Jump to content

User talk:Happening

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Happening (talk | contribs) at 15:46, 27 April 2008 (→‎Blocked for sockpuppetry). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Happening! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, 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 using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 discuss 18:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

I removed one of your comments

I removed your comment here [1] because it's not related to the improving of the article. I suggest that you look at the contribution of other editors, pick an editor that you think that will be happy to help you, and posting your comment on his talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

about NPOV

Answering your question on [2], the WP:NPOV requires us to put all reliably sourced facts and opinions on the article, including all points of view. WP:LEAD requires the lead to make a summary of the article, and, while the word "quackery" is not mentioned on the article, the section Homeopathy#Medical_and_scientific_analysis starts saying "Homeopathy is unsupported by modern scientific research", which qualifies for calling homeopathy to be quackery, so it's adequeate that the lead mentions it.

Moving all criticism to a separate section and leaving only positive statements on the article and the lead would be a breach of NPOV, because we would be giving WP:UNDUE undue weight to one of the side of the arguments, specially when there are lots of criticism of homeopathy, and scientific proof against it. As a fringe theory we have to be careful to not promote it against actual sientific validity of it. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enric, There is no section for Criticism in the article on Homopathy which most Wikipedia pages have. Para 2 seems to be pretty critical, so shouldn't we title Para 2 'Criticism' (or else we may end up putting the same matter there as well)? 3 Paragraphs for the Lead may be a bit long anyway. I also found that Anthony Campbell's criticism of George Vithoulkas' statement about Syphilis has been repeated, at least once.-Happening (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edition war on Homeopathy

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have done 3 reverts on 26 hours on an article on probation [3] [4] [5]. You advertised your change first first on the talk page but you didn't wait to raise consensus before making the change, and only one editor answered, and it was for opposing your idea. You made the changes 4 times and you always marked them with "minor", when you were making changes on a part of the article that has been discussed to death to reach that format, and which were being contested by other editors. The "minor" box should not be checked on controversial changes, even if you think they are non-important. Your changes to the lead have been already reverted by five different editors, counting myself, I suggest that you realize that you don't have consensus to make the changes and that you ask on the talk page about it --Enric Naval (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy under general sanctions

Please edit more cautiously, this article is under Wikipedia:General_sanctions, so you may be blocked if you continue your actions. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did wait for replies, but shucks, I wish people reply faster!Happening (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

be careful when adding comments

You accidentally deleted two comments when adding a new comment [6]. I restored the comments to the page. Please be careful not to accidentally delete stuff when adding comments --Enric Naval (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enric, I thought the old comments were not needed anymore. Doesn't that make sense?Happening (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [7] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.-Filll (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

experience on use of homepathy

My mother tried homeopathy medicines once and they didn't do anything. We have gone many times to a naturist, since she gives occassionally good advice, and gives thinks like iron (I don't mean homeopathic iron, I mean iron to compensate iron deficencies). On comparison, many members of my family have taken dozens of different medicines that had the desired effect. A few didn't work or had undesired side effects and were replaced by one that worked well. A few times we've had to try 4 or 5 medicines until we found one that worked. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enric, your post on the article talk page sounded a bit negative. I am glad to see here that this must have been a misunderstanding.
Happening, I don't know if you count me among the skeptics, because in a sense I am one. But I do have experience with homeopathy. My physician, who is a homeopath as well as an "allopath" (relatively normal in Germany), recommended a homeopathic remedy against hay fever. I decided to give it a chance because 1) it's a mixture of stuff in low potencies, so it's more plausible that it works, 2) it comes with a description of what it's for, so presumably it has been tested for efficiency, and 3) I know that my hay fever has a strong psychological component, and some strong conventional medication once worked in a few seconds after I had taken it, i.e. before it got into the blood. Now this remedy really seems to work, although the effect is not the strong and instant one I had with the other stuff. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enric, when y'all have,

    "had to try 4 or 5 medicines until we found one that worked",

    but have given Homeopathy only one chance (it wasn't even you, it was your mother), are you really unbiased?
  • Hans, when the Homeopathic medicine has worked, I wonder why you're still a skeptic?Happening (talk)
Happening, I am not sure of how many times has my mother tried homeopathics. I'm sure, however, that she tried it at least once, and that on that occassion the medicine didn't have any effect, not even side effects
Hans, it's important to keep posts about personal stuff out of the article talk pages, specially in pages with so many comments as Homeopathy, because they fill very fastly with stuff. That's why my comment was so harsh. It's better to keep this on user's talk pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enric, your answer doesn't address my question, so let me repeat it:-

    when y'all have,"had to try 4 or 5 medicines until we found one that worked",

    but have given Homeopathy only one chance (it wasn't even you, it was your mother), are you really unbiased? — Happening (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My mother was not giving any chance to homeopathy, she went to a new doctor who gave her the medicine, and it was me who noticed the homeopathic part on the label. We sometimes go to a naturist. There are not many actual homeopaths on Spain, but there are lots of naturists who sometimes give homeopathic products along with the naturistic ones. On Spain, homeopathic products are sold on both pharmacies and naturistic shops, can be prepared as magistral preparations by pharmaceutics, and can be recepted by a medician or bought directly.
Now, you see, I don't like your implications that I am biased when editing wikipedia articles because of "not giving a chance to homeopathy on RL". I think that I can follow NPOV on articles quite well with no need to make RL contact with the topic of the article. Do I need to live on the Persian Gulf before editing Bahrain? Should I visit Alaska and see Kodiak bears personally before editing their article? I don't need to do so, and I don't need to try homeopathy personally before editing its article. I don't like your assumptions and from now on I will refrain from talking about RL stuff with you. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which means you haven't given Homeopathy a chance at all! The examples you give are unrelated (even your views of Bahrain will be Anglo-centric, or should I say Hispano-centric if you do post about it); when we talk of medicine, it's only the effects that matter. — Happening (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Homeopathy

