| Revision as of 18:09, 9 May 2015 editDrChrissy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,946 edits →Please self-revert← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:43, 28 October 2024 edit undoWoodensuperman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers87,563 editsm Reverted edit by Woodensuperman (talk) to last version by Sheep8144402Tag: Rollback | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{deceased|Example male}} | |||
| {{NOINDEX|visible=no}} | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| __NOTOC__ | |||
| <div style="margin: 2em auto; background: #ffffff; border-top: 1px solid #6576a4; border-left: 1px solid #6576a4; position:absolute; z-index: 1;">]<div style="position: relative; top: -532px; margin-bottom: -532px; z-index:2;"> | <div style="margin: 2em auto; background: #ffffff; border-top: 1px solid #6576a4; border-left: 1px solid #6576a4; position:absolute; z-index: 1;">]<div style="position: relative; top: -532px; margin-bottom: -532px; z-index:2;"> | ||
| <div style="padding: 1em 1em 1em 2em;"></div></div></div> | <div style="padding: 1em 1em 1em 2em;"></div></div></div> | ||
| <div style="margin: 2em auto; border: 1px solid #8596c4; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 1px;"> | <div style="margin: 2em auto; border: 1px solid #8596c4; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 1px;"> | ||
| <div style="padding: 1em 1em 1em 2em; position:relative; z-index:3;"> | <div style="padding: 1em 1em 1em 2em; position:relative; z-index:3;"> | ||
| <div style="font-size: |
<div style="font-size: 100%; opacity: 0.8;"></div> | ||
| ] | |||
| <div style="font-size: 100%; opacity: 0.8;"> | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| <div class="usermessage" style="border:0px solid black; background-color:#aaccff; text-color:black;"><center></center></div> | |||
| {{NOINDEX|visible=no}} | |||
| <div style="position: absolute; bottom: -3em; right: 0em; background-color: #aaccff; border: 0px; margin: 0em 0 1em; padding: 0.2em 2em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: middle; color:#224477; font-style: italic;"><center>If you leave a message here, I will normally reply here unless you ask me to reply elsewhere</center></div> | |||
| {{bots|optout=all}} | |||
| :{| class="infobox" width="180px" | |||
| __NOTOC__ | |||
| |- | |||
| | {{refbegin|2}} | |||
| {{refend}} | |||
| |} | |||
| {{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} | {{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} | ||
| {{clear}} | |||
| ] | |||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| {{clear}} | |||
| {{trout}} | |||
| == Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! == | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback|WP:Teahouse/Questions|location information|ts=] (]) 13:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| :IMHO, I disagree with their answers over there, I routinely dump those silly "animal at location ''Foo''" captions, totally unnecessary most of the time. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok, so this is not a pet hate of just mine. Thanks for the thought - I perhaps need to re-think my re-think!__] (]) 13:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I disagree also with the initial response, and often feel cross about these animal captions. Why lose the focus in articles by adding flurries of irrelevant information. Look at how silly ] for a globally endemic animal! It can be as useful as including the colour and thread size of the photographer's socks. Perhaps a discussion could be opened at ] so the matter can be aired and a measure of consensus established on a more targeted forum. --] (]) 20:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Looks like I might have raised quite an issue here - the ] example is amazing! I also wonder if some of these captions of images from zoos, wildlife parks, etc, may actually be sneaky advertising.__] (]) 21:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think you just came up with a good reason to remove them! I'd say that "animal in location ''foo''" captions are useful where it matters if we demonstrate an animal's presence in its native (or introduced0 habitat, but otherwise, no. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Perhaps the reason for the location being stated must be made clear in the caption, e.g. Animal x in location "foo" with the substantially more pale pelage/where it was introduced in XXXX/where wild individuals interact closely with humans/etc __] (]) 14:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That would be one reason. To just list for random reasons is cruft and can go. I suspect the early examples were simply people copying over data that should remain with the image file page only. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| For those interested in this discussion/issue, you might like to take a peek at ]__] (]) 20:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I have opened the discussion up wider at __] (]) 18:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Badger cull== | |||
| Hi DrChrissy. Your recent addition on human cases of bovine TB is totally valid and useful - but it does seem to me to be a copy and paste of the source. Could you re-phrase it before it gets picked up by copy violation bots/searches? See ] and ] for more info. If you want to reply or have any questions you can reply here or on my talk page - whichever you prefer. ] (]) 12:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hmmmmm...are you accusing me of plagiarism on my own talk page?__] (]) 15:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Meerkat == | |||
| I just edited ] with a major improvement. I started editing it before you, and copied my revision before saving, then I got an edit conflict. So I pasted my revision, but I tried to reinstate your changes too. I was thinking about submitting it for GA, what do you think? --] <sup>]</sup> 00:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi. Thanks for re-instating my edits - those edit conflicts can be a real pain. I think that considering Meerkats have been the subject of so much research, the ] article probably needs more detail in quite a few places. I have always got frustrated in trying to get articles to GA status because it seems some editor with a random, non-biological interest wades in and expects a huge number of ridiculous hoops to be jumped through. By all means, recommend it, and I will support you where I can, but this can be a soul-destroying experience!__] (]) 01:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Now I hit a road block, I can't find ''anything'' for a "Taxonomy" or "Classification" section. I could find stuff on taxonomy for ] and ] (even though not much), but meerkat? Nope. I know what you mean, if I put it up for GA now, I don't think "I couldn't find anything" would be an acceptable way to get it passed without a taxonomy section. I might look a bit more, though. If I'm unsuccessful, at least I can say I got the ugly refimprove tag removed! --] <sup>]</sup> 01:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Trouting for Mustang (grin) == | |||
| {{trout}} | |||
| :: YUCK!!!!!! ;-) | |||
| *Really wish you would have discussed this here with me. You are reawakening a pot that has been stirred so many times. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is actually an issue that is much bigger than just the ] article. Using uppercase for breeds seems to be a general use on WP, however, this looks absurd when it is now agreed that the species is lowercase. So, we now have ''Felis silvestris catus'' and "Colourpoint Shorthair" which to me suggests the breed is more important than the species. I actually do not care all that much which it is, but if breeds are to be an exception to capitalisation conventions in W -, the MOS should tell editors this. All I am arguing for is adherance to the MOS, or change it! Much of the Discussion on ] is being sidetracked on whether the mustang is a breed or not (you have stated yourself it is not a species or sub-species). This is irrelevant to my arguement because the instructions given in MOS apply to any group of animal which does not (currently) exempt breeds.__] (]) 12:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, the capitalization of breeds issue is a never-ending saga, I know. Reasonable minds can differ. My own view is that God (or nature) made species, humans make breeds, that's the difference, in a nutshell. But even with species names and common names, I don't know if you followed "BIRDCON" at all, but that one ran off a number of very knowledgeable editors over what was basically a capitalization fight. Let's just keep the AGF going here, though, OK? And feel free to ASK me or WP Equine about why the Mustang article is the way it is - the tamed Mustang is still a Mustang, it is an example of what a Mustang looks like once it is taken off the range and re-domestciated. They make lovely horses to own if you handle them right, and what to do with the excess population is a huge issue out here in the west. Many people are trying to save these animals. See , for example. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == January 2015 == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that <span class="plainlinks"> to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .</span> | |||
| :List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: | |||
| *<nowiki></nowiki>{{red|'''[['''}}<nowiki>File:Ayeaye, Daubentonia madagascariensis, Joseph Wolf.jpg|thumb|upright|An aye-aye foraging, c.</nowiki> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow ]. Thanks, <!-- (0, 2, 0, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 17:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that <span class="plainlinks"> to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .</span> | |||
| :List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: | |||
| *<nowiki>head and body length is 45 to 105 cm and the tail is 33 to 75 cm long. The six named species of </nowiki>{{red|'''[['''}}<nowiki>Rock-wallaby|rock-wallabies (g. ''Petrogale'') live among rocks, usually near water; two species</nowiki> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow ]. Thanks, <!-- (0, 2, 0, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 23:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Oakland Zoo quote at ] == | |||
| Please take a look at ] before incorporating quoted text into the article again. Changing a few words in the quote will not absolve Misplaced Pages from a charge of plagiarism, even with the citation. It needs to be made absolutely clear that the material belongs to someone else. Thanks. --] (]) 04:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I have been writing and publishing scientific articles in top level journals (including Nature) for over 25 years. I am therefore, profesionally, well aware of what consitutes plagiarism. The important words in the WP guideline are correctly "...without providing adequate credit". If you look at the text as I left it, there was an in-line citation to the source. Yes, I closely paraphrased it and this meant it was no longer a quote, however, I directed the reader to the original source of the information and made no attempt whatsoever to claim that the wording was mine.__] (]) 13:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == What't going on here? == | |||
| We have had some collaborative and congenial discussion in the past, why are you now going through all these horse articles and messing them up? I've been a part of nearly 40 GA and over 15 FA class articles and I do know what I'm doing here. These terms are not "jargon" they are ] and MOS on captions does not mandate that they be boring. I agreed with you on the location issue, I wish you'd discuss things before you go mucking around with other issues. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I know you are a highly proficient, skilled and respected editor, however, we all have our imperfections. I am not "mucking about" with these articles, I am trying to improve them by making them more accessible to non-horsey, and perhaps, non-US citizens. I have asked for clarification where even as an experienced biologist I might not understand the term, or the term is, in my opinion, too technical. I have asked for clarification when people/characters are named who are likely unknown outside the US or the horse-world. I am asking for clarification when something is stated e.g. "early part of the century" when we don't know which century or we should be able to be more specific. I am asking for clarification with an SI unit of measurement where only hands are given. I am deleting the name of the animal from the lead image caption because this is already stated above as the image title - why repeat this! I am replacing "mare" in the lead caption with "female (mare)" because, believe it or not, there might be people out there who do not know what a mare is. Please see ], ] and ]. The reason I have made these changes is because they appear across several horse-based articles.__] (]) 18:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can you just open discussion at the talk pages then? But Female (mare) looks stupid and would be trashed as a caption at FAC. Also the breed articles are not species articles. (And for what it's worth, ] is a GA.) I'd be OK if you wanted to link ] and ], but we have literally dozens of GA and FA-class horse articles where the ] is used, sometimes with links to articles and sometimes with links to ]. This issue was discussed, and the "a stallion is a boy horse" think in every single article has gone the way of the dodo. (No I can't find the diff, I have 65K edits over 8 years...I think it was some of Ealdgyth's early Quarter Horse FACs) ]<sup>]</sup> 19:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::And to be honest, it would not take you much more time to glance at the article and just say "20th century" or whatever as to tag-bomb. If it really IS that vague - and not just missed in a quick read - then post a friendly message at talk saying, "hey, you forgot to say WHICH century at part X of the article, want to fix it?" Often {{clarification needed}} is totally meaningless. We really need content worker bees here more than fussy schoolarms "grading" older articles that have taken the back seat to more pressing work. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I can understand that someone with your experience might think "Female (mare)" might look 'stupid', but there was a time when even you did not know what a mare is. Imagine if you are a very young reader, a non-native English reader, or perhaps an engineer reading their first ever biological article..."Female (mare)" is informative and precise. Simply putting a technical term which is not even linked, is potentially inaccessible. I doubt very much it would be trashed at an FAC. I'm not sure why you mention breed and species? Whenever I tag something with {{clarification needed}} I leave an edit summary stating what I believe needs clarification. Sorry you feel I am a "fussy schoolalarm". I'm not entirely sure what that is, but my only intention is to improve articles.__] (]) 20:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, that's why I added the wikilink, which is a good idea, actually. Frankly, as a person who knows animals better than engineering, and article like ] isn't particularly helpful to me without a lot of wikilinks, but I wouldn't ask the editors to "dumb it down" for me either. As for the other stuff, where you feel the need in insert multiple tags, that is a good sign it's better to just fix it or discuss the overall problem. See ]. (Not sure what you mean by "I'm not sure why you mention breed and species" ?) ]<sup>]</sup> 00:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The ] article describes this as "...unjustified addition of numerous tags...". You do not state which article you are accusing me of doing this to. I will assume it is the ]. I added 4 tags with edit summaries explaining the concerns. Is 4 numerous? A moot point. Three of the four tags have led to editors clarifying this information, so I would suggest the tags were justified and therefore I will reject your accusation of Tag bombing on this article.__] (]) 19:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It was ] and anywhere else you added more than one or two tags. Yes, I fixed it, but that was to avoid a 3RR complaint, frankly, you are taking my time away from other, more valuable CONTENT CREATION projects that I simply cannot focus on while I am trying to preserve the articles that exist from careless edits by drive-by editors who don't know what they are doing. Can you please go back to doing the things you did well, which was your work on animal health issues? We have so much that needs to be done there, and it's actual lasting content. