User talk:Valjean

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NootherIDAvailable (talk | contribs) at 10:05, 29 April 2009 (→‎Chiropractic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  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....

Access Panel
Shared watchlist at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/Articles_attracting_pseudoscientific_edits/publicwatchlist (Edit | History)
Check shared watchlist
To create an access panel to the same watchlist page elsewhere, copy and paste the following code:
{{public watchlist|Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/Articles_attracting_pseudoscientific_edits/publicwatchlist}}
Context tag
RS/N: Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery
Homeopathy
Block and unblock of a POV pusher
  • "unblock-un reviewed|Ok, so I seem to have been blocked for having an inappropriate name. I apologise profusely for this, I didn't realise at the time of creating this account that it could be taken offensively. So i would like to keep my edits etc, as I have put a lot of effort and time into edits I have made. I suggest the username 'Acromantula'|2=User:Acromantula is taken; please consult Special:Listusers to search for usernames to find one that isn't taken. While we're on it, if you username had been available I would be rather hesitant to unblock you. Yes, your username is (somewhat) offensive... but you were really blocked because you are POV-pushing. Admins are generally hesitant to block for POV pushing, because it's a judgment call. But I'm firm in my judgment, that's what you were doing. No one has been buying your argument that the Cold reading article should say that it is only "claimed" that people use cold reading. Your basis of argument is your own beliefs, rather than external factors like sources. And you continue to hammer the same points regardless of how many people have opposed them. In other words, you lost the argument and you should stop; it's crossing the threshold into disruption. So, if you find an available username I'm willing to unblock, and view this block as only about your username, but this POV-pushing behavior is a serious problem and if you don't address it you'll soon be blocked again. Mangojuicetalk 16:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Source (Bold emphasis added.)[reply]
  • Promises to reform: "unblock-un|Then how is the name 'machomonkey'? And i apologise if you dislike my edits, yet i have felt that they are biased towards the oppposite viewpoint. What I have done is not right, admittedly, although it is no worse than what has been done by others. If that is what is required, I shall change my ways." [1], but the edit summary says otherwise: "contested block and provided new name"
A prof
  • "As a professionally qualified, licensed homeopathic doctor, it was irritating for me when my patients quoted from wikipedia - and when I read the article, I realised that every statement was criticised, unlike osteopathy, chiropractic etc." User:NootherIDAvailable [2]
Editing controversial articles
Feel free to comment. -- BullRangifer / talk 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spinal manipulation research
A collection of spinal manipulation research abstracts, news reports and other commentaries, with special emphasis on risks, plus some other interesting sources. Some sources on the related subjects of Chiropractic, Physical Therapy, Osteopathic medicine, and Osteopathy are also included. Some are of purely historical interest and others present the latest evidence. They are kept here as a resource for editing articles. This list is far from exhaustive. It is currently organized by year, for lack of a better system, which has the immediate benefit of helping to avoid duplication.
If you have any additional sources, suggestions for improvement or personal comments, please use the talk page. Thanks. -- BullRangifer / talk
Category:Ilena's early IP addresses
Nice navigation bar here
Wikipedia:How to edit a page
Excellent tips and tricks.
Straight version of chiropractic article
User:69.127.37.241 made this massive revamp of the existing Chiropractic article, leaving us with a version as only a very typical and truly deluded straight chiropractor could wish it. A very interesting object for study of the straight chiropractic mind. Believe it or not, this is classic chiropractic in 2008! Seeing this type of ignorance might be considered unbelievable to most, but for those who study the chiropractic profession, this is quite a common phenomenon. -- BullRangifer / talk 04:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Templates
  • {{User:BullRangifer/Template vandalism}}
  • {{User:BullRangifer/Background}}
Created List of alternative medicine subjects
Done. -- BullRangifer / talk 04:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subpages
Music groups
Supergroup (article), Traffic, Blind Faith, Blood, Sweat & Tears, Dire Straits, The Yardbirds, Cream, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Spencer Davis Group, Rolling Stones, Fleetwood Mac, Aerosmith, Queen, Big Brother and the Holding Company
Musicians
Steve Winwood, Dave Mason, Eric Clapton, Mark Knopfler, Jim Capaldi, Ginger Baker, Elton John, Sting, Phil Collins, John Mayall, Jimi Hendrix, Jeff Beck, Jimmy Page
It's all about our learning curve
Let's start with a quote from Dave Mason, a great musician and entertainer:
  • "As for me, if I'd have known better, I'd have done better. It's all been lessons, and everybody's got their lessons to learn. I'm trying my best, and I'm certainly trying to learn from my mistakes. But I'd like to thank all the people that fucked me, because it's been quite an education." [3]
It's all about one's learning curve. None of us is perfect or fully understands Wikipedia. We've got to learn from our mistakes and improve. An editor's collaborative potential and redeemability should be judged by their Wikipedian learning curve, not by exceptional and occasional displays of human frailty, that are then blown out of proportion and even distorted by their antagonists. Do they occasionally "cross the line" when under fire, which is quite human, or do they operate on the other side of the line most of the time, finding incivility and the personal attack mode to be their natural element? A look at the totality of an editor's contributions is essential before making judgments. A positive learning curve is what it's all about. - BullRangifer

