This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 18
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Valjean. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi BR. You recently reverted my revert of an IP's re-add of a load of material on Pearlasia. That was a mouthful. Basically, the Pearlasia article was created by someone who's been using WP to promote himself and to attack this woman, with whom he's having legal troubles. I'd reviewed the Pearlasia article and trimmed a lot of material that was (a) not relevant or (b) not sourced. His latest IP added it back, so I reverted. Compare my version here with the version you reverted to.
Bromley86, it concerns me when I see such large scale deletions of properly sourced material. At first glance it looks like vandalism, and when I check some of the individual edits, it still smacks of whitewashing. There might be some instances which are borderline, but instead of fixing them, you just deleted it all. That doesn't build the encyclopedia, but breaks it down. Now there is much less content, and she appears to be a misunderstood victim, instead of the brilliant and brazen master criminal she is.
I see you have also engaged in such deletions regarding her elsewhere. I can't see any policy based reason for such mass deletions, when fixing it would be better. When the wording of the content doesn't match the source very well, we don't delete the source, we reword the content. Try that approach instead. Her biography, if properly written, will always look like an attack piece, and it's her actions which are the cause of that situation. We don't allow whitewashing here. Her actions aren't "controversial", they are criminal. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree with you, if there had been any removal of properly sourced material, but that didn't happen. This is a BLP and the original article was a rambling attack piece. I reviewed each section and cut it down to supported points that related to her, rather than the accusations by association that were the bulk of the article (most of the reliable sources used referred to her husband and not Gamboa). This was no quick blanking; I took over a week to do it and spent a long time reviewing the sources and looking for new ones.
Again, the deletions regarding her elsewhere are similarly removal of rambling attacks.
I'd contend that fixing the article, and associated entries, is precisely what I did do. As I said, happy to talk about any elements that you think should be added back in, but you will need to review the sources cited in the original article, because they frequently do not support the points that they're meant to. She's no angel and I'm not whitewashing; everything I retained is negative (connection to a micronation used for criminal activities, misrepresenting herself as a bank, being sued by the SEC, use of aliases).
If you want to look into it further, you should know that the WP page, and the vast majority of it's original content, was created by the same person who was responsible for the rambling puff piece on Eric Diesel, which is how I found the Pearlasia article. Bromley86 (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
This was nothing to do with OTRS. Just thought I'd let you know that I was acting in my own personal capacity here. I could not really find a link, but following off-wiki discussion, there appears to be a bit more of a link between him and the organisation. Please stop assuming this is in response to OTRS, especially following my post on the talk page saying OTRS's involvement with this ended with the posting of the draft - it's up to them if they wish to engage with further dialogue now. --Mdann52talk to me!13:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Ahhh! Thanks for the explanation. I now see your comment made four minutes before your deletion.
I still don't see any BLP issue because that content is properly sourced. Handley's comment very strongly connects Wakefield with GR and the anti-vax community, and Wakefield is a frequent speaker at their events, as well as GR being one of his strongest supporters. They probably wouldn't exist anymore if not for Wakefield's original fraud, and his continued promotion of it. They are a synergistic force: he feeds them and they give him a voice, and it's all costing children their lives and creating a resurgence of epidemics. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
Actually, I went a bit over the top there, especially about hating babies, but yes, I'm thinking about a response comparing Ayurveda to astrology. Both are ancient and now considered PS. This topic just makes my blood boil, with not only the fringe POV pushing, but the nationalist crap as well, so I gotta cool down a bit. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Information for Autism Research Institute
Hello, I saw that you had begun work on the Autism Research Institute article, reworking information there to pertain to the organization rather than to its defunct initiative, DAN! As I've disclosed on that article's talk page, I work for ARI and I'd like to help editors such as yourself add more material to explain what ARI is and does. Knowing that it is not best for me to make any edits myself, I've provided a few pieces of information at Talk:Autism Research Institute about ARI that could be added, along with links to third-party references for them. Would you be able to look and see if any are appropriate to add? Thank you, Difulton (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I'll get on it later. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:53, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
Hello, thanks again for your work and interest in the Autism Research Institute article. In addition to the links I provided earlier, I have posted some additional information about the organization that could be added, along with links to references. Would you be able to look and see if these – or any of my earlier suggestions on the talk page - are appropriate to add? Thank you, Difulton (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
SBD
Hi BullRangifer, I don't think we've ever crossed paths before, but I've been working around a WP:MEDICINE topic in recent months, and your "importance of collaborative editing" essay caught my attention—as a matter of fact, I spent several weeks last year involved in a discussion where I don't think this was followed at all.
Quick background: the article was South Beach Diet, and early last year I agreed to work as a consultant to the company responsible for the brand to fix what was then a terrible article. I care a lot about following WP:COI responsibly, so I have limited myself to the Talk page only. Unfortunately, only a few editors got involved, and the most active editor seemed determined to make the page as unfavorable to the diet as possible. It became so frustrating that I stepped away from the issue in late 2014.
However, I remain concerned that the article is very POV, with negatives cherry-picked from sources that are overall far more balanced, and I'm struggling to determine what to do next. I left a last round of suggestions when I withdrew from the conversation; if you'd be willing to take a look and offer your opinion, to me or on that page, I'd be most grateful. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I take it you're referring to me as the editor "determined to make the page as unfavorable to the diet as possible". I disagree with tht and some of you other characterisations here - this looks like a non-neutral notification and therefore risks being canvassing, no? Alexbrntalk|contribs|COI20:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Alexbrn. I know WP:CANVASS well, and this is not it. Moreover, I posted a friendly message with you earlier today, but you replied here, instead. Yes, I have the impression that your interest in this topic has more to do with opposing me than writing a neutral SBD article. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Well you're wrong. On canvassing, you're aware that inappropriate campaigning is defined as "an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent". In light of that, is there anything you'd like to change about your notification here? (BTW, in case you're wondering, I watch this Talk page, and am not following you around). Alexbrntalk|contribs|COI20:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Alexbrn, there is so much discussion between the two of us on that Talk page that I felt a summary was useful. I don't think the above rises to the level of "campaigning" but I concede it is written from my viewpoint. On the other hand, my comments have been limited, open, and non-partisan in forum. How about I simply restate the above as follows: a long-running dispute on this article has attracted few voices and would benefit from the views of other editors. Meantime, BullRangifer, I apologize for the way this has gone here so far. I still hope you'll take a look at the article and some of the recent discussion. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
In fact while the typing has mostly fallen to me, at least two other (experienced medical) editors have opined on this topic and there's been an RfC. You're not getting any agreement from any other editor about the supposedly undue negativity of this article, so trying to present it as primarily a dispute between two people rather misses the reality of the consensus: don't shoot the messenger. If you really want more voices, why not raise this at WT:MED rather than approaching individual editors? (Add: Actually, I forgot: this has already been to two noticeboards, including WT:MED; doing it again might look a bit WP:STICKy) Alexbrntalk|contribs|COI09:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Ha, fair. I'll likely be posting something to the SBD Talk page in the next week, so please do give it a look if you have the chance. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America: Imagine the World Without Her". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2015.