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You are taking this far to personally. When I add tags, I am not expecting a single editor to attend to these. There are many editors involved in the horse pages - why do you think I am expecting only you to attend to these. In addition, before I leave tags, I consider editing the article myself, if I have the correct expertise. However, in the past (and present), my edits on horse related pages are reverted or questioned for reasons known only to some exclusive members of the horse world. And this includes edits contrary to the WP:MOS as now exists on the ] Talk page.__] (]) 15:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It is my view that it is you who have made it a personal issue when in defiance of WP:BRD you get all upset because you were reverted, especially when you were reverted on two GA-clas articles (Morgan and Sorraia) and start all kinds of drama with RMs and posts on random drama boards instead of simply discussing the issue at the article talk page. How many GA and FA class articles have YOU contributed to? How many have you nursed through the review process? Seriously. Until you understand what the highest standards are, don't lecture me. I welcome legitimate input on apparent errors, I gladly welcome typo fixing because my eyesight is poor and I have a lot of them, and I'm always open to discussion at talk on content if the argument is legitimate. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I have already requested on the ] Talk page that you do not bring these personal attacks to my Talk page. You have ignored this. I asked that you raise an ANI so that independent persons can look at your personal attacks on me and either support or refute these. Please do this.__] (]) 00:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}You've apparently not spent much time at ANI. If I go to ANI, I will be accusing you of misbehavior and recommending a disciplinary action. I have no interest in doing this, I just want you to quit messing up articles with GA status, and I have explained at all of them why you should not do what you wanted to do. I have made NO personal attacks on you, I've only explained - over and over - what you are doing wrong with your article edits. If you don't want to listen, then I don't have much more to say. I have been editing[REDACTED] for eight years with a 100% clean record, having never been blocked. You certainly can go over there and say how evil I am, but read ] first. I have been a major contributor to 17 featured articles, 12 of which have been TFA. I have been a major contributor to over 40 good articles. In fact, I was also a minor contributor to ], which is TFA today and I don't even claim "major" contributions to that one, though I spend hours fixing up some small bits there. So I happen to know what I'm talking about, and if you really want to go to ANI over "Female (mare)" or fixed size image parameters, ask what you want: If it's my head on a plate, you will lose. If it's a ruling that you are right and I am wrong, you will lose. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Image sizes == | |||
| Just a note here because it impacts many articles: Whenever you have a forced size in an article (like 250px), it is not the preferred solution because people can set their preferences to a different default (I think current is 180px), and when they do, images of a forced size may wind up dramatically bigger or smaller than non-forced size images. The better solution to a too-small or too-big image is to use the "upright" parameter and set a value for how many times bigger or smaller you want the image to be. For example, adding "upright=1.5" will make the image 150% of the default size, whatever that default size is for that individual user. Likewise, "upright=0.8" would shrink an image to be 80% of the default. It's a more complex syntax, and it took me forever to figure out how it works, but I see why it's a more elegant approach. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit warring == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> - ] (]) 20:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::These accussatory edit-warring messages are stupid. For those who may wish to follow this, on the ] article there was a photo of a cat with odd-coloured eyes. This is an abnormality which can occur in a great number of animals and is not specific to cats. With the limited space available for images, I felt this was not adding anything substantial to the article, so as per WP:BRD, I deleted the image with an edit summary. ] reverted this. I reverted this with another edit summary. ] reverted this without taking to the Talk page. I reverted this reversion, and here I am being accussed of edit warring. All I am doing is following WP:BRD.__] (]) 20:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::And BillCat, haven't you read "Don't template the regulars?" DrChrissy is usually very willing to discuss issues if people raise them at talk. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks== | |||
| I appreciate your recent calm attitude at ]. That other editor was blocked as a sockpuppet of ItsLassieTime, who was a sock that has stalked horse and western articles in the past. I actually AM open to improving that Mustang article to GAN, it's just that it's a complex situation and it seems too many people attracted to editing it are not wanting to do sound research, just injecting emotion...but sigh... but I appreciate that even after our recent spatting you were calm and reasonable there. Thank you. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello DrChrissy. I obviously was absolved of the accusation of being "a sock that has stalked horse and western articles in the past". I do not have a "username"; I use my own name. I am getting the impression you're a veterinarian, as is my father-who was affiliated with a veterinarian whose name you would recognize. I myself once worked for a Nobel prize winner in genetics. I know you find me annoying; a lot of people do. I gave up trying to not be annoying a long time ago; I just found that too many people were so easily annoyed that it was just not within my disposition to prevent it. But, we seem to be pretty much on the same wavelength. So, please bear with me. I only want truth, justice, and the American Way. (edit: four tildes coming:)] (]) 01:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::For the record, I am not a veterinarian, however, I do teach them. I do not find you annoying, but I find your style of continually updating your own Talk edits withount indenting, difficult to deal with when trying to help you with article editing. It is a given that I want truth and justice on WP, but as for the American Way, let's remember WP is an encyclopaedia for the World not just North Americans.__] (]) 13:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, my experience is editing articles in which I was the only editor, so I do have some bad habits. Are you English? You spelled encyclopedia with the British spelling. So, would your concerns be alleviated if maybe there were more Wiki cross-references? Like ]? Because, assuming you are English, or from another British country, you may not be aware of all the politics surrounding mustangs here in the States, and how the misconceptions of their history feed into those politics. That's why I've been so stubborn on some things, and why other editors are so hostile, to the point of doing just about anything to silence me, as you may have noticed. So, specific geography is important to an accurate history, otherwise, "Western North America" or "Western United States" would be adequate. ] (]) 15:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, I am English (British) and I live in England. That means (probably like 99.9% of people in this country) I am mostly unaware of the politics behind mustangs. I have come to understand some of this by editing and talking on the WP article. However, this does not mean I am unable to contribute positively to the article. If you were to make a draft re-write on the Talk page as I have requested, I can look at aspects such as wording, accurate reporting, reliability of sources, balanced reporting, etc. You mentioned I have concerns that need alleviating; please would you specify what you believe are the "concerns" that I have.__] (]) 15:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, that you have concerns that the writing is geared to much to Americans, and assumes too much cultural knowledge on the part of the reader.] (]) 16:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::OK, I have already made edits to address those concerns. This discussion should really be on the article's Talk page so that other editors can read and contribute.__] (]) 16:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm just trying to get a feel for where you're coming from, so to speak, in your comments, and give you a feel where I'm coming from. When I put that on the talk page, it seems to sideline the main discussion.] (]) 17:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Perhaps you should think more about the edit, rather than over-thinking the editor.__] (]) 17:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::And instead of copying and pasting the entire article into the talk page twice, try a sandbox. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Yes, I thought about that overnight, but thanks for the suggestion.__] (]) 14:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Sourcing and undue-ness at ] == | |||
| In my view a lot of the recent content you have added to this article is weakly-sourced (primary/self-published) and undue, and could appear like POV-warrioring. This previously went to ] and of course the advice was to use the ''best'' sources for content. Are you sure you're doing that? We should be <s>preventing</s> presenting an encyclopedic view of the subject summarizing accepted knowledge: listing things like the fact foie gras was banned at a 2011 German food festival risks turning the article into a miscellany of trivia (just as it would the other way if it listed famous menus/restaurants, etc. that featured foi gras). Misplaced Pages is not a battle ground for righting-great-wrongs. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 04:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Please state exactly which references you think might be weak or un-suitable - I can not do anything about this until you specify which sources you object to. As for listing bans of foie gras - this is a controversial foodstuff. It is informative to the reader to see the history of bans being imposed, much like the section on the history of foie gras being served in Califonia, or indeed the history of its uptake as a food.__] (]) 13:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well using Amazon as a source for Amazon to take an example. But the entire new "Bans" section is undue/out-of-place. Anyway, I see you're not going to engage ... I've tried. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 13:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I used Amazon because it is a policy statement by Amazon! Are you saying that if the government issues new legislation, we should not cite the government web-site which states the new legislation? As for my "not engaging", I think you are mistaking that for my not bowing down to your obvious biased approach to this article. I would also like to know why you brought this matter to my talk page rather than the talk page of foie gras, which is where it most certainly belongs. Perhaps you are trying to publicly embarass or humiliate me?__] (]) 13:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I can only repeat what others have said: we should use the best sources; not dredge weak sources out of Google to support a preconceived POV. I raised this on your Talk page as I am, in part, questioning your editing approach and understanding of sourcing requirements; that would not be appropriate on the article's Talk page. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 14:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And I can only repeat what I have said - please state which sources that in your opinion are not the best. For you to do this, you must already be aware of better sources than I have provided. Please state these. I have already found other sources for the Amazon ban and I am including these in the article, despite my belief that if a company states a policy, the best source is a statement by the company itself.__] (]) 14:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I already said, the entire Bans section is undue. If there was (say) a peer-reviewed source or in-depth analysis piece discussing bans that would be a different matter, and could be usable. How did you find these sources? a Google search for "foie gras ban" maybe? How many more could be added this way, scores? hundreds? ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 14:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This is becoming absurd! How I found the sources is completely and totally irrelevant. WP has no policy on this. WP has a policy that sources should be verifiable - all my sources are verifiable. You may wish to question the quality of a source, but to do this you must state which sources you are questioning (my 3rd repeat of this I think). As for whether the Bans section should be in the article, this is a subject for the article Talk page, not my Talk page - I think it is about time you "engaged".__] (]) 14:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I think it ''is'' relevant how the sources are found, as searching for just one kind of source leads to skewed sourcing and so a skewed article, surely? Sources should be of high quality and content should be verifiable, and due. A shopping list of minor bans (Prince Charles!) sourced to weak sources is not due. I'll get around to editing this article again soon. I wonder if there's any really good source material on "bans"? ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 14:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Any sourcing method can lead to skewness - even going through dusty books page by page, because it is what we write here on[REDACTED] that matters, not how we found it. Using my mysterious sourcing method, I have refrained from citing dozens of potential sources which, although clearly verifiable, are clearly biased and I have dooubted their neurtality and/or accuracy. Please define what is a "weak" source.__] (]) 15:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Resizing and repositioning photos in Altruism (biology) article == | |||
| Dear DrChrissy | |||
| Thank you for your recents edits to the ] article. But you resized several of the photos and placed them one below the other. Not only are these illustrations noticeably smaller that all the other photographs in the article, which makes them look strange, they also do not really make the best sense in the order you have placed them. I wonder whether you would let me make them the same size as the pictures that come before and after them, and also to alternate them on the left and right sides of the page as before. I think the peacock and the racing horses shoudld be on either side of the page opposite one another to make the best sense - they are two sides of the same thought-coin (if I may coin a phrase - sorry about the unintended pun). Cheers ] (]) 05:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi. I'm probably being over fussy about this. The default/preferred size of images is 220px. That is why I reduced the size of these. They appear smaller than the other images in the article because the other images are over-sized at 250px. The reason I moved the peacock image is because it was sandwiching the text which should be avoided as per ]. I can understand why you might want these images together, so, I'll make them into a multi-image with the peacock first. Have a look at it and tell me what you think. All the best.__] (]) 13:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hi DrChrissy. | |||
| I'm going to be fascinated to see what the 'multi-image' looks like. I have looked at the original sized photographs arranged as they were on a smaller screen, where "sandwiching of the text" is a problem on some pages, but in this case it looks absolutely fine and attractive to me. But then it might be that my less-than-perfect eyesight finds that these default sized images look stingy and mean like a cheaply printed book that has tried to save money on the ink! But let's see how it goes. Go well ] (]) 15:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Done it! I think it looks good - but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Let me know what you think.__] (]) 15:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I'm very impressed! That looks great. But can we now make the pygmy Kingfisher a bit bigger? It looks tiny and even mingier now. Sorry to be such a pain. The multi-image is a brilliant idea - no doubt about that. Many thanks. ] (]) 17:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Glad you like it! I agree with you that the default image size is too small - especially when the images are really attractive onese. ''whispering'' I tell you what. Why don't you increase the size of the kingfisher and I will drop my fussiness watchdog....but don't tell anyone else, it's between you and me ok? ;-)__] (]) 17:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :) ] (]) 17:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Photo in ] == | |||