You've Got Post

I sent you an email. Regards, Skinwalker (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution: Barrett's status as "medical expert"

Unresolved
BACKGROUND: A discussion found here. This is a CLOSED discussion between the two of us. Only after Stmrlbs has either documented his claim or withdrawn it, may others chime in at a later point in the game. We need to get this out of the way before progress can be made.

This is about a dispute regarding what I consider to be a likely dubious claim made by Stmrlbs

"...[Barrett] made his name by representing himself as an medical expert."

Stmrlbs makes the claim as part of his argumentation for why an unsourced (or at least improperly sourced) piece of information about Barrett's lack of board certification should be included in the Barrett article. THAT is not the subject of discussion here. It is Stmrlbs's claim about Barrett claiming to be a "medical expert" that I question.

I'm bringing the discussion here since the dispute quickly became a distraction and circular discussion, and thus a violation ofWP:TALK. I put a hat on it, which is standard practice in such situations, something that Stmrlbs apparently doesn't realize and has reverted twice, rather than accepting what more experienced editors do in such situations. Anyone can do it, including uninvolved editors. There is no firm rule about it. If there was hope for the matter being resolved without disruption on that talk page, it would be OK to remove the hat, but that isn't the case.

In response to the following comment, I'm going to seek to get to the bottom of this matter:

"Please tell me what you think this situation is and where it says an editor (not an admin) can just hat a whole conversation with other people's comments without notifying the other people involved. I do not want my comments hidden, and you never talked to me before you did this." --Stmrlbs (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stmrlbs, our comments are still there. A "hat" doesnt't remove them. It just helps to ensure that our personal dispute doesn't continue to disrupt the discussion. It veered off-topic, and would have been more appropriate as a separate thread, but since it became more personal and very circular, it doesn't belong on that page. Other editors might have removed the whole thing as a TALK violation, but I didn't do that. I'm not sure why we're having the impasse in our communication, but maybe your first language isn't English? Well, here goes... you ask me to tell you what I "think this situation is". Fair enough.

The situation is that you made a possibly dubious claim as part of your argumentation. That claim may be fallacious. If you were to build your argumentation on a fallacious idea, then the conclusions that followed it would be fallacious as well, and we'd end up not really solving the matter about whether or not to include the board certification matter. That's why my response to your claim meant: "Wait a minute. Something's wrong here, and let's clear this up before continuing." I said you hadn't documented your claim, while you claimed you had, all several times in what became a circular discussion. I'm a skeptic and you have made a questionable claim. You must document it or drop it and any line of reasoning based on it.

I'm still waiting for documentation for THAT claim. Not any claims about "expert", but about "medical expert". That's what you claimed. Please document it. I have already stated my opinion about his expert status, so let's not go in circles here. Don't force me to repeat myself.

Please provide an example of him "representing himself as an medical expert." I'm not saying he hasn't done it, but that I'd like to see it, and in what manner it has been done. That is an important matter to clear up. Focus on those two words -- "medical expert". -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My answer is here
--Stmrlbs (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No resolution, so I left a final message and am dropping the matter for now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time

Would you check out this about ChiBall Method? I looked at the link which to me is in violation of spam but I could be wrong. I think this editor is also doing redirects which I will be honest I still don't understand the use of these very well. I have taken time to try to understand this enough to 1) see if it's appropriate to add and 2) if it is, to write it better than it is now. Well I don't understand this well enough to make an intelligent decision at all about it so here I am aking you to take a look and do what is best for the project. I also noticed this along the way by clicking on the arrow in the contributions of the editor. I would appreciate if you have the time to look into these with your knowledge of alternates, thank you in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC) ps, it's going to take time getting used to this new user name of yours but I love what you did with your user page.[reply]