The request for formal mediation concerning America: Imagine the World Without Her, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 06:29, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
Yes? An admin disagrees with you, and without a clear policy breach, what's the point of templating a regular other than harassment? Again, only a newbie who doesn't know me, my history here, or the proper interpretation of BLP would do this. We are discussing this. That's the way forward. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Doubt it. As I said on the talk page, the editor has a unique interpretation of BLP but it's not actively harming any articles. Based on past experience, you just need to be aware that some of their statements are not rooted in policy (e.g., their definition of WP:BLPGOSSIP). However, they are genuinely interested in improving BLPs. --NeilNtalk to me06:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that. Most of the articles I edit are under them, so that's my default mode of editing. I am VERY precise in my wording and selection of sources. If you ever have any doubts, just ask me and I'll have an explanation, or even apology. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Then please respond to my comments on the talk page with a little less bluster considering Sears supports the MMR vaccination on the normal schedule. The child was not solely under Sears' care and while the child did contract it, the vaccination requires parental consent at minimum. Sears' may have different beliefs, but he is not anti-vaccine nor does he bear responsibility for a small outbreak. Less than a dozen cases is not an epidemic. The current Ebola outbreak is an epidemic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
And note - I think we got off to a bad start. I mean no ill and support your Med fringe cleanup, but I thought reverting an oversighter was bad and the material does have issues which I hope you can verify and examine. I don't need an apology or anything from you - colleagues don't let small miscommunications come between them. ^-^ ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
We follow the sources here. He denies being anti-vax, and we document that. Pretty much all other sources treat him as, and call him, anti-vax, because his writings and actions tend in that direction. We document what they say. That's our job. The sources called the earlier outbreak an epidemic, and the current one is over 100 cases and growing. Fortunately he's not as bad as Wolfson. He has also associated with Andrew Wakefield. See the image at the bottom of this page (Seth Mnookin, a RS per WP:PARITY) which I haven't used. The comments are enlightening, but obviously we can't use them, unless Sears himself made a comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
He certainly has made statements and I am pretty sure calling him anti-vax when his writings and statements are not anti-vax represents an issue. Sears knows his own position better than I, but reading his work and statements shows him to be supporting vax. Verifiability and veracity. Most media twists and ignores facts because it sells. Do not blindly follow such issues because there is always another side and angle. I don't trust the media much - but I have an extensive history and list of reasons to not trust sensational things about people. Why? Most of it, is false. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
If they are reliable sources than they would exhibit veracity. Jimbo Wales has repeatedly asserted that verifiability and veracity are important - reliability of a source is measured in both these aspects. There is no reliability without veracity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Chris, you are violating our most important policy, NPOV, by not staying neutral in relation to the sources. You are also engaged in OR by substituting your own opinion when multiple experts and authorities have called Sears out in various ways, including asserting that his claims to not being anti-vax ring very hollow. Follow the sources. That is your duty.
At the end of the day it matters not whether he is or is not anti-vax in our opinion. If RS say he is anti-vax, we must include that. If there is serious doubt among RS as to whether he is or is not, then we include the debate, but with attribution. Since there is no doubt among RS that he's anti-vax, we state it in Wikipedia's voice and include the sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Repeating your claim does not make it stronger. You may mean well, but your edits are contested by several editors and they represent a BLP issue. Original research applies to article content, not checking other sources or Sears actual statements and citing them for an argument. Any neutral debate would include sources and information on Sears' support a range of vaccine. This is a biography and your reinsertion of the content removed by FloNight was a problem for reasons which I explained. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. His credibility? Zero. It's not a very wikipedian thing for him to do, and rather cowardly. While I'm not surprised, I'm disappointed. This shows a negative learning curve, so dealing directly with him is like dealing with trolls -- it's largely wasted time. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that you re-read the entire Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy which discussed that BLP need to be written in conservative manner. While, it can be appropriate to have criticism in an article, when that is all the article is, then something is wrong.
I've copied below the talk page comments that you left for a subject of article. In several ways the comments are rude and not conducive to having a friendly working relationship with the subject of an article. The subjects of articles need to be approached with kindness, and not given lectures based on your own opinion of their work. The subject of the article should be encouraged to discuss the problems that they see with the article. They are often the best people to point out errors, suggest reliable sources, and release images with a free licence for use on Wikipedia and Commons. Most subjects of an article are newbies when they edit their own article, so should be approached with offers of assistance rather than given harshly worded warning that threaten blocks, or appears to discourage their participation.
"Sears, you have been warned above that because of your WP:Conflict of interest (read that page!!!), you must be very careful about trying to edit the article. What you did is the kind of thing which can get you blocked, so don't do it again. Whitewash attempts, if discovered by a journalist, may end up as content in the article. You wouldn't want that to happen.
The content is properly sourced and accurately reproduces the spirit and content of the sources. If you don't want such things being documented, then don't do them. There is no possibility of removing the article, locking it down, or only allowing you or any of your representatives or fans from turning it into a sales brochure. (If it gets locked, it will be to prevent you from editing it.) Our NPOV policy requires that significant sides of a controversy and negative POV are included if they are found in reliable sources. More content will be added, including your response to Dr. Lipson.
While editors obviously have their own POV and thoughts, nobody hates you. That is not what drives our editing. Your actions and POV are controversial and well-documented, and that's what we do here. We tell the whole story, without whitewashing. We're documenting your life, career, and fate. If you act wisely and adopt scientifically defensible POV, you will no doubt fare better. We cannot control what is written about you in the real world, but we must document it, the good and the bad.