| Please see ]. --] (]) 11:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == March 2015 == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> | |||
| Please be particularly aware that ] states: | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''. | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| In particular, editors should be aware of the ], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, '''breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a ]'''. | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. {{Break}}''This is being discussed on Talk. Instead of engaging there with a specific description of the edits, you are continually reverting and in the process messing up the encyclopedia by duplicating content across articles.''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 10:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''COMMENT''' At this stage, I have reverted only once! Yes, once! This notice is extremely premature and I take it to be a form of harassment by an editor who simply does not like less "paltable" facts being placed on the ] article.__] (]) 10:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :You are at 3RR, and have not engaged with the discussion about these changes on the Talk page. If you revert again to exceed 3RR within the 24hr period, I shall report you at ]. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 10:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Oh that's right, it is 3R in 24 hrs. I was editing late last night and today is another day...but within 24hrs.__] (]) 11:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Conflicts of interest: general information == | |||
| From recent comments it seems you may know personally an author of a work you cited at ]. This raises at least the possibility of a conflict of interest. Please be aware of our ] guidance, and also the which govern contributions. Best practice, ''if'' there is a COI, is to follow the guidance at ]. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 20:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ian Duncan is a scientist working in animal behaviour and welfare. I am a scientist working in animal behaviour and welfare. We meet at conferences and have a professional relationship. Is this a conflict of interest? If it is, I might as well give up editing on Misplaced Pages.__] (]) 22:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hello, ]. I saw this because I read your message at the Teahouse. The message doesn't say you have a conflict of interest, only that you should check to make sure you don't. Just having met someone doesn't create a conflict of interest; we meet a lot of people in our lives. If you had a reason (besides general helpfulness) to be promoting this person's career or reputation, then there would be a conflict. For example, if you worked on the same project, which you mentioned in the article, or if you were in a supervisory position over him, or if he had asked you to work on the page, for example. A "professional relationship" can mean anything from waving across a conference room to authoring papers together. You will know best about this, and I'm sure that you can successfully follow the guidelines, since scientists are all experienced at creating documents to meet various criteria. —] (]) 00:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| This isn't a conflict of interest its expertise and professionalism in your field. WP needs experts and expertise should not be confused with COI.(] (]) 00:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| :I agree with olive and DrChrissy. I had to deal with a bunch of nonsense with someone who argued that because I am a member of a national organization with thousands of members, I therefore shouldn't edit articles in that area without a COI tag. How silly is that? Shall we ban historians from working on history articles or lawyers from law articles? I know! Let's ban all experts and let disgruntled 14 year olds who live in their mom's basement run wikipedia... or wait, maybe they already do? LOL! ;-) ]<sup>]</sup> 04:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks to all the above editors for their support and advice. I wave to Ian at conferences, I have worked with Ian and co-authored papers with him, but not the one which I cited, I am in no position to influence his career, and I have actually not spoken to him for about 7 years. I am perfectly happy there is no COI. @Alexbrn Would you agree?__] (]) 11:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Absolutely. There is only the risk of COI if editing intersects with some kind of personal/professional/financial ''interest'' (in the sense of having some kind of stake), and in Ian Duncan's case that clearly isn't happening. You will know if you have any other kind of COI in relation to foie gras ... or any other topic. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 11:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! == | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback|WP:Teahouse/Questions|Help with other editors|ts=—] (]) 00:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| == edit war notice == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> | |||
| Please be particularly aware that ] states: | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''. | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| In particular, editors should be aware of the ], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, '''breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a ]'''. | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] (]) 23:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Don't be silly - it is several days since I edited the page regarding this subject matter - how can the 3RRR possibly apply.__] (]) 23:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::slow motion edit warring is still edit warring. The notice is not telling that you have violated 3RR (you would get a notice of edit-warring board posting for that) -- this is warning you that you are heading there. there is zero consensus to restore that material on the Talk page. you did it, grave-dancingly, which makes it double-ugly. ] (]) 23:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What a load of complete rubbish. There was never any discussion, let alone consensus, to move the Legislation section. I am simply placing it back where it belongs, and let's take the discussion from there as to whether it should be moved or not. As for "slow motion" or "grave-dancingly" (what a stupid word), I took advice from the pages on edit warring and decided to have a few days out to calm down. I did that, but still believe these sections should be included on the page. I suggest you start discussion on the Talk page about why these sections should not be included__] (]) 00:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] - i thought we had mostly resolved it. ] (]) 01:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: and i remind you again, to discuss content, not contributors. making remarks like ("what a stupid word") do nothing to help you gain consensus for what you want. Why do it? ] (]) 03:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Two things: First, from the edit history there seems to be consensus that the details of the legislation and bans belong in ]. Repeatedly reverting different editors can be seen as edit warring, even if it isn't three reverts in a day. The three-revert rule is only there as a clear example of when something is edit warring, it doesn't mean that everything else isn't. Second, the information is not the same that can be found in ] so there is no redundancy (please look up duplicity, that word isn't really the right one in this context). ] (]) 23:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi ]. My reason for reverting which placed detailed Legislation information in ] is to put information back into its original place according to the status quo before a dispute arose about removing the legislation information. Look carefully back through the history (although I admit this is now tortuous, but I have tried to solve this with the thread below). There has not been a discussion of whether the legislation material should have been moved before this contentious edit was made. I have tried to put the material back into place so that the RfC which ] is going to instigate can see the information in its original place, which is appropriate for ]. All would be resolved if editors stopped trying to move the information about and allowed the RfC to progress. This would provide a consensus as to where the information belongs.__] (]) 23:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Foie gras == | |||
| What seems to be the problem? --] (]) 23:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks very much for getting back to me. WoW...where do I start. This pair of editors seem to think that as soon as any edit is made on ], the instant reaction is to revert it and then expect the contributor to prove to the very, very highest standards (those used by the medical fraternity on WP), that an edit should be accepted. They continually use subjective criteria e.g. weight, dueness, primary sources (meaning scientific papers in international peer-reviewed journals), undue length, as reasons for reverting edits. One of this pair even appears to be claiming that sources older than 5 years of age should not be allowed because this is the standard of medical articles. I have even been followed to my own Talk page and accused of plagiarism and that my sourcing techniques are sub-standard (surely it is the quality of my edit that is the concern, not how I found it. Forgive me, it is late here and I have not given you diffs or precise locations of comments or reverte. If you wish me to prepare these, I will. Once again, thank you for your interest.__] (]) 00:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::all in all, just some content disputes with some thin-skin/bad attitude. The only serious issue is COPYVIO, as far as I can see, '''which we have resolved now'''. So I would say, nothing to see, except for some popcorn-munchable drama. But here it is: | |||
| :::*Sources issue mentioned by drchrissy: | |||
| :::A fourth editor about negative effects on ducks of force-feeding.0 | |||
| :::i and categorized them as primary/secondary/tertiary and commented that we should not use primary sources, and should use secondary or tertiary.... i did not include/exclude based on age, but did comment on age. | |||
| :::drcrissy reacted to my noting that a ~9 year old source was "old" | |||
| :::drcrissy then what is "too old" | |||
| :::to which that no policy or guideline (other than MEDRS which says ~5 years for most things, and noted the MEDRS ~may~ apply to vet med) defines "too old", but RS does say "some scholarly material may be outdated" - I still made no actual judgement as to usability or not, based on age | |||
| :::Alexbrn that he had done a search and there has been little study on the issue after 2009 | |||
| :::to which that "old" is maybe not too old, indeed. | |||
| :::*COPYVIO issue | |||
| :::In the meantime that <s>was just possibly maybe COPYVIO, </s> <u>"was copy/pasted from the source, which takes us into WP:PLAGIARISM territory"</u> | |||
| ::: to which drcrissy . | |||
| ::: and on Alexbrn's Talk page | |||
| ::: that it was mighty close paraphrasing | |||
| :::i Moonriddengirl with drcrissy's permission to get her take on it | |||
| :::Moonriddengirl "I'm afraid that the content ''does'' follow very closely." | |||
| :::which drcrissy | |||
| :::I then , who just happened to be part of the copvio cleanup crew, his opinion on the copyvio thing | |||
| ::: and , "DrChrissy You didn't paraphrase that text anywhere near enough. You should spend time on this, reading and contemplating ]." | |||
| :::and in , drchrissy finally agreed that if it comes back in (there are other issues withi UNDUE and OFFTOPIC) it should be re-written. so much dramah. ] (]) 01:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*the other thing going on, is that drchrissy had been building content in the that duplicates content in the ] article about legislation, bans etc. Alexbrn and I believe that we shouldn't have duplicate content in two articles, per ], and instead we should use ] style, so we have implemented that, which has made drchrisssy unhappy. (under discussion ) In an unpretty move, Drchrissy took advantage of your block on Alexbrn to . Which | |||
| :::so that all happened too. | |||
| :::all in all, just some content disputes with some thin-skin/bad attitude. The only serious issue is COPYVIO, as far as I can see, '''which we have resolved now'''. So I would say, nothing to see, except for some popcorn-munchable drama. ] (]) 01:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: This is a storm in a tea cup. Jytdog and Alexbrn do sterling work combating sloppy sourcing and POV vandals on human health related areas, using ] as their criteria. There is a danger, after working diligently for a while in such an area, of developing a blinkered and jaundiced view of anyone not editing according to the standards you are use to. This can start spilling over to editors who are neither writing in health related areas nor are POV vandals. DrChrissy is such an editor. He is a highly competent editor writing on matters relating to animal behaviour. WP:MEDMOS can be seriously inadequate in that area, particularly in its stance on primary sources. Drchrissy's part in this is that he takes the attacks on him seriously. Still, if you guys, the three of you, are having fun carrying on like this, then by all means keep going. But try and keep nastiness out of it and keep it away from the article talk pages. --] (]) 04:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::with that, i almost entirely agree (as we discussed, i think primary sources are way over-used in WP) :) ] (]) 05:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC) (amend what alexbrn wrote, to be quote, to avoid interpretation and present just the facts. My apologies. ] (]) 12:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| :::::: I do not agree with the way you characterised the one-off issue DrChrissy had with close paraphrasing. You say for example the issue was initiated when "Alexbrn noted that content that drcrissy had added to the article was just possibly maybe COPYVIO". Alexbrn in fact said outright that the issue had moved into . In the context that was unnecessary and inflammatory. Both you and Alexbrn have been behaving towards DrChrissy in a manner which seems intended to inflame. I agree with DrChrissy that the MEDMOS hardline approach you and Alexbrn both adopt can be lazy nonsense when applied outside medical areas. I have written various articles myself which revolve around a single primary source, for example ] and ]. Your notion that sources in science that are older than five years should not be used is, in some contexts, also risible dribble. --] (]) 10:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Despite being asked not to, you are continuing to base comments about me on your supposition about what my "intent" is – suppositions which I have already said are wrong. By saying that the (fairly obvious plagiarism) was taking us into "plagiarism territory" I meant to be soft, by saying we were entering somewhere where plagiarism might be an issue (in the same way bandits might be an issue when one enters "bandit territory"). And MEDMOS!? I am not that familiar with it and don't believe I have ever raised it in relation to foie gras? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:40, 20 March 2015 {UTC) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| ::::::: {{u|Epipelagic}} In response to drchrissy's note on his Talk page, Alexbrn : " Misplaced Pages article Talk page comment about an edit (by an anonymized editor) is hardly a public accusation, and I said the edit "took us into ] territory" which is about as tentative & gentle a way as it could be expressed. I hope you take plagiarism and copyright violation as seriously as you take this "accusation". ". And you, Moonriddengirl, and I alll agreed that the content was problematic... and in my view, it is the most important issue with the content that drcrhissy introduced. Not inflammatory at all, but dealing with content issues on the basis of PAG, with clarity and civility. | |||