Hi, I forgot about this post to you and just checked it out. Thank you very much for your input on this matter. Much appreciated, be well as usual, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no evidence of notability and only one self-published source, so I deleted it and requested them to create the article first. If it's notable enough for an article, then it can be added. I have never heard of it. I didn't see any redirects being made. Where did you see that? -- Brangifer (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this edit by Verbal removing a redirect. Then two edits later this one which did the same thing that Verbal reverted, I think. I'm not real good with understanding redirects so I maybe off on this part of it. But this was my thoughts at the time. Am I incorrect about this being a redirect? I guess I need to reread about this and see if I can understand redirects better. My past experience was not too good understanding it though, unfortunately. This happens to me a lot I'm sorry to say about some of the policies/guidelines/explanations of things here. I am a slow ranger with understanding esp. when it goes into major details. I hope this explains my reasoning anyways. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a redirect but then the articles got created and turned into glorified disambig pages, but a useful new article was created. The redirects/disambig should probably be looked at again soon. Verbal chat 15:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What new article was that? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green tea etc.

Re this edit to WT:MEDRS: at its top, WT:MEDRS says "To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or the Wikiproject talk pages of WT:MED or WT:PHARM". Eubulides (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Will do. I'm getting lazy.....-- BullRangifer (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

39 months later

Context

And we're still feeding this editor? Come on now. We know that he won't hesitate to make hundreds of more comments about this dead horse, repeating himself time and time again, ignoring entire policies in order to make Wikipedia a battleground for those who want to attack Barrett. Please don't feed such editors. --Ronz (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Occasionally I get emails from admins who wonder why we haven't raised a RfC/User and get him permanently banned. Even they share our concerns about his lack of value to the project, in relation to the disruption he causes. We then get newer users who feed off of him and learn to be disruptive too. They (admins) would like to deal with the root of the problem. Food for thought... -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Resolved
Context here and here.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Morgollens. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Sorry, you've violated it, also. I'm afraid it's my "job" as Admin to report you, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morgellons indeed. The anon you were editing against has been blocked, which saves you. But please, in future, don't indulge in edit wars with anons, get it reported and fixed instead William M. Connolley (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did report it directly to a couple admins, but it wasn't any of them who did the final blocking, and since at least one of the reverting editors was an admin, I was rather surprised that warnings, rather than blocks were handed out. With editors who have previously been warned and blocked for the same behavior, they know what they are doing and don't need more warnings. They just need to be blocked again with longer blocks, and in the case of registered users, indef blocks. I didn't realize it would be considered an "edit war", but rather reverting persistent vandalism by a recently blocked editor. Aren't BLP violations and vandalism excepted from the 3rr rule? I'd like to understand this better, but will also try to be more careful. I just got caught up in the situation, what with all the swearing and insults being thrown at me and others who were reverting the person. -- BRangifer (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it's not vandalism, as it may be the case that some have associated Morgellons with GMO and allergies, although I haven't heard of any such association; and it's not a WP:BLP violation, as no one is named. As an involved admin, I don't think I could do the block. (A few months ago, I believe I actually made a substantive edit to the article, rather than just removing fringe statements.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point about the GMO part. Some of the edits weren't about that, but were nonsense edits and swearing. Hmmm... maybe I'm getting the talk page edits mixed in with this since the IP was active on both fronts. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Since the editor knew what they were doing and didn't source the additions, I can understand why myself and others considered it vandalism. Now as to my question above, if it had been nonsense edits (vandalism), would it be excepted from the 3rr rule? BTW, a little FYI.-- BRangifer (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think reverting nonsense would be exempt from 3RR, but that may require more commentary to determine whether it's in the present definitions. The only relevant phrase in WP:3RR#Exceptions is "Reverting obvious vandalism".... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a number of us considered it to be so, and I took my cue from that, as well as the history, which included numerous warnings for those identical edits being vandalism... ;-) -- BRangifer (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of notes. Firstly, sorry if my playful editing at AN3 of the result to "1 week" confused you. That referred to the anon, not you. As to "obvious" vandalism, my advice would be to be cautious in the context of 3RR. The exception is intended to be very tightly drawn. Adding "Yo mama!" is obvious vandalism. Adding "Morgellons are caused by GMO's" is a content dispute. The general principle is that if a reasonable outsider with no knowledge of the subject whatsoever can't tell it is vandalism, then it isn't "obvious" William M. Connolley (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good explanation, and I definitely agree. I guess I got caught up in the situation and since the edits were happening in both article and talk space, with some nasty comments as part of the mix, and with plenty of previous comments and warnings clearly identifying exactly the same types of edits (the GMO stuff) as vandalism, even left by admins, I took it for granted it was obvious vandalism, but I do see your point about an outside observerer coming on the scene. Well, at least the IP is temporarily out of commission and I'll be more careful in the future. What will happen when he (self identified as non-existent Tex, but existent User talk:Tex, and the IP locates to Texas) comes back? -- BRangifer (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he returns and causes problems, you can tell me. [4] is an odd edit, presumably a mistake, maybe a deliberate attempt to mislead, I don't know William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic

Is there anything about the Chiropractic article U C that I don't?-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you thinking of? At least give me a hint ;-) -- BRangifer (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article too pro Chiropractic? Does it flout the rules of Wikipedia?-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for counsel

Dear BullRangifer,

I'm a new member on Wikipedia, and think I have run into a problem, well maybe not a real problem, but a new stituation I am not used to. Since you seem to share some of my viewpoints, from what I could see on your page, I decided I ask for counsel on a matter you seem to have experience in. I have stumbeled recently on some pages named "Science and the Bible", "Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts" and eventually "Qur'an and Science". As far as I can see all three articles suffer from problems. While "Science and the Bible" is honestly trying to maintain an objective outlook on Science in the Bible, the other two articles are increasingly fraught with what I consider pseudoscientific positions without accurately identifying them as such. The last article is the most problematic, because it has the neutral title "Qur'an and Science" without - in my opinion - covering the topic in a neutral fashion.

I tried to improve on the last article, and have run in my first conflict on wikipedia. My - sourced - and in my opinion relevant and counterbalancing content was removed a few times by another editor, without giving much reason another editor, with hardly mentioning any reasons and not by any means satisfactory reasons (to me). I want to refrain from getting snarky and don't wan't to get into an edit war. This is *not* meant as a request for mediation, I just want to hear an independent opinion and some hints on that matter from a person that has experience with such problems. I hope to read from you soon.

Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be glad about any reply, either here or at my e-mail: Spillerix@gmxDOTnet.
Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about not replying right away. I took a quick look and I'm afraid that I'd get in over my head in an area I'm not very familiar with. I try to stick to topics I know something about. Maybe in the future I'll get involved. I'm going to watchlist the pages. Please wikilink them all above. You might want to also place a comment on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I added the wikilinks and I'll see what help I can find on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, as you suggested.
Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another agenda?

I hope you dont mind my post but you seem to have the right approach to NPOV! I am new to Wiki and dont know the 'moves' or have any support connections. Recently I started to improve an Alt Med Stub Leaky gut syndrome after advising my intention on the talk page some weeks before, with no response. It matters not to me whether it is Med or Alt Med if the science is there, and in this case it seems to be. Anyway I have run into an editor obviously experienced who seems determined to remove any new material on the page and keeps reverting and refuses to discuss on the talk page with asinine comments on the edit bar. I dont think i have transgressed, at least not to the extent indicated. Would you mind looking at the edits and advise me how i should proceed. Thanks Peerev (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick look at the edit history, I see that an unreliable source was used by another user. That's unfortunate. The Townsend Letter is a very fringe newsletter. After that point in time, you began to boldly add a bunch of stuff and it got reverted. You then did something that violated the WP:BRD cycle. You restored it and added more, when instead you should have started discussing the matter on the talk page. Now your additions have been reverted again, and since you are actually involved in an edit war (because you violated BRD, which is only intended to run one cycle), if you restore now you will be screwing up big time and can get in trouble for edit warring.
I suggest you immediately start a thread on the talk page and request an explanation for why your additions were deleted. I would also suggest you leave notes on User:Eubulides' and User:Orangemarlin's talk pages. They are MDs and very experienced editors. You might get some good advice, since they have also edited that article before.
Other points: Only twelve references at PubMed is an indication that you're dealing with a very fringe/alternative medicine subject. As to sourcing, letters to the editor are not considered RS. Also, what do you mean by "another agenda"? When you write "It matters not to me whether it is Med or Alt Med if the science is there, and in this case it seems to be.", that's a good approach, but note that "if the science is there", then it's not alternative medicine. You might appreciate this page I'm working on. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for response and tips; it seems I should follow BLD and discuss now, and find out basis for reversions. On the broader issue whilst there are only 12 hits on pubmed for Leaky gut syndrome, there are 51 for 'leaky gut' including 21 reviews, where as there are 54 reviews for 'bowel permeability and tight junctions' So it seems that the science is there and probably no longer an 'alternative med' subject based on your sandbox? However SBOS does not seem appropriate as only one cause among many possible.
Is there any problems with re-classifying the article to a Med stub and how should one go about this. It is likely to get more interest then and attract more editors, given that it has mainly attracted same so far? thanks Peerev (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be best to wait with reclassifying it, as that would be OR. If it ever becomes a mainstream diagnosis, it will become obvious, without any more debate. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptics

Yes Wikipedia needs more skeptics.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valjean&oldid=286823149"