I will admit that my comment was a bit bitey, but other admins seemed to find them good instruction, except for a sentence which I redacted (and which the subject will likely never read. Since they claim to be religious, I was appealing to their religious conscience, but that was a bit much.) I'll be more careful in my communication with them in the future.
You hold and defend a fringe position in this matter, as well as a rather unique and controversial interpretation of BLP, so you too should be careful and not be so intimidating. As an admin you should not throw your weight around in defense of fringe positions and odd interpretations of BLP. There are many actors on both sides, so don't pick on one side. We're all discussing things and that's how it should be. Let's just keep it civil and we can all learn. That doesn't mean it will always be pleasant, but we're all adults here. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
BullRangifer, I appreciate you redacting the comment. Perhaps, you should put your self up for editor review to get the opinion of impartial people who are knowledgeable about BLP and not too invested in alternative medicine topics. It is easy to get tunnel vision when you hear the comments of people who frequently pop up in the same discussions.
It's true that this is not my first rodeo. :-) I'm pretty experienced with working with BLP, being an oversighter and answering OTRS tickets, and understand dispute resolution from being on ArbCom. In this case, I answered a BLP/N alert from someone who I know has a good understanding of BLP policy and attempted to write the article so that it give a balanced view of his life work and not be a coatrack article that just criticizes him. We both were acting as editors and not in our capacity of someone with advanced permissions. My edits are free to changed and discussed like any other editor. As you and other clearly did! I make the distinction clear when I do suppressions or rev/del. So don't be intimidated by my status in this discussion. But I ask you to re-think your approach to editing which seems rooted in promoting a specific ideology. It can blind you to hearing the objections from neutral people. I say this as some whose read hundreds, if not thousands, of post from people in disputes on all different kinds of topics. I'll move more detailed discussion about the BLP concerns to his article talk page. Happy editing! Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥20:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Sydney. I do appreciate your comments and concern and am really listening. You make some good points. You'll also notice that my edits are more reserved, now that others are involved. The community is waking up to this issue and more editors makes for more input and eyes on the situation. That's good.
I'm also backing away from Chris as it's wasted effort. (Still no apology from him for his libelous attacks...)
I have followed your illustrious career here for many years and do respect your experience. We may differ in some ways, but we have the same basic goals about building this great encyclopedia. Thanks again. (BTW, congrats on your role at Cochrane. That's great!) -- Brangifer (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
DTs
Rangi I have no personal issue with you at all - I am strict in the BLP matter, but I have loose ties to the WMF through the Wikipedia Library and I've not submitted my identity and oppose it because I got an e-mail which arrived to my true-email after an enwiki dispute. And to be clear - last time things got heated I got the threat - not by anyone here in this matter, but it was for defending a controversial figure whom I personally disagreed with. I'll sometimes get nods to the Sopranos, but an e-mail containing your identity is a sickening blow. To be clear - I don't know about vaccines, it is not my job - but I've disagreed with many a person over principals and find allies in all sufficiently long conversations. I do not agree with Sears' stance, but I don't jump on bandwagons. I've met everyone from US Senators to magicians and tried to deal with issues they've raised, I strive for balance in all things. I reacted to the issues because there was a problem and while it may not be a popular - the nature was good and I prefer slowness and moderation over piling criticism up. Though I'm serious, I'm out of the article before I wind up on Stormfront. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
You have nothing to fear from me. Outing and threats can have devastating consequences. Been there and done that! I don't wish that on anyone. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I make my real-life identity easily discoverable and the worst I've had (on a controversial topic) is a very long letter in green ink (seriously!) informing me I must have ulterior motives for trying to "do down" a certain world-view. I had no idea who/what Sears was until I started searching through peer-reviewed journals looking for references to him. From them, it all seems this is a pretty clear matter. Alexbrntalk|contribs|COI21:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah - I wasn't worried about BullRangifer doing anything, but Sears is on the edge and outside the norm. I gave a few sources to back up his views and put some in perspective - I don't know vaccines or anything, but I'm sure Med's people have better things to do then deal with the article. I stay with 100 year old films and less dramatic topics, but I keep getting pronged to do BLPN and other stuff. Controversial stuff is not my forte. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
That sounds more fun. And maybe I should get around to filling in the glaring gaps of coverage for Joseph Suk's major orchestral works. There'll be no heated arguments there. Probably ;-)
Sorry
Sorry for calling you out so quickly at Talk:Breastfeeding. I was prepared to meet resistance, and instead of clarifying or actually looking at what you first reverted I reacted rashly. I hope you understand what the issues are with the article, and that we can work together to improve it. -- CFCF🍌 (email) 23:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
No problemo! We just need to be careful. Any real improvements will be welcome. Try to build by tweaking, not by mass deletions. Save what can be saved, improve wording, find a better way to use sources, etc.. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Autism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
Just because User:Barras blocked all my IP segments on meta, so I could not request lock there. I request lock for all my IP addresses for the following reasons:
1. I could not help myself helping improve Wikipedia articles, whether you could understand or not, I have no ideas.
Janagewen, I can't help you. Only a psychiatrist can do that because you have serious mental health issues. This is an obsession for you. You are welcome to read Wikipedia, but not to edit it or comment. You are not allowed to ever use the editing functions in articles and talk pages. Now go away. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Janagewen, at Wikipedia, a blocked user is not supposed to have the last word. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the internet, it is not physically possible to make that happen. The only way to do that would be to have the Chinese authorities confiscate your computer(s), lock you up in a mental health institution (where you belong), and prevent you from accessing the internet. I doubt that will happen. Our rules here assume we are dealing with sane people, but since you aren't, you will likely insist on getting the last word by making more edits and comments, contrary to the conditions of your block. Just go away. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
What's more, last word? What a funny! The question is that how you are so sure I were Chinese like the very first to the last? You are so sure about the things you could never make clear, so the one should be locked in the mental health institution is you and/or your followers. Oh, I've never known your nationality or ethnic? Because I could hardly believe you are coming from America? Because great America has human right, but you know nothing about human right at all, so you could use any word or expression without further consideration. If this is not on Internet, I think for all of your words, you should be put into jail rather than giving a ridiculous suggestion to the crazy of yourself. And do not forget how I was blocked on en.wikipedia.org on the very first time, joke or trap? So your words are shits, so are your followers'! 175.19.66.38 (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
This is an official complaint against this editor. I do not feel comfortable with the way he wrote to me just now and would ask him to refrain from further communications with me.