| ::::::: I have not been behaving ''toward'' drchrissy much at all. He is the one who keeps commenting on contributors, not content. | |||
| ::::::: On the primary/secondary thing... every content policy - OR, NPOV, and VERIFY - calls us to use secondary sources, as do the two sourcing guidelines, RS and MEDRS. The call for us to use secondary sources is deep in the guts of WP and goes right to what we do here as ''editors'', not authors. We rely on secondary sources to interpret the primary sources (we cannot) and for the crucial meta-decisions we need to make about how much WEIGHT any idea should get, relative to the rest of what reliable sources say. I do bring that to bear a lot in my editing - I acknowledge that - and I will be happy to defend that anywhere, anytime. Important thing here , i '''never made the general statement''' - and I never would - that "sources in science that are older than five years should not be used". (please see again, if you like) That mischaracterizes what I wrote and violates the TPG, and doing that is uncharacteristic for you, as far as I know you. Please strike it. Thanks. | |||
| ::::::: this appears to be devolving. Above, John asked what is up, in response to drchrissy's claim of bad behavior on Foie gras , on Alexbrn's Talk page. drchrissy responded with what i saw as an inaccurate description of what has been going on, and i provided my version, backed by diffs. It is unclear to me what value there is, in continuing this. ] (]) 12:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: ] wrote above "By saying that the (fairly obvious plagiarism) was taking us into "plagiarism territory" ..." You are again stating publicly that you believe I have committed plagiarism. I have already conceded that 9 (nine) words were copy and pasted, but I have also emphasized there was an attribution to the source. Are you really serious about accusing me of plagiarism?__] (]) 12:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::@Jytdog. | |||
| In your message above, you wrote that Epipelagic had stated you had written a general statement "sources in science that are older than five years should not be used". By placing this in quotes, you seem to be directly attributing this to Epipelagic. This is a false accusation. Epipelagic discussed the issue by starting with "Your notion...". Yet again, an inaccurate and inflammatory edit.__] (]) 12:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: @Jytdog. I notice you have made an edit to my talk page which hides part of an original posting. This is my talk page - I do not believe in censorship or self-censorship. Please te-instate your original posting. | |||
| {{od}} I disagree - what he wrote is not my notion - I never said that. But really, John asked and has been answered - he'll decide if there is anything for him to do here. With regard to my changing my comments, I have either redacted {using strike and underlining, and noting that I did that) something that was already commented on, or straightup edited something that had not been commented on. Both are fine, per ]. With regard to ''your rights'' here on your Talk page: per ]: 1) "'''Never''' edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, ''even on your own talk page''"; 2) "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages" (keeping #1 in mind, of course); 3) you can ask me not to write here anymore. ] (]) 12:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you perhaps deliberately misunderstanding my post? It clearly states that Epipelagic started their discussion "Your notion...". It is not being suggested that you said this, so please attend to your false accusation. Regarding this being my talk page, I can request you not to distort what you have previously posted and then thought better about - something you have done before.__] (]) 12:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::i don't agree with what you say; he mischaracterized "my notion". I won't continue this, which is really getting sideshowy. Would you please just talk through content issues we are having on Foie gras, at the Foie gras talk page? Discussions about content do not have to get personal or dramatic, ever. ] (]) 12:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Epipelagic did not mischaracterise your notion. Epipelagic very thoughtfully listed several possible sources to improve the foie gras article. You then reprinted the list and added whether or not they were "old" thereby discrediting them as valuable sources. Given that Foie gras production is hundreds of years old and is a gradually vanishing practice (and therefore there is little ongoing research), it is nonsensical to apply a "5-year worthiness" criterion that relates to human medical research which is current and ongoing. You left me with exactly the same impression that I believe Epipelagic had.__] (]) 13:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not responsible for your sloppy reading. Nor am i responsible for your insistence on maintaining your sloppiness in the face of my directly telling you that your reading is incorrect and providing you with the exact thing i said. so there you go. although i use salty language i generally write with precision. especially when i have someone crawling up my asshole with a microscope. I am unwatching your Talk page. This is a fucking circus. ] (]) 18:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Please retain civility on my Talk page and do not use prophanities.__] (]) 23:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC == | |||
| Please withdraw the RfC. Thank you. ] (]) 02:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The RfC I raised has been in place for almost 4 days now. I have been waiting for others to comment on whether this should be withdrawn. There has not been a single message or jot of support for your request for withdrawl. Therefore I will not withdraw the RfC.__] (]) 23:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Ongoing conflict in Talk:Foie gras == | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. | |||
| == TPG warning == | |||
| About : | |||
| ] ]. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at ], is considered ], even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tpv1 --> ] (]) 15:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I edited the page with a statement that information was contained in a collapsed box below my text. This was all posted as one message as can be seen ]. ], you then made an edit which seperated my text from the collapsed box. It was you who made the first edit of another's edit, I was simply returning my edit to where I first placed it. I then replaced other edits to the chronological order in which they were posted.__] (]) 16:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::do not move other editors' comments with<u>out</u> their consent. i put it where i did for a reason; the location is meaningful. every comment has a datestamp that shows chronology. ] (]) 16:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC) (add "out" ] (]) 18:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| ::::Are you saying you had a reason for splitting and moving my text from the collapse box to which it referred? If so, please give this reason.__] (]) 16:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::it is extremely obvious that the large green collapsed box, is what you refer to in your comment where you reference " I have included the material below in collapsed form." It is extremely obvious that my comment was made after yours. There is no confusion for anyone with a working neuron. ] (]) 18:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC) (removed bolding from 2 instances of "extremely obvious" and "no confusion" per request below. ] (]) 12:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| :::::::You are using bold to shout at me again. Please stop this. You have done this before and ended up apologising. Please strike through your bold. The point is that you changed my edit without my permisson - you split my text from the related collapsed box. You can not deny this. You are in breach of ]. Please change your behaviour immediately or I will have no recourse other than to raise an ANI - I would hate to have to do this against another WP editor but you are giving me no option.__] (]) 23:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: for bolding an entire comment in the midst of the RfC, which was over the top and different from emphasis of individual words. . and with regard to - if you want to bring that to ANI, knock your self out. not actionable, as it is extremely obvious that the hatted content is what you were referring to; my comment did not change the meaning of yours at all. (and on an extremely wikilawyering technical note, you didn't sign beneath the hatted content so technically it wasn't part of your comment at all... so not in spirit, nor in letter, did i violate the TPG with that comment) in any case it was bad judgement on your part to bring in the edit warring thing in the midst of the RfC; once you did that, in my view it needed the background... but the whole thing is off point. again, if you do the simple thing of withdrawing the RfC, instead of doubling down on drama, all this goes away and we can frame a mutually acceptable, useful RfC to guide us going forward... and we can get on with it. why will you not withdraw the RfC? Please answer. Thanks (and oh what the heck, i will remove the bolding since you are focusing on that) ] (]) 12:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::You edited the posting of another member without their permission! This must surely be in breach of one of the cornerstones of respect and civility for editors of WP. By the way, I answered yesterday, with reasons, why I will not withdraw the RfC. Please keep up with disputes and issues that you are unilaterally causing__] (]) 12:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: and are the kind of TPG violations that are actionable per the warning I left ] (]) 12:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Are you suggesting I made those edits?__] (]) 12:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::no, that is a crazy suggestion and i never went anywhere near there. if you haven't noticed, let me tell that you that i try to be extremely clear - i don't hint around or "suggest" anything. i even make things bold to make sure my point is absolutely clear, as i did above, before i struck it per your objection. i am very committed to communicating clearly and unambiguously. btw that user . ] (]) 13:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::So why did you post those diffs on my talk page?__] (]) 13:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::::above you wrote "You edited the posting of another member without their permission!" at around the same time that you were exploring where i did change another editor's edits on a Talk page, and you wrote and . I assumed that is what you were addressing. i did not edit your comment at Foie gras at all. i replied to it. ] (]) 13:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Please provide an answer - why did you leave diff pages implying these were edits I had made? Please remove them.__] (]) 13:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: <s>i have seen no place where you have answered the question "why will you not withdraw the RfC?" please provide a dif. thanks. ] (]) 12:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: please do provide a diff of where you answered the question. i do want to keep that conversation going. thanks. ] (]) 13:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)</s> (striking - pointless; no answer is coming and i am beating a dead horse trying to get one. Unwatching this page again.] (]) 13:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| == Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! == | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback|WP:Teahouse/Questions|Unusual edit history|ts=''']'''<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 13:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| == TPG violation, take 2 == | |||
| about and , ] is absolutely clear on this: | |||
| <blockquote>* Other than minor corrections for insignificant typographical errors made before other editors reply, changes should be noted to avoid misrepresenting the original post. For example: | |||
| ** Mark deleted text with <code><nowiki><s>...</s></nowiki></code>, or <code><nowiki><del>...</del></nowiki></code>, which render in most browsers as struck-through text (e.g., <del>wrong text</del>). | |||
| ** Mark inserted text with <code><nowiki><u>...</u></nowiki></code>, or <code><nowiki><ins>...</ins></nowiki></code>, which renders in most browsers as underlined text (e.g., <ins>corrected text</ins>). | |||
| ** If it is necessary to explain changes, insert comments in square brackets (e.g., "the default width is <del>100px</del> <ins>120px</ins> ") or consider inserting a superscript note (e.g., "</sup>]]") linking to a later subsection for a detailed explanation. | |||
| ** Append a new timestamp (e.g., <code><nowiki>"; edited ~~~~~"</nowiki></code> using five tildes) after the original timestamp at the end of the post. | |||
| *Removing or substantially altering a comment after someone else has replied may deprive the reply of its original context; however, leaving false text unrevised could be worse. If it is necessary to make such an edit, consider the following steps: | |||
| ** Mark up your edits as shown above. | |||
| ** Add a comment in the edited comment (in square brackets) or below the comment to explain that you made the edit and explain why you needed to do this after others had replied to it. | |||
| ** Contact the person(s) who replied, posting on their talk page to explain the change.</blockquote> | |||
| It is '''fine''' to change your comment, but you must redact it, like <s>this</s> to remove things and like <u>this</u>to add things. You cannot just edit it. doing so makes my response, nonsense. ] (]) 23:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit war notice == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> | |||
| Please be particularly aware that ] states: | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''. | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| In particular, editors should be aware of the ], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, '''breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a ]'''. | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] (]) 23:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why have you put this notice on my Talk page: Where am I supposed to be edit-warring?__] (]) 00:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::you are edit warring at talk:Foie gras: you are at 3RR right now. | |||
| ::* | |||
| ::* and | |||
| ::* | |||
| ::there you go. ] (]) 00:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ermmmm...I can count only 2 reversions. As for edit warring, all I have been doing is asking for advice on how to make the redactions you are requesting. You have shown me how to do it, but not where to do it. Please explain why you put an edit warring template on my talk page.__] (]) 01:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Reference errors on 26 March == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have '''automatically detected''' that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. {{#ifeq:1|1|It is|They are}} as follows: | |||
| *On the ] page, caused an ] <small>(])</small>. ( | ) | |||
| Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a ], you can . | |||
| Thanks, <!-- User:ReferenceBot/inform -->] (]) 00:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==culling== | |||
