| Revision as of 13:30, 28 March 2009 editEnric Naval (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,509 edits →Stop adding the POV tag in Homeopathy: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:54, 29 March 2009 edit undoPhilKnight (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators126,718 edits Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/PseudoscienceNext edit → | ||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
| If you keep adding the POV tag I'll report you as doing disruptive editing, understood? Go to the talk page and give some compelling reason of exactly what is POV in the article, and give some good sources to support your point. --] (]) 13:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC) | If you keep adding the POV tag I'll report you as doing disruptive editing, understood? Go to the talk page and give some compelling reason of exactly what is POV in the article, and give some good sources to support your point. --] (]) 13:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==] == | |||
| As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the ] has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad ], described ] and below. | |||
| *Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. | |||
| *The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. | |||
| *Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. | |||
| *Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently ]), or the Committee. | |||
| These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions. | |||
| Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary. | |||
| This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged ]. ] (]) 01:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:54, 29 March 2009
Welcome
|
Hi
Hi, have you previously edited Homeopathy or related articles under a different account? If so could you provide a link to them or name them here. Be aware that homeopathy and other pseudoscience articles are under special editing measures, as detailed on the talk page. All the best, Verbal chat 08:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- No.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- No to which question? Verbal chat 07:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've never edited the article on Homeopathy (because of the controversies) nor have I had a different account here. I haven't even had time to edit much on Misplaced Pages.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- No to which question? Verbal chat 07:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Homeopathy
Please be aware that Homeopathy and other pseudoscience and fringe topics are under special measures, as described on the talk page, and that large or controversial edits should be discussed on the talk page first. Also, please familiaries yourself with WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. I'm afraid homeopathyworld.com and similar meet neither criteria. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Homeopathy, quackery and consensus
"Not wedded to" doesn't mean that I might not side on including "quackery" in the lead. You shouldn't leap to conclusions on consensus like that, and immediately trying to make naturopathy follow your lead on removing quackery is not good practice, nor is it logical. Fences and windows (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio
Please do not paste in text, as you have done on at least two occassions:
This is a copyvio of http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/research/the_evidence_for_homeopathy.html, and this inserts text from http://en.citizendium.org/Homeopathy.
This is in violation of WP:COPYVIO, and is not permitted on Misplaced Pages. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Stop adding the POV tag in Homeopathy
You have now added the tag in 23 March, 25th March and 28th March. It should be clear to you now that it's not going to stick unless you give a convincing explanation in the talk page, which you have not done.
If you keep adding the POV tag I'll report you as doing disruptive editing, understood? Go to the talk page and give some compelling reason of exactly what is POV in the article, and give some good sources to support your point. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
- Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
- The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
- Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
- Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. PhilKnight (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)