This is not an open invitation for other editors to harass me either, thank you for your understanding. Friendlymilk (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, you don't get to make demands here. We edit collaboratively, so you need to be cooperative, make friends, and show a positive learning curve. We're all trying to educate you, but if you just get offended and combative, you won't last here. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey Bull this user appears to be a marketer User:Solutions 2015. The pages she links to appear to be written by her at her PR firm. Have indeffed. Ping me if you find people "fixing" dead links and replacing with spam. We are now blocking on first infraction. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi B, I realize now that the deletion you may have been referring to was probably the removal of the 'failed verification' tag on Pasolini. Contrary to the tag, the review does indeed refer to unsimulated sex in the film, so I removed it. I should have noted that. If you were referring to my removal of the Journal of Lady M film, that was explained on the talk page first. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
I notice you reverted my edit to the Fox News page, and with legitimate cause. But to explain, I originally changed the Fox News heading to "Alleged Conservative Bias" after looking at the MSNBC page, which said "Alleged Liberal Bias." Not to be too nit-picky, but both networks admit to bias. I just think that the option I suggested is a little more descriptive than just "objectivity and bias" because it describes the nature of that bias. And I always like to have consistency between related subjects, especially when stuff like NPOV is in question.
Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you have something to say about this... ? Perhaps you could elaborate on why "alleged conservative bias" is not an appropriate section header for Fox News when "alleged liberal bias" is perfectly fine for MSNBC. I'd love to hear a response of some sort...
Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmmm, well, I hadn't compared. I was only looking at the Fox News edit. My initial thought was that the "objectivity and bias" heading was the most neutral and kept us away from anything which might lead to continual edit wars. The section content would then get into the nitty gritty, using sources. Go ahead and do whatever you want. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
War on Women
BullRangifer,
Your recently reverted my edit to the article, "War on Women." Please explain to me how the politifact critique of some obscure website belongs in the context of an article on the war on women. The blurb I deleted doesn't actually fit in with any themes discussed in the article and it makes no sense to include it.
Even if it was "obscure", that argument doesn't hold, since it's essentially asserting that content must be "notable", which only applies to article creation. The organization/website Western Journalism Center is hardly obscure, it being a very vocal, and rather radical, conservative, voice. Look at what it created -- WorldNetDaily(WND) (!!) -- which is in the same league and quite notable.
Regardless, the fact that PolitiFact.com chose it as a representative website to critique makes it notable. It was notable enough to be chosen as an example of "one headline" from "some conservative blogs [which] claimed".[1] They could have chosen any other conservative blog headline making the same claim.
What this comes down to is a primary source being elevated by its mention in a prominent secondary source. Even if it were obscure, this is the type of thing that can elevate something enough to make it notable enough for an article, if it happens enough. In this case it's already notable enough for an article here, and certainly for mention. It's one example of what many conservative websites were saying. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
How is it an example of what many conservative websites were saying? The quote from politifact is "some conservative blogs." Well there are countless blogs on the internet, and many of them promote fringe ideologies. What isn't acceptable is to take the content of these blogs and use it to attack more mainstream ideologies by tying the two together. So when the article says "many conservative websites," it's implying that this point of view was widespread, and there's just no proof of this other than this one article from politifact. Using an isolated example of a false claim made by some obscure, fringe-POV website in the article is a blatant example of the selection form of the straw man argument. And we all know that Wikipedia isn't the place for POV-pushing.
Here are my thoughts on the matter of suppressing information found in RS which might endanger the lives, in this case, of terrorist captives.
There is a hatted the discussion on Jimbo's talk page. Note that I haven't followed this matter closely, and I haven't even read that thread...yet, because I want to develop some of my thoughts without any influence from such discussions. My thoughts have to do with the concept of "risk/degree of harm" and how notability/publicity is a big factor.
I leave open as a legitimate possibility that, to cause less harm, we sometimes may need to (temporarily) ignore RS and suppress the information here. We are not obligated to immediately use any or all RS which exist, only to use them when we finally do write about a subject. If we choose to temporarily ignore a subject, then we can keep the RS on our own PCs at home. The issue is that most RS related to current events are of a temporary, less notable, nature. They are newspaper and magazine articles. Print media are already gone tomorrow, but on the internet they may remain visible for a short while, and then are archived, often behind a paywall, so many of them do disappear, but not all of them. Those forms of RS coverage have limited notability and thus a limited potential for causing harm.
If we accept that Wikipedia likely has the largest degree of notability on the internet, and that by enshrining these otherwise temporary RS into very notable and high profile articles here, we are greatly increasing the degree of risk/harm, then we are justified in temporarily suppressing coverage of a story which can increase the risk of great harm to individuals.
Wikipedia magnifies and amplifies the influence of RS, and we share the responsibility for consequences. Our articles can increase the likelihood of individuals being used as hostages, or being moved to the front of the line of hostages to next be executed. Their notability and value to kidnappers and terrorists was greatly increased by Wikipedia, and we actually facilitated and hastened their demise! It's a rather sobering thought, and should cause us to take our job seriously. We must consider BLP issues and potential for harm each time we are dealing with such matters.
These principles need to be encoded into policy, likely as an addition to WP:BLP. It needs to be explicit, and not hidden away. For the record, avoiding harm was rejected, including as part of BLP. It's now just an essay. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Hi John. Okay, some explanation is coming to light. It looks like I stepped into a touchy situation. Sorry about that. The deletions I reverted just appeared at the top of my watchlist, and knowing the editor (a well-known pusher of fringe views and whitewasher of his favorite pseudoscientific subjects), and his penchant for deleting properly sourced content he doesn't like, I reverted it to what I assumed was the status quo version. Calling it "POV vandalism" (not just "vandalism") might have been a bit unfriendly, but I tend to call improper removal of properly sourced content vandalism, and in this case I specified the type as "POV vandalism", IOW a fringe POV driven removal of properly sourced content, otherwise known as whitewashing. This was classic Bladesmulti and Littleolive oil behavior, and par for the course for both of them. I see that Bladesmulti is now blocked, and I'll take this warning to heart and be more careful. It's pretty rare that I edit that article, but now I know that it's more touchy than I realized. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi BullRangifer, I believe we have not met, but we have both had significant interactions with Blades, and so I noticed your posts on his talk. While you're right that it reflects poorly on him when he deletes it, I believe he is within policy when doing so; [2], and it isn't worth your while to get involved. John is likely to see it, and if you are concerned he might miss it, post on his page. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I know it's a touchy area covered by the intersection of several policies, in this case TALK, OWN, BATTLE, and CIVIL. Unfortunately the application of all these policies to this situation isn't codified, so it's understood differently by different admins. Blocked users have had their talk page access for violations of WP:TALK when they interfere with current disputes and communication. They have fewer, not more, rights than other editors.