| big problem with creating that new ctegory - you hadnt located it in the category tree anywhere (ie a new cat needs to be linked with another cat... so to speak - big problem the animal control title is linked to a crappy species specific article that is a us specific issue (euphemism for dog catcher) - and it would appear that animal control (we have kangaroo, camel, goat, and other species culling occurring in australia) is a poorly developed part of any particular cat tree... ] 15:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks very much for this - I had forgotten about the linking.__] (]) 15:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::its a leaky hole, boat or for the worse - a failed connection as it is - and I do not think it should link to anything in the category structure that is the slightest linked to dog catchers - it is something far more bigger picture and the complex heritage of eugenics/population control and so on ] 15:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I see you have linked it to Category:Animals. THanks for this. Is the problem for this new category now resolved?__] (]) 15:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Animal killing is more appropriate imho - moving the context now. ] 15:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No! Please don't do that. Culling does not mean killing. It means seperation, and then sometimes killing. What is wrong with leaving it in category:animals?__] (]) 15:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Actually, on reflection, leave it as it is. I am not 100% comfortable with it but let's leave that to other editors. Thanks again for your help in this.__] (]) 15:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I dont know if you realise but a very large number of category creators never add projects on talk pages, and a vast number of categories never get checked. As to whether comfort is involved - although not set into stone - as we know anyone can edit - culling - the article is linked - and that in itself leads the reader to the culling article - regardless of the category - that should qualify things... somewhat. As to other editors, some categories and parts of category trees remain untouched for years, so I wouldnt hold the breath on that one ] 15:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You should learn to archive your talk page it is getting a bit murderous in its size. ] 15:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I know how to archive - please see that I have already done this. I was going to archive recently until edits on here by an editor led to me raising a current ANI against them and I felt forr ease of the administrators dealing with this, the comments should be left in the context of the way I usually interact with editors on my Talk page.__] (]) 15:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::eek, you must enjoy controversy, I see... as my edit count gets higher, I tend to avoid stuff like that, in the long term little is important enough to get into that sort of sorts. oh well culling has its category, and as my part of the planet sleeps now, good night and travel safely... ] 15:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Actually, I hate controversy but this editor simply went well over the top.__] (]) 21:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI == | |||
| My apology to you at ANI was real. I am sorry for being uncivil to you and you will see better behavior from me going forward. Best regards. ] (]) 02:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Collapsed discussion == | |||
| No offense intended. The discussion over there has remained admirably focused given the contentious nature of the subject matter, and I was just trying to maintain that. Respectfully, ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 00:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Something I noticed... == | |||
| ...Strong oppose delete may be misread by the closer to be Strong oppose...delete. Speed read error? *lol* Just thought you might want to clarify it with a strike so it reads Strong Keep. Interesting MfD either way. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 20:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks - I will attend to it. It's a very interesting MfD but the thing I really do not like about it is that in meeting interesting people such as yourself as a consequence, I have become reluctant to chat to and support you (and others) because that will be seen as a negative (conspiratorial) behaviour by the naughty ducks out there.__] (]) 20:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::] customarily bully their opposition, that way they can push their POV without interruption, all the while pretending they are the defenders of PAG. They make ] look like ''Ned In The 1st Reader.'' ] <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 20:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Right, as per usual, Atsme, but what are we to do? It all looks so obvious and absurd to me, and I cannot figure how this isn't the case for the majority. When hurried, those interested in iVoting may look to familiar/powerful voices and take their lead. That is a problem as the loudest voices aren't necessarily Saints of neutrality. | |||
| ::::What DrChrissy says is true too, and it's done on purpose. If your position has no substance, you can still win content disputes on WP by making sure your opposition is scattered about tending to warnings, noticeboards brought against them, and well aware that there is no shortage of editors willing to spend countless hours fighting so that their (pro-industry) POV remains dominant. But NO WAY does this have ANYTHING to do with big business, even when it looks like quintessential spin doctoring, and how dare one suggest otherwise?! '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 22:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::COI guidelines clearly state, "COI editing is strongly discouraged." It also states, "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question." But above all, it states "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Misplaced Pages." I realize COIducks is an essay, but it's an extension of the COI guideline. Why wouldn't it apply there, too? Actually, wouldn't it apply per ]?? I don't understand why there has not been more active involvement regarding keeping this stuff in check. If they did, ARBCOM may dry up a little, as would AN, ANI, and 3RR. Whoop, whoop! *lol* <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 03:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Maybe the backlash you and the essay are experiencing can be seen as one reason why there has not been more active involvement regarding keeping this stuff in check. Think about it. No one wants to go through that. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 03:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Or it could simply be because the essay is as terrible as most people think it is, no? ] (]) 03:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} No, no - it looks great now. Just keeps getting better! Geogene just added a bit more, and the whole things flows so nicely now. It's amazing what productive collaboration can do. Too bad it was bombarded by a pointless MfD. Any editor who is truly against the COI battle at Wiki should be supporting this essay. Those who don't....well, go figure. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 03:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Let's just say my view of what's "great" probably differs from yours. As for "Any editor who is truly against the COI battle " ... come on, that's a bit ... Donald Rumsfeld isn't it? Perhaps editors experienced in doing "battle" in this field are saying your approach is wrong because - they know better. Just a thought (again). ] (]) 03:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's your POV, and I disagree with it the same way you consistently disagree with mine. Night all... ] <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 03:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == April 2015 == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> | |||
| Please be particularly aware that ] states: | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''. | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| In particular, editors should be aware of the ], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, '''breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a ]'''. | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] (]) 18:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Your advice == | |||
| Hello DrChrissy, thanks for your message at ], which consists of two pieces of advice: (1) Discuss the change on the talk page. In this case, there is not much to discuss. The information that the text contains OR is already in the tag I added. The text that was there before already was OR, and nobody had seen a problem with it, even though it lost its meaning after the addition of the "than". (2) "ou should try really hard to find a source for it - I suspect it's half-life will not be long otherwise!": That is sound advice, and it's what I tell others, too. But to be honest, these days, I don't really worry about whether my edits stand. I have learned that from bees and ants, which arguably |<sup class="noprint Inline-Template {{{class|}}}" style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>]?</i>]</sup> are better at running massive communities than H. sapiens. Bees make decisions about where to move the colony in a democratic way, and the striking difference to humans is that once a bee has expressed her vote in a dance, she doesn't go on and on about it, like humans do, if nobody follows her. And when you take the time to watch ants, it can be exasperating. Once I gave them a morsel which was a bit too big for their entrance, and they pulled it back and forward for at least 30 minutes, until I stopped watching them. But the amazing thing is: It's working for them. So, at Misplaced Pages, I don't expect everything to work out as I had in mind, and certainly not right away. I contribute my part and let the other volunteers take it from there. I wouldn't be spending so much time here if I didn't have some trust in the wisdom of crowds. — ] 22:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Reference errors on 14 April == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have '''automatically detected''' that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. {{#ifeq:1|1|It is|They are}} as follows: | |||
| *On the ] page, caused a ] <small>(])</small>. ( | ) | |||
| Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a ], you can . | |||
| Thanks, <!-- User:ReferenceBot/inform -->] (]) 00:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Please don't use article Talk pages to discuss editor behavior == | |||
| Hi Drchrissy, I saw you started a section at Talk:Acupuncture that was focused squarely on your perception of editor behavior. I've noticed you've done that in several places now. This is against ], which I know you're familiar with because you've quoted it to me before. Of course you know article Talk pages are to be used to discuss improvements to article content and not other editors. Could I ask you to please stop doing that? If you have an issue with editor behavior you should take it up with the editor directly at the User Talk page first, or at an appropriate noticeboard for discussing behavior. Thanks... <code>]]</code> 13:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Zad. I was following the essay. This states - | |||
| ::"Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! '''If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there.''' This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself. For example..." (my bold). Is the essay wrong to suggest this?__] (]) 16:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am talking about Misplaced Pages's ], which states in the "nutshell" at the top: '''Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor.''' There is <u>nothing</u> at the Edit Summary help page that would indicate to use the article Talk page to discuss editor behavior. If that wasn't clear to you before, please understand it now. Article talk pages are not to be used for discussing editor behavior. OK? <code>]]</code> 04:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And as I clearly indicated above, I was following the advice of an essay, the relevant parts of which I highlighted in bold. You are deliberately ignoring my question - is the essay wrong?__<font color="#ppccpp">]</font> <sup><font face="blue">(])</font></sup> 12:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tps}} The essay..? It's really hard to say if the essay is wrong when you don't say what essay, DrChrissy. A couple of sentences can't be taken in isolation like that. That said, many essays are wrong; others are right. Essays range from the quirky to the almost-used-as-policy, like ] (which is quite often given as a block rationale). See how it says at the top of essays — provided they have the proper essay template — "Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints"? That's the truth. ] | ] 17:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC). | |||
| ::::::{{u|Bishonen}} I am pretty sure Chrissy is talking about the Edit summary instructions found here: ]. Bish can you read through those instructions and determine how a resonable editor could read those instructions and come away with the impression that an article Talk page is an appropriate place to start a section that focuses on the behavior of a particular editor? I sure didn't get that impression from them. <code>]]</code> 22:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I've replied on your page, ] ] | ] 22:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC). | |||
| :::::Chrissy, the ] instructions are not wrong, but they also do not give you permission to use an article Talk page to discuss editor behavior. Right at the top of ] is says this: | |||
| {{Ombox | |||
| | type = notice | |||
| | style = {{#if: |margin:0 auto;width:80%;{{{style}}} }} | |||
| | imageright = {{#if: |{{Ombox/shortcut|{{{1}}}||}} }} | |||
| | text = '''This is an ]''' that describes a communal ] on some aspect or aspects of Misplaced Pages's norms and practices. It is intended to supplement and/or clarify <!-- | |||
| -->{{#if: | |||
| | <!-- the page--> {{#ifexist:{{{pages}}} |] |{{#ifexist:{{{interprets}}} |] |{{{interprets}}}}} }} | |||
| | a process or some guidance | |||
| }}. It is not one of ]; where something is inconsistent with this page, please defer to those. | |||
| }}{{Namespace detect | |||
| | <!--{{ns:4}}-->[REDACTED] = ] | |||
| | <!--{{ns:2}}--> user = ] | |||
| }} | |||
| :::::Please note where that page says this: {{tq|It is not one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines; where something is inconsistent with this page, please defer to those.}} As ] is "one of those", a guideline, the ] page itself directs you to honor TPG above itself. And, as I have already said, ] says not to use an article Talk page to discuss editor behavior. Will you please indicate now that this is clear, and go ahead and remove the section from the article Talk page you have created and which is not in accordance with ]? Thanks... <code>]]</code> 22:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| In the WP:MEDRS article you said to me "Let's talk about the content, rather than the editors, please". Rather than clutter the page I thought I'd ask for your reasoning here. I really have no idea why you would say that since I was talking ''to'' Montana rather than about her. Please explain. Thanks. ] (]) 12:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I was replying to your comment here "If you worked on bird, frog, or bee articles, for examples, and the ways that various chemicals may be affecting them, you would understand. IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)" This does not adress the content being discussed in the threaded discussion, it simply states your opinion about another editor.<font color="#ppccpp">]</font> <sup><font face="blue">(])</font></sup> 12:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi Gandydancer. I have a friendly suggestion. You seem to be in favour of applying ] to veterinary articles, perhaps including bees. How about you select an article in your area of interest, I will copy it to my sandbox and then apply ] to it and we can both see what happens. Just a friendly suggestion - I would be interested in the outcome too.__<font color="#ppccpp">]</font> <sup><font face="blue">(])</font></sup> 14:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Novel idea, DrChrissy. I too would be interested in seeing the outcome, so please keep me in the loop. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 17:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :DrChrissy, I have no idea why you believe that. I have worked very hard to present unbiased and factual information for our readers who are concerned about the ever-increasing use of chemicals in agriculture. At one time I tried to work on some of our medical articles but I gave up on them a long time ago when it seemed to me that the only WP approved method of treating illness was more and more pharmaceuticals. ] (]) 17:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Gandydancer - please believe me...I am friendly. If I have misinterpreted your working or thoughts in any way, I immediately apologise. I agree with your efforts to neutrally inform people about the possible side-effects of chemicals. I am concerned that MEDRS will prevent the neurality of yours, and others, comments.__<font color="#ppccpp">]</font> <sup><font face="blue">(])</font></sup> 20:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Ibid== | |||
| Thank you for pointing out why "Ibid.", although correct for print references, is not correct for Misplaced Pages because the preceding reference might be altered. Because I am fairly new to this I did not know that. However, I believe your correct response was not to just undo an edit, but to fix it. Still, thank you. | |||
