile ground inside of themselves for invaders. That the person creates the fertile ground FIRST. So disease, as diagnosed by the medical profession, is irrelevant. If you read the Iridology page one would have to assume that Iridologists are a bunch of nuts going around claiming they can do what x-rays, blood tests, CAT scans, etc can do. This could not be further from the truth. The person that wrote this page is absolutely mis-representing this profession and what he/she is saying is harmful slander. Would you please help me to correct this page. I am experienced in this field and know what I am talking about. It wouldn't be right to ban an oncologist from editing the oncology page, or a breeder of Chihuahua's from editing the Chihuahua page. OrangeMike appears to be suggesting that because I am an iridologist I am banned from editing the Iridology page. The opposite should be the case. It doesn't stop Iridology bashers from editing as well, but at the moment ONLY iridology bashers (who are extremely lose with the truth) are represented there. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks ===--[[User:LeafRed66|LeafRed66]] ([[User talk:LeafRed66|talk]]) 16:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)LeafRed66 --[[User:LeafRed66|LeafRed66]] ([[User talk:LeafRed66|talk]]) 16:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:30, 18 June 2011
| This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Atama. |
.svg){kind=small}
About Me
- As a Wikipedian I try to be fair and unbiased in my work on articles. I have improved articles on subjects that I dislike, and I have argued to delete articles about subjects that I admire.
- I always try to consider the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, most especially the need for articles to be notable, which is verified by reliable sources. I firmly believe that the burden for proving such notability lies with those who wish for the article to be included, not for those who wish the article to be removed. I try to judge an article based on the subject of the article, not on how it is currently written nor on who has created or edited the article or who is advocating the article.
- I don't believe there is a limit to the size of the encyclopedia, but I do believe that for the encyclopedia to function it must have articles that are encyclopedic, even as Wikipedia redefines what an encyclopedia is. I am neither an inclusionist, nor a deletionist, and find myself defending as many articles as I try to remove. I try to judge each article on its own merits rather than on any greater agenda or philosophy.
- I do not have a problem with single-purpose accounts, depending on what that purpose is.
- I try to be courteous to other editors and assume that they mean well even when I disagree with them, until they give a clear indication that they don't. I especially try to be kind to a newcomer, as they are the most likely to make honest mistakes. When a person's initial impression is negative they are unlikely to return, and Wikipedia can't survive without drawing new editors. However, a person must show a sincere desire to contribute positively to the encyclopedia, and not simply be a vandal or advertiser.
- I can, and do, change my mind if someone gives me a good enough reason. I can, and do, make mistakes and I
acknowlegeacknowledge that. That wasn't intentional irony, I actually made a typo in that sentence. My point is made.
Proposed Deletions
I keep an eye on proposed deletions that have expired, or are close to expiring. I will decline the proposed deletion of any article that has had a proposed deletion objected to in the past, or has survived a deletion discussion, or where an editor has clearly expressed an opposition to the deletion (yet hasn't removed the tag). All of those situations make a proposed deletion invalid, as proposed deletions must be uncontroversial. Also, if I determine that the article is worth keeping, I will decline it personally and usually explain why on the talk page of the article.
Did I delete "your" article?
If I have deleted an article you want restored through proposed deletion (prod), then just ask me to restore it, and I will. Proposed deletions are uncontroversial and can be restored by anyone's request. I'll also restore proposed deletions that someone else has deleted. I will not restore articles deleted through other means, Deletion Review is where you should go if you feel a deletion was wrong. If I have deleted an article through speedy deletion (CSD) and I made a mistake (it has happened before), if you can point out where I made a mistake, I'll restore the article. I won't do so if another administrator was the person who deleted the article, again in that case you should try Deletion Review (or talk to that other administrator).
If I have restored an article that was deleted through proposed deletion, keep in mind that it's not necessarily "safe". I evaluate every article before deleting it, and if I deleted something then there was a reason for it. If I restore a proposed deletion, but it meets one of our speedy deletion criteria then I may delete it per that rationale (in which case it can't be easily restored). The article may also be taken to Articles for Deletion to be deleted (either by myself or someone else). In most cases, an article is deleted because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, and the best way to show that an article is notable is showing significant coverage in reliable sources.
RedLeaf66
Dear Atama, I am having difficultly as I want to edit the Iridology page, which is factually incorrect, sites bogus research and is clearly written by someone who is not a neutral party. The description of what Iridology IS is inaccurate, and has been slanted so that the bogus studies can discredit it. The only external references are negative ones. This page does not represent a neutral view of what Iridology is, what Iridologists claim they can do, how Iridology is used in practice, etc. It is simply a page where someone got there first who wanted to discredit iridology and now his/her view is the accepted view and I am being told that I am being biased for pointing this out. This is not logical. I can point to a great many external sources about Iridology and NONE of them will say that Iridology claims to diagnose disease, yet this page is focused on discrediting Iridology for making this claim. I have tried to talk with OrangeMike about it but he isn't being neutral either. He claims that what is on the page is the 'accepted medical view' - the medical view of iridology is only relevant if they have a view based on what Iridology actually is and what it claims to be. The person(s) who wrote this article looked for references specifically to discredit this area of study. I wrote an edit that is factually correct about what Iridologists practice and what they claim and DON"T claim, and it was deleted immediately. This is at the point now of being extreme bias against this field. If the page is incorrect it should be fixed. If there is going to be a view by a non-iridologist citing (apparrant) studies that seek to prove that Iridology doesn't do something that Iridologists don't claim it does in the first place, then this needs to be balanced with a trained Iridologists presentation of what Iridology is, what it claims to do, and what it doesn't claim to do. Iridologists don't work with diagnosing disease AT ALL. The modern medical view of disease is contrary to what Iridologist's see in the iris to begin with. A medical doctor diagnoses disease based upon the theory that disease is something that attacks the body from the outside. This theory began in earnest with the discovery of bacteria. An Iridologist, and those who practice natural medicine, view disease as primarily when someone creates the fertile ground inside of themselves for invaders. That the person creates the fertile ground FIRST. So disease, as diagnosed by the medical profession, is irrelevant. If you read the Iridology page one would have to assume that Iridologists are a bunch of nuts going around claiming they can do what x-rays, blood tests, CAT scans, etc can do. This could not be further from the truth. The person that wrote this page is absolutely mis-representing this profession and what he/she is saying is harmful slander. Would you please help me to correct this page. I am experienced in this field and know what I am talking about. It wouldn't be right to ban an oncologist from editing the oncology page, or a breeder of Chihuahua's from editing the Chihuahua page. OrangeMike appears to be suggesting that because I am an iridologist I am banned from editing the Iridology page. The opposite should be the case. It doesn't stop Iridology bashers from editing as well, but at the moment ONLY iridology bashers (who are extremely lose with the truth) are represented there. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks ===--LeafRed66 (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)LeafRed66 --LeafRed66 (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)