Talk pages have specific functions, and they are owned by the community for communication with the editor and others involved in a discussion. Editor's ownership of their talk page is limited, especially if their actions on the page prevent use of the talk page for its intended purpose. That's a violation of TALK. In this case it interfered with communication. Only grossly uncivil comments should be removed. It should not be necessary to look in the history to find messages and information.
Bladesmulti's actions show an uncollaborative attitude. I gave him one chance to reconsider his actions, but he has refused and I'm not going to try again. That would be edit warring, so I just hope others see him for what he is and maybe remove his access to his talk page. Violations of TALK should not be tolerated, especially when blocked users do it to their own page. They don't own it that much. Improper OWNERSHIP behavior can also apply to one's own talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
You're right, of course, and I don't mean to suggest that Blades actions are justified; what I am saying is that they are justifiable, and so perhaps not quite worth getting into an edit-war over. My own interactions with Blades have hardly been smooth :) Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
BullRangifer, this kind of remark could really get you in trouble, please don't mention stuff like that. I've removed it. In this case there wasn't even any call for it — the age thing is plenty. Bishonen | talk22:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC).
I started the page User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet to basically deal with editors who are a bit beyond being simple POV pushers but don't necessarily have a monetary COI. Basically, to include the real fanatics and evangelists out there. I figured you probably know a few from the field of pseudoscience as well. Feel free to make any copy-editing (which I'm pretty sure it needs) or any additions you think reasonable. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notification - CAM
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Just wanted to say thanks for what you said over at the IP user's page. This person now appears to be socking and hasn't learned his/her lesson. Tsk tsk tsk. TylerDurden882316:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The dumbest thing is the ridiculous overreaction this person has to a relatively minor edit on a somewhat important food page hahaha. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Stay off my User Talk
I've had enough of your hounding (following my edits), harassment (attempts to defame), and baiting (modifying/subverting my Talk page post). Quit hounding me, quit baiting me, and from here on out stay off my User Talk. IHTS (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
IHTS, you do realize that you have just broken every conceivable letter and spirit of AGF, don't you? I can hardly conceive of a more brilliant demonstration of how not to do things. Every single thing you wrote above is untrue and wrong. It reveals the consequences of failing to AGF. That attitude poisons the mind, and your mind is totally toxic.
You mistake civil discussion, explanation of policies, and disagreement for a war directed against you personally, and then, once started on that warpath, you don't deviate from it, even though all that effort by multiple editors and admins has been directed at trying to teach you how things work here. You seem incapable of AGF. That's why you're always in trouble and at odds with other editors. You see conspiracies and adversaries everywhere. You don't have a collaborative bone in your body. You are the embodiment of a fringe warrior and don't belong at Wikipedia. I doubt you'll last much longer. All this is a consequence of violating ONE policy. AGF is that important. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Your comments
Hi BullRangifer! I noticed your comments at the noticeboard, and was surprised by them. I have only had a few interactions with you, but you have always struck me as a smart and reasonable person and much more ethical than most other editors I may disagree with from time to time. So anywho, I thought I would reach out to you away from the heated discussion at ANI. From what I had observed on talk pages, DrChrissy was expressing his frustration with several sources being excluded, came to conclusions about them, and was threatened with a topic ban. It seemed uncivil to me for Guy and Kww to behave like that, instead of engage in a normal dialogue. Both Guy and Kww are better than that. I don't know Guy, but he seems like he is above that. And Kww is a good editor too, but just seems to have been slipping up lately. I mentioned that others supported the sources DrChrissy is accused of incompetently evaluating, and I didn't mention the racism accusations, but probably should have because DrChrissy caught me incorrectly saying he accused others of this as well. I apologize if I did not make that apparent in my comment or if there was anything else I left out. You said I was IDHT'ing, and I really do abhore that behavior since I go through it with QuackGuru regularly. Would you mind specifically telling me what I'm not hearing? Seriously, shoot. I really do value your opinion. LesVegas (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The issue is much larger than what you mention. DrChrissy has been active on several pages. It's not just about those sources being rejected. He's actively trying to change MEDRS and attacking Quackwatch. He doesn't understanding our sourcing policies. He's been uncivil and uncollaborative. There was a formatting error on his talk page which I fixed and he attacked me and banned me from his talk page, including some others. When a kindness is repaid in that manner, that's bad. He needs to stick to animal articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey BullRangifer. I realize that I have extensively rearranged this article you worked fairly extensively on. I hope you view the changes as a positive. Lots of excellent sources were present in the article, they just needed slightly greater prominence IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Doc James, I haven't checked yet, but I'm pretty sure they will be improvements. I always have confidence in your superb skills as an editor, as a physician with great medical knowledge, and as a defender of medical and scientific legitimacy against attacks from lunatic charlatans. Somehow you thread each needle with a unique ability to combine these traits in a very constructive manner, all for the betterment of Wikipedia and society. The kudos you have received are well deserved.
The current situation has been a touchy area for me, because "own" is always in the back of my mind. I'm well aware of that danger. I'm trying to always be careful to stay within policy, and I'm taking very seriously any specific suggestions. The part that bugs me is the highly emotional general attacks without specific examples. That's why I'm asking for specific suggestions. I can deal with them. Demands that basic documentation be removed are not founded in policy. In all of our alternative medicine articles we have the (unpleasant) duty of documenting all kinds of nonsense, but policy and the goal of Wikipedia requires that we do it. The trick is to do it properly. I don't claim to own a magic solution for doing that in every situation. It seems that in each alt med article it's been a different ad hoc solution found by the editors involved, and that's okay, just as long as it works. There isn't just one right way!