| ::I could not fix it because I was not certain which reference the "Ibid" applied to - the very reason why it is problematic.__<font color="#ppccpp">]</font> <sup><font face="blue">(])</font></sup> 12:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Reference errors on 20 April == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have '''automatically detected''' that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. {{#ifeq:1|1|It is|They are}} as follows: | |||
| *On the ] page, caused a ] <small>(])</small>. ( | ) | |||
| Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a ], you can . | |||
| Thanks, <!-- User:ReferenceBot/inform -->] (]) 00:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| not sure you are aware of that. just an essay - not a guideline. there has been insufficient consensus to elevate it to a guideline. ] (]) 16:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Please stop your disruption on this article. You are experienced enough to read the ''entire'' guideline. "Here are some '''rules of thumb''' for keeping an article up-to-date, while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability. These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and '''may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published.'''" --] <sup>]</sup> 23:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == I am a human being... == | |||
| I am a human lol what did you ask me? lol <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Im just editing!!! == | |||
| hey im a person . im just editing i dont know how to edit summaries. im just helping out. you know im editing very professionally. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Im editing == | |||
| im just editing important info. im not destroying anything] (]) 18:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not suggesting you are destroying anything, but you are making so many rapid edits that I am wondering whether they are accurate. There is a box for you to leave a comment about your edit near to where you press save - indicate why you did it, for example.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 18:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for April 30== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sources== | |||
| The first appearances categories? I'm just going based on whatever the article itself says, so the source will vary based on the article. ] (]) 13:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh I see - thanks very much for replying.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 14:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == May 2015 == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 17:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Quackwatch === | |||
| ] as a RS for quackery and fraud has been discussed multiple times on ]. Until demonstrated otherwise, please don't tag Quackwatch as questionable RS on multiple articles. Thank you ] (]) 02:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :There are many editors who are not convinced QW is a reliable source in several contexts. I am one of those. Until you, or another editor, show that QW is a reliable source in the context I (or others) have tagged it, the tagging remains legitimate. The onus is on the editor adding material to show that QW is an RS in the context it is being used.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 10:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: You need to adopt a more nuanced position. Your wholesale rejection isn't helping, and so far you're not demonstrating that you understand our content and sourcing policies as well as you should. -- ] (]) 16:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Actually, it is not a wholesale rejection which is why I have raised a case-by-case discussion. When you say "our", just exactly who are you talking about?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 17:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: "Our" = "Misplaced Pages's". -- ] (]) 17:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Just how much expertise does it take to declare ] quackery? It makes a mockery of many tenets of science. ] (]) 15:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::So what point are you trying to make? This reads as complete nonsensense!<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 12:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == "Fringe editor"?? == | |||
| I noticed your comment . Apparently someone has directly called you a fringe editor, and I understand your dislike of that occurring. You can fix that. I suspect you may be getting caught somewhere in the crossfire because you associate with, aid, and thank editors who are known pushers of fringe POV. Therefore you risk getting the "guilt by association" treatment, and that may be unfortunate....or not. It's your call. If you stay away from them, don't support them, and support mainstream, science based, editors and sources, you'll be able to shed your growing bad rep and gain a good reputation. | |||
| You have also been engaged in attacking Quackwatch, the largest and most respected (and hated by quacks) anti-quackery resource on the internet. Being ] makes, by default, one pro-quackery. Perception means everything, and you can control how you are perceived. -- ] (]) 18:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Have you looked at my user page to see which articles I have created/edited. By the way, there is this little principle in WP editing... ]. This is a very useful page for new/inexperienced editors to read, or those challenged with their lack of ability to interact civily with other editors.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 12:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks! == | |||
| Thank you for the heads up, doc. I am still taking care of family affairs and will be indefinitely but that doesn't mean I can't have occasional pop-ins. Please feel free to keep me up to date on what is happening because I'm sure I will be behind events. ] (]) 19:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your edit to Quackwatch== | |||
| ] Please do not add ] or ] of published material to articles as you apparently did to ]. Please cite a ] for all of your contributions. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-nor2 --> --] (]) 23:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry - I thought you might have actually looked at the web-site. | |||
| You wrote, "Please keep your edit summaries a little more civil and AGF": Sorry you feel that way. What's uncivil about "OR to promote a personal POV", let alone violates AGF? --] (]) 00:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :No response? Is it safe for me to assume that you wrote it on the spur of the moment and it would be best to just ignore your comment entirely? --] (]) 15:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::First of all, I do not like it when editors accuse me of OR. I would not do that. It is not always obvious if a citation is needed for an edit inclusion, especially if it is obvious where it came from - clearly it was not obvious for you. Second, to link this OR accusation to a suggestion that I did this to promote a personal POV is a personal attack. How can you presume to think I was promoting a personal POV - you do not know me. Perhaps you would like to suggest what POV I was supposed to be pushing.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 22:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm sorry it upset you. | |||
| :::It was unsourced, so OR applies, as others have pointed out. | |||
| :::When a source was finally offered, it was misrepresented in such a way as to promote a pov that did not exist in the source. While that pov might not be yours, I believe it safe to label as a personal pov when it's not coming from sources. | |||
| :::Have you reviewed the Arbcom rulings relevant to the articles you have been working on? They go over these exact issues in detail, along with many others of which you should be aware if you want to work cooperatively on those articles. --] (]) 01:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The ] article does not state specifically that some of its articles are not peer reviewed. The closest it gets is "Nguyen-Khoa stated that the implementation of a peer review process would improve the site's legitimacy". By deleting my comment here, which POV is being pushed I wonder?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 10:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You're no longer addressing the concerns. Are we done then? --] (]) 15:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Which concerns?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 16:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Guess we're done then. --] (]) 16:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well if you won't answer the question, I guess so.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 21:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Edit summary content== | |||
| Please avoid leaving comments about other editor's behavior in edit summaries. The ES should be about your edit, not another's behavior. See ] Thank you ] (]) 23:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I really think you have misdirected this comment.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 23:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Please keep your edit summaries a little more civil and AGF'' Your ES made no mention of your edit. One would assume that it was directed at the previous editor. Please use the editor's talk page for this kind of discussion. As you added no citation and "Balance" does not state that it was from a source, one could easily come to the OR conclusion. Please note that your second edit was also reverted. ] (]) 00:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::What does the italicised sentence refer to? I made the edit summary thinking that the the previous editor would have actually read the web-site under discussion and therefore recognised it was not OR. I think if an editor accusses another of OR in the edit summary, they should expect a rebuff in the subsequent ES.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 00:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So you are saying that because you made the assumption that another editor was wrong, that assumption gives you the right to behave inappropriately? --] (]) 00:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''Would have actually read the website under discussion''? How many pages does Quackwatch.org consist of? Why would you assume that an editor would read the entire website before reverting? Reverting an unexplained, unsourced edit is quite proper. See ] ] (]) 01:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Acupuncture == | |||
| In case you weren't aware, any removal of material can technically count as a revert, which puts you at 5RR on Acupuncture today. If the article had not been protected, this could have earned you a block. Also, the article is under Arbcom-imposed ] per ]. If you are not already familiar with discretionary sanctions, please read the link, as it means there is a much lower threshold for getting blocked or topic banned. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 01:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Your question at RFAR == | |||
| Hey Chrissy regarding your question , all that's happening at this point is general discussion of whether ArbCom should take the case, and what the scope of the case should be. The case hasn't started yet, you should feel free to make comments regarding whether you feel it would improve things if ArbCom took the case and if so what they should examine. Nobody making comments now will necessarily be a "named party" in the case. <code>]]</code> 13:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Adding - also you should clean up your comment, put your name in section heading, remove the dup boilerplate text. I'd do it for you but I know you don't particularly appreciate others touching your comments. <code>]]</code> 13:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Zad, thanks for the above, and please do the cleanup for me - I would appreciate that.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 13:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **, no problem. <code>]]</code> 13:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***Thank-you.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 13:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *In addition to what you've already been told, concerning your request whether you are a party: technically, for the moment, you are not. Parties are listed in the "Involved parties" section. Please note, however, that this may change as the case progresses, but I have to admit that I know little of the dispute and, so, cannot tell at the moment if you're likely to be added. That said, even if you were added as a party, that does not necessarily mean that you did something wrong, only that ArbCom was asked to review your conduct. <p>The difference between parties and non-parties is that parties can use more words and diffs in their evidence submissions (the rule is 500/50 for non-parties and 1000/100 for parties, subject to extensions at the discretion of the drafting arb) and that only parties can be sanctioned at the end of a case. Both, however, can participate. Furthermore, although only parties can be sanctioned by ArbCom, not all parties get necessarily sanctioned. <p>Anyway, the case has not even been accepted yet. But you're welcome to add your comment indicating whether you think ArbCom should take the case and what the scope should be. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 13:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==JAMA == | |||
| Sussed out why you could not find the JAMA page mentioning QW when we could. You have to be signed in. No autobiography needed, just an email address. Simply make use of the and you have accesses (and you can leave a message). The customer number and browser information you can leave blank. They are not obligatory.--] (]) 14:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh I see - thanks very much for sorthing that out.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 14:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Note too: That right at the top of the paragraph ends with : “''Please note that we cannot provide medical advice or referrals, nor do we perform literature searches.'' “ Which kinds of nullifies the current debate on an article which I will not refer to. Not going to say any more 'cause, I now have some free time, where I can unplug the phones, disconnect the WiFi, TV, etc, and relax from this maddening world of people that where born knowing that they are right and will always believe they are are right. Except when they find themselves in danger of being proven wrong, when they simply move the goal post to show that they were right along. A ] at last. Yippee-yi-ay, yippee-yi-o, I'm on my holiday !!!!--] (]) 15:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I know the feeling! Enjoy the break!<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 16:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == DS = discretionary sanctions == | |||
| ;] case request closed by motion | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by ] with the following remedy being enacted: | |||
| {{Ivmbox|1=In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises ] for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at ]. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of ] such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at ] page.}} | |||
| You asked a question . DS = discretionary sanctions. I hope this helps. Thank you for your collaboration. ] (]) 18:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for May 7== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| == Concern == | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I've been concerned for a while about not having seen DrChrissy around. He hasn't edited since May. An IP just posted a note saying that he has died, and then self-reverted. I have no way of knowing whether or not that was true, but if so, that is very sad news and he will be much missed. --] (]) 18:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == May 2015 == | |||
| :I'm not going to link to it right now, but unfortunately I have seen pretty convincing evidence that the worst fears have been confirmed. I'm going to wait a day or two before going to ] (although anyone else should feel free to do it themselves), in case anyone close to DrChrissy can provide more information here. --] (]) 21:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| ::I have never hoped you were wrong more than I do now. Please...<sup><span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</span>]]</sup> 22:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::I pray this isn't true.(] (]) 01:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)) | |||