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Homeopathy, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Scientizzle 00:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Homeopathy, you will be blocked for vandalism. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr.Jhingaadey. Tim Vickers (talk) -05:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a check user is unnecessary, as this one is certain. Take a look at the other IPs he's used. All his edits and comments should be removed or struck through. -- Fyslee / talk 05:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPsock

I checked the I.P.s' used by the said Dr.Jhingaadey, but my I.P. doesn't match any of those, so stop imagining things. Don't make false allegations! — Happening (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I browse/post from a Cyber Café. Isn’t it possible that this person y’all mention has also browsed from the same place? Moreover, at this place, they keep changing their I.P. to get maximum speed, so if the person you mentioned is in the same City, the I.P.s could overlap, but please don’t hold me responsible for his behavior! — Happening (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Happening, you were wise to choose an anonymous user name. The unfortunate Dr.Jhingaadey wasn't so wise; and the first thing he did was posting a large chunk from his health clinic's website on the homeopathy talk page, including his email address. (An error that is very common in men of science, who, after all, are often not men of the world.) The problem that arises from this and the unfortunate fact that you are using the same IP addresses as Dr.Jhingaadey is that people could be led to believe that Dr.Jhingaadey is currently planning to extend his business towards either naturopathy or osteopathy, and the most interesting question for him is with which of the two he can make more money. Given the fact that you have yourself been cured from an incurable disease by a homeopath, I understand that you are making very laudable efforts to clear Dr. Jhingadé from these terrible suspicions, by trying to prove the fact (which I do not doubt for a second) that you are not the same person. But I am not sure that it is in the best interest of the honourable and remarkably versatile doctor when you draw the attention of wider parts of Wikipedia and the internet to this situation. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, I checked the I.P.s' used by the said Dr.Jhingaadey, but my I.P.s' doesn't match any of those. — Happening (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed unsourced comments

Remmoved your comments here[8], please try to find published sources that talk about how homeopaths work. I wouldn't have actually removed your comment if there wasn't suspicions of meatpuppetry, but the actual situation calls for being harsh on addition of unsourced info. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has that matter (so it can't be unsourced)! Our Homeopathic Doctor also confirmed the same. — Happening (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

consider archiving warnings instead of deleting until checkuser is finished

I restored all the warning and the IPSock template [9]. Consider moving the comments you don't want on your talk page to User_talk:Happening/Archive1, but don't just delete them right when you are on the middle of a checkuser with sock accussations --Enric Naval (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. — Happening (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts to evade a block on User:Dr.Jhingaadey. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. MastCell Talk 21:17, 25 April 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not Dr.Jhingaadey - even the I.P.s' dont match. It's extremely irritating to be accused falsely. MastCell, I hope you can unblock me at the earliest

Decline reason:

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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I checked the I.P.s' used by the said Dr.Jhingaadey, but my I.P.s' don't match any of those, so I hope y'all can unblock me at the earliest (and stop imagining I'm him)! I browse/post from a Cyber Café. Isn’t it possible that this person y’all mention has also browsed from the same place? Moreover, at this place, they keep changing their I.P. to get maximum speed, so if the person you mentioned is in the same City, the I.P.s could overlap, but please don’t hold me responsible for what he did!

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I checked the I.P.s' used by the said Dr.Jhingaadey, but my I.P.s' don't match any of those, so I hope y'all can unblock me at the earliest (and stop imagining I'm him)! I browse/post from a Cyber Café. Isn’t it possible that this person y’all mention has also browsed from the same place? Moreover, at this place, they keep changing their I.P. to get maximum speed, so if the person you mentioned is in the same City, the I.P.s could overlap, but please don’t hold me responsible for what he did!  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I checked the I.P.s' used by the said Dr.Jhingaadey, but my I.P.s' don't match any of those, so I hope y'all can unblock me at the earliest (and stop imagining I'm him)! I browse/post from a Cyber Café. Isn’t it possible that this person y’all mention has also browsed from the same place? Moreover, at this place, they keep changing their I.P. to get maximum speed, so if the person you mentioned is in the same City, the I.P.s could overlap, but please don’t hold me responsible for what he did!  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I checked the I.P.s' used by the said Dr.Jhingaadey, but my I.P.s' don't match any of those, so I hope y'all can unblock me at the earliest (and stop imagining I'm him)! I browse/post from a Cyber Café. Isn’t it possible that this person y’all mention has also browsed from the same place? Moreover, at this place, they keep changing their I.P. to get maximum speed, so if the person you mentioned is in the same City, the I.P.s could overlap, but please don’t hold me responsible for what he did!  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

This block has been posted for review at the admin's noticeboard. MastCell Talk 21:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Happening&oldid=208542259"