I wish that such collaboration were the wish here, but three editors have actually declared that they wish the article did not exist at all, and they have been trying to sabotage it. I hope they get more serious and deal with things as you have done. I'd like to see collaboration, rather than continued personal attacks and vilification in various venues. I'm an experienced good faith editor, scientific skeptic, and a nemesis to fringe POV pushers, but anyone who read and believed what's being said would not get that impression. It's a serious form of character assassination, and it should stop. It's also a form of harassment/baiting because the playing field is not even. I have to be careful not to tip over into an ownership attitude, while they can attack and attack, and no one is cautioning them. It's not fair. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi BullRangifer. I don't know if you are aware that I do a lot of work on COI issues in Wikipedia. I wasn't aware of the arbcom case regarding Quackwatch that you were involved with nor the relationships disclosed in that case. That was several years ago, for sure. Arbcom, which doesn't deal a lot with COI issues but rather behavioral issues, warned you to beware of advocacy in your Wikipedia editing, which is the behavioral manifestation of both COI and, well, real-world advocacy. Clearly you had a close association with QW back then and I don't know what your current relationship is. I would encourage you to consider a) making a disclosure of past/current relationships with QW and related sites on your User page, and including a link to it in your signature (like user:Formerly 98 does; and b) depending on whether there is currently a COI, avoiding directly editing content related to QW but instead making edit requests on Talk. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on potential COI you may have, and how you have managed it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, wow! Are you psychic or something?! When I returned to my PC I found two red flag notices. One was a thank for my comment here, which directly addresses your concerns (the other notice). Read that and see if it doesn't provide some useful information.
I was accused of a close relationship with QW, but investigation showed that to not be the case. It was just an accusation which has stayed alive. The only relationship I have ever had with the QW website is that I find it a good source of information for the types of topics it deals with. I share those POV most of the time. Sharing a POV is not a COI, and having a POV is certainly allowed, as long as it doesn't cause one to violate policy when editing.
If I really thought I had a COI, I would declare it, and as far as advocacy goes, I don't think I violate any policies in discussions or editing. We are all allowed to voice our opinions.
The only clear advocacy I do here is to defend science based sources as more reliable than nonsense based sources, and even nonsensical sources have their place when we need to document that the nonsense exists. We do that in all alternative medicine articles and in articles about frauds, conmen, and quacks. That is not considered "advocacy" in the negative sense we use here. That's considered good practice. I see you and many others of the best editors do the same. That's very closely aligned with our RS, weight, and other policies. If you ever see me violating policy, let me know. Please advise, and thanks so much for your concern. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that diff explains past and current relationships. That lays it to rest for me. Others may have follow-up questions, of course. Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
RE:Why?
I redacted it because I saw that the admin that logged it had placed a message in regards to it two seconds before. I did repost a modified version back there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I kind of figured that was why. Your version was the actual wording, so it was a bit different than what the admin placed. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
These articles have issues of various types: their notability, promotional tone, use of primary, inhouse, sources and unreliable sources, and strong medical claims in Wikipedia's voice (not just documentation that such claims are made):
I just took a look at the first of those. It hasn't been written with PAG in mind at all. oh my goodness. getting rid of the unsourced content would bring the stoners rushing to re-insert, I suppose. Who wants that discussion? are the others just as bad? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 09:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I doubt some of them could survive an AfD, they're that bad. I've been taking a lot of flack for the highly notable subject Charlotte's Web (cannabis), which I wrote with PAG in mind, lots of good sourcing, and none of the junk sources used in these other articles. So I got curious and took a look at our other cannabis articles and found these few. We don't have that many. There is simply no comparison when one compares it with these articles, yet my attackers don't do anything about these. Obviously "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. In this case the CW article is head and shoulders above any of these, and is just as good (and better sourced) as most of our other types of articles, and any problems can be fixed without gutting the article. Whatever the case, these need serious attention. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I saw your work on CW, a couple of weeks ago, not sure, unimportant. The difference is stark between that and the one I read above. That unsourced list of names made my eyes bleed. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 17:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Inclusion in lists requires good sourcing and notability. Although it's not strictly stated in policy, we often require that anyone who wishes to add an item to such a list must first establish its notability by creating a well-sourced article. If the article survives, then they have shown that the notability is established, and it's safe to add it to the list. (Exceptions do exist.) It is their job, not the job of others. If we don't do that, such lists become targets for OR, spam, and promotion. One can safely remove every item which doesn't have an article, with the edit summary that all items must be notable and properly sourced. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The CW article doesn't have a "cannabis portal" link like I saw on other C articles. There is a what I thought was significant amount of coverage easily found from there. Should there be one - I think it not obligatory? Back on topic, my skillz at sourcing and writing content are abysmal, I am under no illusions. I tend to chip away at obvious edges, and get into bother for being spiky on article talk pages. For me, deleting stuff is easy, but creating stuff is not easy. I don't like just deleting stuff. I fear decimating any article because of "no source" would lead me back to bad habits on talk pages. Because there is no deadline, I'm going to think for a bit, before plunging in here. Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 02:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I have added the portal link. I'm not sure how that got missed. I thought I was pretty thorough, but my background for writing the article had nothing to do with the cannabis culture or other articles here. I simply followed the RS I could find and let them tell the story. I welcome any suggestions. It has been said that the article is promotional. Well, it documents some claims, but also includes many cautions about the anecdotal and unproven nature of the claims. If you see anything that sounds too promotional, please let me know here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Alternative medicine is any practice that is put forward as having the healing effects of medicine, but is not founded on evidence gathered using the scientific method.[1][2] It consists of a wide range of health care practices, products and therapies.[3]
FloraWilde's version:
Alternative medicine is a loosely defined set of products, practices, and theories that are believed[1] or perceived[2]:19 by their users to have the healing effects of medicine, but whose effectiveness has not been clearly established using scientific methods, whose theory and practice is not part of biomedicine, and some of whose theories or practices may be directly contradicted by scientific evidence or scientific principles used in biomedicine."
Your version:
Alternative medicine is a loosely defined set of products, practices, and theories that are believed[1] or perceived[2]:19 by their users to have the healing effects of medicine, but whose effectiveness has not been clearly established using scientific methods, or whose theory and practice is not part of biomedicine, or some of whose theories or practices may be directly contradicted by scientific evidence or scientific principles used in biomedicine."
It feels a little strange to be arguing about the finer points of a fictional and mythological concept, but I suppose that even silly concepts should be represented accurately on Wikipedia.