| RIP DrChrissy - 1962 - July 18, 2017. <sup><span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</span>]]</sup> 01:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.{{Break}}''As usual...''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] <sup>]</sup> 16:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| This is total utter nonsense. I have made 1 (one) revert!<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 16:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Try again. One ill-advised change, two reverts to keep it in there. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == |
==CHERISHED MEMORIES== | ||
| ] (2009)}}]] | |||
| I discussion of editor conduct on ]. As I explained in my edit summary, that belongs on the user's talk page, or another forum designed for discussing such matters. The article talk page is for discussing changes to the article, specifically. That being said, regarding your claims, it is not expressly against our editing guidelines to call '''an edit''' "clumsy", "inappropriate", etc. The section title was not "Chrissy is clumsy for making this edit", and there is a difference. I understand that it's easy to take objections to your edits personally, but in order to collaborate, others must be able to discuss the changes we all make openly, which sometimes means describing an edit with unfavorable language. It's best to respond to the characterization by citing sources as dispassionately as possible. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 00:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I was raising the issue of material being deleted from the talk page.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 00:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| '''''RIP DrChrissy 1962 - July 18, 2017''''' | |||
| ::Huh? . You started a new section to complain about a personal attack. The only reference you made to removing material is another editor removing the section heading you were complaining about (his own content), which is not only allowed, but should have been in line with your wishes. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 00:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you not feel that other editors should know what is going on at that Talk page?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 00:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm sorry, but I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over. An article talk page is not for discussing editor conduct. "{{tq|Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion.}}" Feel free to place your comment in any other venue that is appropriate. I've already pointed you to several. I would recommend ] for a minor dispute, or ] for a larger one requiring sanctions. Good luck. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 00:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| We just learned of his passing. DrChrissy was a special Wikipedian and will be deeply missed. I am including a section from to his life written by his colleague, Mike Mendl. | |||
| "More clumsy changes to lead" is no more inappropriate than "Inappropriate thread heading and editing" and I didn't think you wanted your copyright violation pointed out on the arbcom page. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>"He mentored young researchers, was a lively and fun companion at international conferences, and invested huge effort in organizing the 40th International Congress of the ISAE at Bristol in 2006. He continued to publish until 2013 and was very active on Misplaced Pages, creating nearly 50 articles and contributing to many more, and presenting the fields of animal welfare and behaviour with a clarity and authority that will without doubt inform and influence many interested students, school children, and members of the wider public. His many scientific papers and his wide-ranging contributions to the fields of animal behaviour and welfare, including his later Misplaced Pages articles, will be his continuing contribution and lasting legacy to our discipline and the wider scientific community."</blockquote> | |||
| ==Please self-revert== | |||
| I see ] messed up the header code for his own 3RR warning on this page, no doubt by accident while adding a comment. It meant the header didn't display properly and didn't show up in the Table of contents. And just now you reverted ]'s fix with the fatuous wikilawyering edit summary: "Do not edit my user page without discussing this with me first." Are you aware that Misplaced Pages is ], and that we're not supposed to seize opportunites to behave obnoxiously? Please revert yourself. ] | ] 11:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC). | |||
| ::The point is that NeilN has been accusing me of clumsy editing. Need I say more?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 11:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::So you seized the opportunity? No indeed, you needn't say more, I've got the picture. Please revert yourself. ] | ] 11:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC). | |||
| ::::Of course I seized the opportunity - just like any editor would who has been baited, goaded, insulted and attacked at every possible opportunity. Something about throwing stones and glass-houses...<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 12:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You do not see the difference between referring to misleading article content, deliberately written and forced in, despite the objections of others, and accidental keystrokes? --] <sup>]</sup> 14:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| DrChrissy, I have no idea why you are bringing any of your problems with ] into this. I made a ] to fix an obvious error. That way the section heading would be visible and place the section in your TOC. You reacted as if I had done you wrong, even admitting you "seized the opportunity" to make a ]. That's not a very collaborative way to treat someone who's trying to help. | |||
| He made us laugh with his endless puns and brilliant wit. He was a man of integrity, a scholar, and a good human being. He was loved and appreciated by many. <sup><span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</span>]]</sup> 03:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ] then civilly asked you to fix the error yourself, and you treated him badly as well. That's doubling down in efforts to reach new lows in bad behavior. Congrats! You (sadly) succeeded. | |||
| *I am honoured to have interacted with him even a few times; his great integrity led him to fight for what he believed in, I think. A loss to Misplaced Pages and the world it seems. Peace to him and his family.(] (]) 03:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)) | |||
| My fix is covered by ]. It was a simple attempt to help. You don't own your talk page to such a degree that you're allowed to violate AGF and be a jerk. Any decent human being would have thanked me, but you went out of your way to behave badly, although I was surprised that you'd even treat an attempt to be nice in such a manner. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised, but I had forgotten your habitual bent. It confirms that AGF is not part of your genetic makeup. | |||
| *This is awful news. Dr C, you'll be greatly missed. My condolences to his loved ones. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *Very sad news, and many condolences to his friends and family. Thanks for all of your work in support of animal welfare, DrChrissy. Rest in peace. ] (]) 04:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *My condolences to his family, friends, colleges and all others that mourn his passing. DrChrissy was already being missed here on Misplaced Pages before this sad news surfaced. I thought he was just taking a Wikihoiday. Always polite and very diplomatic and won by force of good reasoning in Wiki debates. Also of-course, more than willing to share his knowledge with the rest of the Misplaced Pages community. As a scientist, he appeared to me, as possessing that rare quality of standing aside from sentimentally whilst maintaining a real empathy for the animals he studied. All of these things made him a very much appreciated WP Editor. He lives on, via the legacy that he generously bestowed to us. R.I.P. ] (]) 10:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| That explains your battlefield behavior, which seems to know no ends. Maybe you need to take a break, either voluntarily or involuntarily. You are no longer ], but to do battle. -- ] (]) 14:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I remember that I interacted with him very early in his editing time here, and I always held him in very fond regard. In particular, I recollect a time when I mentioned the April 1 jokes that editors sometimes make, and he said that he was looking forward eagerly to the next date. His contributions on veterinary and animal welfare topics were very important, and he is much missed. --] (]) 13:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *I am extremely saddened by the news. Him and I would often interact on wiki and via email - I'd enjoy his sarcasm and wit very much, and each and every response made my day a bit more fun. Even when he was having difficulties, Dr. Chrissy always did his best to keep things positive and with the project's best interest at heart. Dr. Chrissy, you will be missed so very much. Misplaced Pages has taken a heavy, heavy loss today... :-( ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 16:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *Oh wow. I only interacted with him in a couple of places, but I remember his comments were invariably apt and often really funny. He seemed like a genuinely caring person. My condolences to his loved ones, some of which I assume are of the four-legged variety. 😿 ]<small><small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small></small> 17:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *Rest in Peace, Chris. Your efforts here on many important articles were valued, particularly for issues close to your heart such as ], ], ], and so on. Your passion for animal welfare and your compassion in general shines through your work here. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *My sincerely condolences to DrChrissy's family and friends. This is indeed a big loss for our community as well. ''']''' ] 18:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *Very sad news. He was a welcome figure on animal-related articles and will be deeply missed by the Misplaced Pages community. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *Before now, I thought DrChrissy was a female Wikipedian; so, per the quote listed by Atsme above, I appreciate having a brief glimpse of the person behind the username. DrChrissy and I didn't always agree, such as when it came to some discussions at the ] talk page, but I always respected him and very much appreciated his knowledge. He was a passionate editor who cared a lot about the accuracy of the topics he worked on, animal topics in particular. And I'm glad to have known him via his Misplaced Pages work. ] (]) 22:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *Such sad news. DC's value to Misplaced Pages was immense and he will be greatly missed. My deepest sympathies to his family and friends. ]|] 22:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *Psalm 29:11--] (]) 00:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| * Miss you Chris --] (]) 06:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| * My condolences to his family and friends. I'll never look at ethology articles in the same way again. ] (]) 09:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *Thanks for all the efforts over the years. Sad to see you go so soon. ] (] · ] · ]) 11:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *Damn. You were definitely one of the good ones. You will be missed. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 16:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *So that´s why he disappeared. Very sad. ] (]) 21:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| * DrChrissy was a passionate and vocal editor. I have only had the chance to interact with him a few times, and been struck by his commitment to the encyclopaedia. You'll be missed; my condolences. --] (]) 06:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| * DrChrissy established good foundations for articles about rodents and animal welfare which helped my editing in this space. If he had not developed articles in the "pain in animals" article series then I think no one else would have so early, so what he wrote has already had years of influence during a time when lots of people were eager for information on these topics. I communicated news of his passing to ]. ]] 14:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *Last year I noticed the article about ]s had some serious problems. The lead said nothing at all about animal welfare and medicinal efficacy, for example. I made a handful of changes but quickly realized it would be a major project I didn't have the capacity for at the time. I left a message for DrChrissy, knowing it was in his wheelhouse. Over the course of the following week, DrChrissy made more than 100 edits, substantially improving the article while adding about 15k to its size. This is one of countless possible examples of why his passing was a great loss for Misplaced Pages. | |||
| *"Of course I seized the opportunity - just like any editor would"? Fortunately far from every editor seizes the opportunity to behave obnoxiously (I see you liked my phrase), though we all lose our cool sometimes. ], and it's not a place for playground score-settling either. You have ignored my request twice, so I've fixed the formatting error myself. If you mess with it again, or perpetrate any other childish retaliation, you'll be looking at a block. P. S., ], I understand your frustration, but please don't talk about people's "genetic makeup". We're only interested in how they behave at Misplaced Pages, not their genes. ] | ] 17:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC). | |||
| :I didn't know him as well as many others, but had a lot of respect for his passion and drive to improve animal welfare-related articles (among others). As far as I'm concerned, one of the best things one can hope for as a member of this community is for your contributions to inspire others to do likewise... to continue, in some way, where you left off. In that spirit, I'm going to commit to bringing ], an article I considered asking DrChrissy for feedback on a while back, up to GA. I only mention this very small gesture here in case others might wish to document ways that they have been similarly inspired... — {{mono|1=] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup>}} \\ 04:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *Unfortunately me & Chris never interacted however I saw his name everywhere improving articles or helping someone, RIP Chris, My condolences to friends and family at this sad time xxx –]<sup>]</sup> 23:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *Chris, you will be missed and remembered. I'll remember good times at ISAE conferences, especially Guelph 1996. You were a good scientist and made a lasting impact. J <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:23, September 18, 2017 (UTC)</small> | |||
| * I've only just learned of this. He was a most valuable and committed editor who has left an important legacy here; his death is great loss to Misplaced Pages, but surely a much greater loss to his family and friends. My deepest sympathy, ] (]) 22:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *God rest his soul. Thank you, Chris, for making this world a better place. ] (]) 02:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| * I have only just learned of this myself... rest in peace, Chris. I'll never forget the time "Hot Riley" posted on your user talk page asking for a barnstar and you said that if they were actually "the hot ]" only then would you give them one! Thank you so much for making me laugh that day, and thank you for brightening this place up with your wit on a regular basis. You'll be missed by all of us. :( ]<sup>]</sup> 11:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *Terrible news; he was gone far too soon. I was honored to collaborate with such a knowledgeable and thoughtful scientist at ] and some related articles, and I hope he'd approve of my current research. ] (]) 13:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just noticed his (personal communication) credit in classic review of lab animal welfare, and was reminded of what a loss DrChrissy was. RIP ] (]) 18:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *I just learned of his passing after mentioning him as an exemplary Wikipedian, and a great contributor to our reference desks. We shared many good conversations about biology broadly, but his apparent expertise in animal behavior and clear explanations is what I'll remember. A big loss to the project, my condolences to his friends and family. ] (]) 16:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *We only had a brief chat a couple of years ago, but it taught me the true meaning of "]". ] ] 03:47, ], ] (UTC) | |||