Mindscape seems to deal with a telepath reading memories, and it specifically uses the idea of a telepath reading false memories as a plot device. Assuming that Mindscape is tangentially related enough to be in the “see also” section, I still don’t see why you think that it helps the reader understand remote viewing. Remote Viewing is a kind of long range clairvoyance. If anything Scrying seems a bit more relevant. Or is there something I’m missing? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The only reason I associated the two is because of the introduction to the film, which mentions the military's research, and then introduces a falsehood (that the military discovered something positive about RV). You are right about it being a "fictional and mythological concept", and that it doesn't lend much "understanding" of remote viewing, so go ahead and remove it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you didn't label my edits as vandalism.
It's extremely rude and uncivil to label good faith edits to an article as vandalism, so perhaps you would consider taking back your edit summary labelling my edits as vandalism? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess(talk) Ping when replying 12:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, maybe that was a bit rash. Such large deletions of properly sourced material without discussion are usually the actions of drive by vandals, but now I can see you have some experience here. You should know better, and at least you are following BRD. Thanks for that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, as a sidenote you might want to remove the statements that IPs can't comment on your talk page, and saying that "this talk page is my territory" implies a sort of ownership, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. By the way, you can't unilaterally ban people from your talk page, you need an interaction ban for that. So you might want to remove the "banning" of User:Johnvr4, as according to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Users subject to restrictions, Johnvr4 does not appear to have any interaction ban with you. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess(talk) Ping when replying 20:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)If you look at the page logs, at times this page has been semi-protected which would prevent IP's from commenting, making those instructions helpful during those times. Ravensfire (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Chess and TheMesquito, I don't know why you are concerning yourselves with something which doesn't affect you in the least, but I'll explain. I agree that generally it's a bad idea to ban other editors from one's talk page, and that editors do not completely own their talk pages. If you had any understanding of the horrible conditions which can drive me to actually ban any editor from my talk page, you wouldn't be questioning why I did it in this case. It takes extreme harassment, personal attacks, or disruption to do that. You're welcome to study the history of my interactions with said editor to find whatever was relevant in this case. I have possibly banned a couple others in all the years I've been here.
Ravensfire is correct. The reason IPs haven't had access for a while is simply that certain disruptive editors used IPs to keep on with their attacks after being blocked, and I don't suffer fools or block evaders lightly. IP editors have a right to edit, but don't have nearly as many rights as registered users in many other ways. One cannot fully function here as an IP.
Most IP editors make good edits, but most vandals are IP editors, and that creates a conundrum and problem for all those good IP editors. That's too bad, especially since there is no good reason to not create an account, and lots of reasons why it's a bad idea to edit as an IP. Like so many others, I edited as an IP in the beginning, but when I got serious, I registered an account. I've actually been here since about 2003. I work fine with IP editors all the time, unless they create problems. In that case they are treated like any other editor who creates problems.
The semi-protection actually expired on May 26, 2015, but I forgot to remove the instructions, so I'll do that now.
If you study the history of my talk page, you'll discover that I archive all relevant content, including the most nasty and embarrassing things. I don't hide my actions or those of others. It's all in my archives. The only things I don't archive are bot notices. I don't trust editors who constantly delete content (without archiving) and revise their talk pages to make themselves look good, and I don't do it myself. Try to AGF. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I had been observing the ban. However, since this issue has come up again, my previous interaction with this editor had nothing to do with harassment or an IP edit. The fact is that the issue was with "unreliable" sources, credibility and offensive comments. The issue stemmed from a comment he made about me that I took offense to. I reacted poorly to it and I received an Wikipedia-imposed time out. Where I used four sources (Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Associated Press and Government of Canada's National Archives) in support of a fact I brought forward he had said, "use of unreliable sources ... doesn't exactly help your credibility." He could not back up the statement in any fashion what-so-ever and after asking him to offer some support for such an opinion he declined and I called him a lair for it. The disagreement has not been resolved and he simply banned me from his page instead of discussing it further. [3]Johnvr4 (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not that simple, and I'm going to leave the ban in place, so don't reply. I have tweaked my wording above because it gave the wrong impression that harassment was the issue with Johnvr4. I meant that generally as an example. My sentence was awkward because it segued from general to individual, so I have tweaked it. In his case it was primarily other issues like name calling, aggression, and extreme personal attacks which he brought from an article talk page to my talk page. Discussion of content issues can happen on an article talk page. Personal attacks don't belong anywhere. When somebody comes into my living room and calls me a liar, I'll show them the door. His behavior was so bad that several blocks were imposed on Johnvr4. See the section here, his talk page, and the archives for Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory for context. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the clarification. Sir, I thought it was pretty simple. I had an issue with you and I came to your house to discuss and resolve it. You made an unfounded comment that I felt was a personal attack upon me regarding my credibility- which was the core issue at hand. I thought it deserved an apology as the other involved editor had done. Next, was what I perceived as your inability to be reasonable about the comment.[4] I had asked for an apology and retraction which I failed to get. Only then did what you refer to as name-calling occur after you failed to respond to that issue. I think "aggression" and "extreme personal attacks" were a bit of a stretch. Please keep it factual and credible and there will be no need for any further responses from me.
On a constructive note, If one looks at the pages cited in my blocks and on my talk page, prominent is my mis-interpretation of Vandalism and the need to avoid the almost entirely if good faith is assumed. At the time I was using a faulty mouse and my attempts to correct some mistakes including in grammar was laughable. I can hardly follow some of it myself. My apologies for that.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Cannabis! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 559 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in the subject of cannabis.
Blatant deletion of comments by editors with the intention of keeping this a protected article and enforcing a non-neutral POV
Hi BullRangifer,
Just want and honest and direct answer over why my comments regarding the editor Uncle Milty have been all removed? He has clearly shown a lack of regard for the facts out there regarding the massive news coverage over the recent Planned Parenthood situation. I want to emphasize massive here. I have checked through all the recent edits and I can clearly see him targeting and mocking me, including making fun of me being "new".
On top of it all we have decided to silence all the voices that wish to present even the most fair and balance criticism behind Planned Parenthood right now. The fact is that as of now nobody can go and read the Wikipedia article concerning Planned Parenthood and have all the recent facts and findings, as preliminary as they can be. And sure, WP is not news BUT this case has been covered in basically ALL the major news outlets for close to five days and Wikipedia is still embattled in "finding consensus" while protecting the page.