| *A great loss to the project and, in particular, the Reference Desk, where I more frequently interacted with him. He was an exemplary contributor who will be greatly missed. ] (]) 16:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *I miss him. A tremendous help at the reference desk, where he'd explain nature's cruelty and beauty in one succinct answer (and also introduced me to the term "spent hen"). Belatedly, nothing but peace to the Chrissy family and friends. ---] ] 19:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *I am so sorry to learn that this community has lost such a singular contributor as DrChrissy. He was a massive boon to the project, bringing not only his substantial expertise and highly informed perspective to many science related content discussions and editorial work, but also providing a great deal of good sense to the process of developing the project itself. His absence will surely be felt, particularly in our zoological undertakings. My sympathies, belated as they are, to his family and friends, off-project and on; I can only think to say that you must have been justifiably proud of him, and we share that memory now. ] ] 00:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *Oh no! We were communicating right before he died. I enjoyed our collaborations and the energy he brought to the encyclopedia. I have deep respect for him because of his good humor in enduring 'sanctions' put on his editing. Bye friend, ] <span style="color: darkred;">] ]</span> 12:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| * Thank you for your contributions, DrChrissy. May you forever rest in peace. ] (] - ]) 21:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Please note == | |||
| :@] Please do not post to my Talk page again. | |||
| :@] Please do not post to my Talk page again. | |||
| :@] Please do not post to my talk page again. | |||
| :<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 18:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Of interest to those who watchlist this page: ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent changes to the acupuncture page == | |||
| :*The result was a very overwhelming '''Keep'''. ] (]) 22:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| This change was and the lede should be 4 paragraphs not five. After you were reverted you . That is not a summary of the body. You decided to restore to the lede. You added it to the body but some of the sources were and too many sources contradicted ]. I removed the unnecessary references . I requested the page number in order to . ] (]) 16:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sorry, but I don't understand why you have brought this to my talk page. What is it you wish to discuss?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 16:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:43, 28 October 2024
 | This Wikipedian is deceased. Respectful comments of remembrance may be left below. |
.jpg)
 Archives |
Concern
I've been concerned for a while about not having seen DrChrissy around. He hasn't edited since May. An IP just posted a note saying that he has died, and then self-reverted. I have no way of knowing whether or not that was true, but if so, that is very sad news and he will be much missed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not going to link to it right now, but unfortunately I have seen pretty convincing evidence that the worst fears have been confirmed. I'm going to wait a day or two before going to WP:RIP (although anyone else should feel free to do it themselves), in case anyone close to DrChrissy can provide more information here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have never hoped you were wrong more than I do now. Please... 22:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- I pray this isn't true.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC))
- I have never hoped you were wrong more than I do now. Please... 22:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
RIP DrChrissy - 1962 - July 18, 2017. 01:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
CHERISHED MEMORIES
,_2009.jpg)
RIP DrChrissy 1962 - July 18, 2017
We just learned of his passing. DrChrissy was a special Wikipedian and will be deeply missed. I am including a section from a tribute to his life written by his colleague, Mike Mendl.
"He mentored young researchers, was a lively and fun companion at international conferences, and invested huge effort in organizing the 40th International Congress of the ISAE at Bristol in 2006. He continued to publish until 2013 and was very active on Misplaced Pages, creating nearly 50 articles and contributing to many more, and presenting the fields of animal welfare and behaviour with a clarity and authority that will without doubt inform and influence many interested students, school children, and members of the wider public. His many scientific papers and his wide-ranging contributions to the fields of animal behaviour and welfare, including his later Misplaced Pages articles, will be his continuing contribution and lasting legacy to our discipline and the wider scientific community."
He made us laugh with his endless puns and brilliant wit. He was a man of integrity, a scholar, and a good human being. He was loved and appreciated by many. 03:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I am honoured to have interacted with him even a few times; his great integrity led him to fight for what he believed in, I think. A loss to Misplaced Pages and the world it seems. Peace to him and his family.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC))
- This is awful news. Dr C, you'll be greatly missed. My condolences to his loved ones. SarahSV 04:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Very sad news, and many condolences to his friends and family. Thanks for all of your work in support of animal welfare, DrChrissy. Rest in peace. Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- My condolences to his family, friends, colleges and all others that mourn his passing. DrChrissy was already being missed here on Misplaced Pages before this sad news surfaced. I thought he was just taking a Wikihoiday. Always polite and very diplomatic and won by force of good reasoning in Wiki debates. Also of-course, more than willing to share his knowledge with the rest of the Misplaced Pages community. As a scientist, he appeared to me, as possessing that rare quality of standing aside from sentimentally whilst maintaining a real empathy for the animals he studied. All of these things made him a very much appreciated WP Editor. He lives on, via the legacy that he generously bestowed to us. R.I.P. Aspro (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I remember that I interacted with him very early in his editing time here, and I always held him in very fond regard. In particular, I recollect a time when I mentioned the April 1 jokes that editors sometimes make, and he said that he was looking forward eagerly to the next date. His contributions on veterinary and animal welfare topics were very important, and he is much missed. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I am extremely saddened by the news. Him and I would often interact on wiki and via email - I'd enjoy his sarcasm and wit very much, and each and every response made my day a bit more fun. Even when he was having difficulties, Dr. Chrissy always did his best to keep things positive and with the project's best interest at heart. Dr. Chrissy, you will be missed so very much. Misplaced Pages has taken a heavy, heavy loss today... :-( ~Oshwah~ 16:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oh wow. I only interacted with him in a couple of places, but I remember his comments were invariably apt and often really funny. He seemed like a genuinely caring person. My condolences to his loved ones, some of which I assume are of the four-legged variety. 😿 RivertorchWATER 17:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Rest in Peace, Chris. Your efforts here on many important articles were valued, particularly for issues close to your heart such as Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals, Docking (animal), Cropping (animal), and so on. Your passion for animal welfare and your compassion in general shines through your work here. Montanabw 17:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- My sincerely condolences to DrChrissy's family and friends. This is indeed a big loss for our community as well. Mkdw 18:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Very sad news. He was a welcome figure on animal-related articles and will be deeply missed by the Misplaced Pages community. White Arabian Filly 21:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Before now, I thought DrChrissy was a female Wikipedian; so, per the quote listed by Atsme above, I appreciate having a brief glimpse of the person behind the username. DrChrissy and I didn't always agree, such as when it came to some discussions at the Animal sexual behaviour talk page, but I always respected him and very much appreciated his knowledge. He was a passionate editor who cared a lot about the accuracy of the topics he worked on, animal topics in particular. And I'm glad to have known him via his Misplaced Pages work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Such sad news. DC's value to Misplaced Pages was immense and he will be greatly missed. My deepest sympathies to his family and friends. MarnetteD|Talk 22:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Psalm 29:11--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Miss you Chris --Epipelagic (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- My condolences to his family and friends. I'll never look at ethology articles in the same way again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the efforts over the years. Sad to see you go so soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Damn. You were definitely one of the good ones. You will be missed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- So that´s why he disappeared. Very sad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- DrChrissy was a passionate and vocal editor. I have only had the chance to interact with him a few times, and been struck by his commitment to the encyclopaedia. You'll be missed; my condolences. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- DrChrissy established good foundations for articles about rodents and animal welfare which helped my editing in this space. If he had not developed articles in the "pain in animals" article series then I think no one else would have so early, so what he wrote has already had years of influence during a time when lots of people were eager for information on these topics. I communicated news of his passing to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rodents. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Last year I noticed the article about bile bears had some serious problems. The lead said nothing at all about animal welfare and medicinal efficacy, for example. I made a handful of changes but quickly realized it would be a major project I didn't have the capacity for at the time. I left a message for DrChrissy, knowing it was in his wheelhouse. Over the course of the following week, DrChrissy made more than 100 edits, substantially improving the article while adding about 15k to its size. This is one of countless possible examples of why his passing was a great loss for Misplaced Pages.
- I didn't know him as well as many others, but had a lot of respect for his passion and drive to improve animal welfare-related articles (among others). As far as I'm concerned, one of the best things one can hope for as a member of this community is for your contributions to inspire others to do likewise... to continue, in some way, where you left off. In that spirit, I'm going to commit to bringing pangolin trade, an article I considered asking DrChrissy for feedback on a while back, up to GA. I only mention this very small gesture here in case others might wish to document ways that they have been similarly inspired... — Rhododendrites \\ 04:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately me & Chris never interacted however I saw his name everywhere improving articles or helping someone, RIP Chris, My condolences to friends and family at this sad time xxx –Davey2010 23:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Chris, you will be missed and remembered. I'll remember good times at ISAE conferences, especially Guelph 1996. You were a good scientist and made a lasting impact. J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.106.113 (talk • contribs) 13:23, September 18, 2017 (UTC)
- I've only just learned of this. He was a most valuable and committed editor who has left an important legacy here; his death is great loss to Misplaced Pages, but surely a much greater loss to his family and friends. My deepest sympathy, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- God rest his soul. Thank you, Chris, for making this world a better place. WarriorFISH (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have only just learned of this myself... rest in peace, Chris. I'll never forget the time "Hot Riley" posted on your user talk page asking for a barnstar and you said that if they were actually "the hot Rachel Riley" only then would you give them one! Thank you so much for making me laugh that day, and thank you for brightening this place up with your wit on a regular basis. You'll be missed by all of us. :( Patient Zero 11:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Terrible news; he was gone far too soon. I was honored to collaborate with such a knowledgeable and thoughtful scientist at Carnism and some related articles, and I hope he'd approve of my current research. FourViolas (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Just noticed his (personal communication) credit in this classic review of lab animal welfare, and was reminded of what a loss DrChrissy was. RIP FourViolas (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- I just learned of his passing after mentioning him as an exemplary Wikipedian, and a great contributor to our reference desks. We shared many good conversations about biology broadly, but his apparent expertise in animal behavior and clear explanations is what I'll remember. A big loss to the project, my condolences to his friends and family. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- We only had a brief chat a couple of years ago, but it taught me the true meaning of "caruncle". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, October 24, 2017 (UTC)
- A great loss to the project and, in particular, the Reference Desk, where I more frequently interacted with him. He was an exemplary contributor who will be greatly missed. Matt Deres (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- I miss him. A tremendous help at the reference desk, where he'd explain nature's cruelty and beauty in one succinct answer (and also introduced me to the term "spent hen"). Belatedly, nothing but peace to the Chrissy family and friends. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- I am so sorry to learn that this community has lost such a singular contributor as DrChrissy. He was a massive boon to the project, bringing not only his substantial expertise and highly informed perspective to many science related content discussions and editorial work, but also providing a great deal of good sense to the process of developing the project itself. His absence will surely be felt, particularly in our zoological undertakings. My sympathies, belated as they are, to his family and friends, off-project and on; I can only think to say that you must have been justifiably proud of him, and we share that memory now. Snow 00:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oh no! We were communicating right before he died. I enjoyed our collaborations and the energy he brought to the encyclopedia. I have deep respect for him because of his good humor in enduring 'sanctions' put on his editing. Bye friend, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your contributions, DrChrissy. May you forever rest in peace. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Please note
Of interest to those who watchlist this page: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Sherwin. Montanabw 19:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- The result was a very overwhelming Keep. Aspro (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)