I am going to quote here, just so it remains to be seen, what Uncle Milty has been removing constantly and to see if this is some sort of "personal attack" or anything violating WP's rules, which I humbly believe it is not. Suffice to say I don't know said editor but the history of the Planned Parenthood Talk Page shows he has targeted my talks by deleting them without posting why.
Thanks for your time,
Quote:
"== Blatant deletion of comments by editors with the intention of keeping this a protected article and enforcing a non-neutral POV ==
Dear all, Uncle Milty has deleted, edited and even mocked several of my posts here. He has not even referenced why he has done that and I have been forced to undo these edits in order to have at least one comment here. Let's remember the Principles of Wikipedia [5] and if you look at this editors history, within this article and others referenced in his talk page, you can clearly see that he is violating the 2dt, 3rd and 7th Principles. I am quoting the last comment I had that he deleted, in what seems to be an attempt to keep this article protected even though every major and most of the minor, yet oft-used-as-sources news outlets have referred to recently. The facts are that several members of Congress in the US and several prominent researchers have been quoted over this issue, such as bioethicist Art Caplan of New York University [6] and Wikipedia has chosen to "protect" this page. This clearly does not happen when it comes to far more controversial current event topics (whether religious or political in nature) yet it seems there are dedicated editors out there who have and agenda to push. Tolerance includes allowing the other parties to speak as well.
"Hi Uncle Milty. Thanks for deleting my previous comments and not even making a reference to them. If you believe that my IP is not enough for keeping track of what changes I perform, I'd like to remind you that the spirit of Wikipedia includes freedom from any hierarchy or cabal where people like you, sword in hand, go and edit enough to make things go their way. Apparently, tolerance is not part of your ethos. I am surprised that you, being part of the "Wikipedia is not censored." userbox prefer to protect this article from the topic that Google News measures as more than 100 outlets writing about, up to and including the name of Dr. Nucatola." 200.42.237.185 (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)"
You need to read the comment I left you on your talk page. Don't exhibit anymore battlefield behavior or you'll just get blocked. You WILL lose this one because you don't understand our policies. No one is trying to hide anything. The subject will get covered in the article, but we must wait for more information. Your impatience and attacking other editors is not helping. See my message. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
CIVIL
Hi BullRangifer, just a friendly reminder "In light of your hypocrisy" to another editor may be a CIVIL issue. It looks like a lot of IP users are being canvassed into the article talk page, and if they are warned about CIVIL then experienced editors should be too.
Okay. Did you also leave a message for the IP for their failures to AGF, SYNTH violations, tendentious editing, hypocrisy in attacking me (hence my response), etc.? I'm sure you wouldn't only warn the victim. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The page is semi-protected, and I want it silver locked for good. Explaining policy to every single IP that gets canvassed over the next month would take a lot of time, I'd prefer just not to engage them. If IPs are being canvassed then I'm pretty sure consensus is only needed among those with 10 edits or more and I don't see any point engaging IPs. -- Callinus (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
In law enforcement, a sting operation is a deceptive operation designed to catch a person committing a crime. A typical sting will have a law-enforcement ... play a role as criminal partner or potential victim and go along with a suspect's actions to gather evidence of the suspect's wrongdoing...
Which part of the lead section describes sting operations out of law enforcement settings?
Examples
Deploying a bait car (also called a honey trap) to catch a car thief
Setting up a seemingly vulnerable honeypot computer to lure and gain information about hackers
Arranging someone under the legal drinking age to ask an adult to buy an alcoholic beverage or tobacco products for them [3]
Posing as someone who is seeking illegal drugs, contraband or child pornography to catch a supplier; or as a supplier to catch a customer
Passing off explosives, fake or real, to a would-be terror bomber
Posing as a child in a chat room to identify a potential child molester
Posing as a potential customer of illegal prostitution; or as a prostitute to catch a customer
Posing as a hitman to catch customers and solicitors of murder-for-hire
Posing as a spectator of an illegal dog fighting ring
Car jacking, computer hacking, underage alcohol, drug trafficking, child molesting, terrorism, illegal prostitution, murder, animal cruelty - which of these is not illegal? Which of these is not related to law enforcement?
No part of the article has a section header about non-law enforcement operations.
MOS:QUOTE says "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader."
If media use the term "sting operation" then that may not guarantee that they intend for the reader to use the term in the way that the wiki article Sting operation uses it.
If a user clicks the link then the first image they will see is an armed police officer and the first three words they will read is "In law enforcement" - the imputation that Sting operation is related to law enforcement is obvious, it's in the first three words - arguing against this seems disingenuous.
I see that User:Eclipsoid has already fixed the matter. I suggest you AGF. Words have various uses. Sting operation does mention non-law enforcement use of the term in common language. We're not using it in a technical sense, but in a commonly used sense, so it's best to not get too technical. RS which use the term are obviously not referring to police actions, and neither are we, and the SO article does mention other uses. The actions of the CMP operatives fit the description exactly. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
hello
That article isn't created by me , its created by someone else , i just made few changes such as put my cast , website name , reference , album name and picture its allowed here or not ?
I suggest you place that information on the article's talk page and ask for other editors to add it. If you find inaccuracies in the article, discuss them and seek to have others fix the issues. Have you read what I wrote on your talk page? Have you read the essay about having an article about yourself here? This is possibly your only chance to allow the article to be deleted, and that might be a good thing. Having an article here can seriously mess up your life. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The title mistake
Hello, sorry for messing up the title, mistook it by part of editorial POV in a sentence, not in a link when I read the text to be edited.My wrong! Had problem formatting link and got confused, Geez, my apologies, no way I would edit original title if not by mistaken it for a non quote. Thanks for speedy revert!Bialosz (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
You would have to have good reasons based in policy, and convince other editors. Make your case on the article's talk page, not here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Please do not blanket undo to change one word
Could you please restore the rest of my copy-editing to Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. It appears you objected to "edited" vs "highly-edited" [7] but reverted a lot of basic copy editing in the process. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure thing. Thanks for contacting me so quickly. It wouldn't have been good if I had left my PC for a long time. I hope I fixed it properly. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Whoops
Regarding this edit, I wasn't sure how that got into the reference section. I think it belongs somewhere else in the article. I didn't try to sneakily delete it. --BrianCUA (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
It was originally an expansion on that reference, although it could be incorporated into the body. Sometimes we do this if the body is already saturated, but the referenced wording is too good to be left out. Then it stays with the ref for readers to read there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
