Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:29, 29 January 2009

My email option is enabled, but routes to a throwaway gmail account that I rarely check. I welcome email, but please drop a note here when you send me one. If you're going to send me something venomous or threatening, I reserve the right to publish it, so please just put it here for all to see, or don't send it in the first place.

Vegan

The Wiki guidelines state articles are supposed to be 20 to 30K. The old article was becoming way too long and bloated. Talk pages document well document why. It need a good bit of editing down to remove duplications, correct punctuation and specifically the misplaced " environmental criticism ", the contributor of which was refusing to take on board the very fair and detailed counter-criticism.

This criticism was founded on the original contributor's use of statistics that pointed out the deforestation caused by soya bean consumption was due to it being used for the meat industry. A point the contributor repeatedly refused to acknowledge on either the topic or personal talk page. I am happy to go into more detail about this but simply put neither soya nor rice are synonymous with vegan. If there are issue arising from their production that it best placed on their own topic pages. It is plain hypocritical to use criticism of the meat industry as a criticism of veganism.

I'd go easy on accusation of " vandalism ". The definition of vandalism is simple and clear. What you have here is an edit to fit the topic within guidelines. Very little apart from duplications and a tiny inhouse politicking have actually been removed. It is par for the course that contentious topics becoming overweight and bloats as antagonistic parties chose to pad out their POVs with claims and rebuttals but at the end of the day, a wiki topic is just meant to define what something is and give you a few links to go find out more. Not a discussion forum or political soapbox. 195.82.106.64 09:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! Your aggressive edit warring and vandalism have resulted in Veganism being protected. There is absolutely no consensus on the Talk: Veganism page for your edits. Trimming fat is one thing; you are removing material that does not conform to your POV. It is disingenuous for you to claim that disagreements over agriculture are "tiny inhouse politicking", and you know it. Please stop vandalizing the article before your IP gets banned.Skinwalker 16:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding anon

It seems this particular anon is propagating a very biased view in Misplaced Pages across related articles like Environmental vegetarianism etc. where he is merrily changing everything to suit his view. Even my tags of POV and limited geographic scope are being constantly removed by him. The Veganism page was locked for a while, but if he continues this abusive behaiour, I'll be reporting him in a couple of days. We'll see where it goes from here. Tx for the concern. --Idleguy 11:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR/me

I took great care not to revert three times. Retract it immediately. --Leifern 00:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Veganism RfC

"Whether to include information about environmentally destructive agriculture of meat animals, and whether to include information about rates of eating disorders among vegans and vegetarians. Page has been subject to a Livejournal-based campaign to eliminate contradictory information."

Skinwalker, please explain yourself. I wish to know where you got the idea of some LiveJournal campaign, and why you placed such an opinion on the RfC page. I'm not sure how much attention you've been paying to the article, or know of the users involved in the attempt to bring it back to something resembling neutrality, but Nidara was active on this article before I came back to it, as was Francis Tyers. We've been the three doing most everything, and the other users that I've seen are established as well. Do you know what my motives are? Do you even know if I have any? No. You don't. No matter what you assume, you don't know. So please don't go around saying so. I do not appreciate it. Canaen 04:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I placed this "opinion" of a livejournal campaign on the RfC as a result of a few simple google and technorati searches. If you edit my RfC summary again I will report you for vandalism. It is perfectly clear what your motive is: to eliminate any information that contradicts vegan dogma. Do not insult my intelligence by claiming otherwise. How long will it take you to move this exchange over to your "nonsense" page? You are generating serious bad faith around here, and I therefore suggest you tone down your belligerent and self-righteous attitude. Cheers, Skinwalker 04:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from assuming things that you do not know, particularly in reference to other people. To suggest that I am so intollerant is highly offensive to me. So is suggsting that I have any ulterior motives, or that I follow any sort of dogma. A continuation of this will result in my reporting you for making personal attacks, as well as harrassment. I don't like using Admins this way; it's not very conducive to building an encylcopedia. However, at present, you are preventing me from that very task, and so in this instance it is. This will not go to me Nonsense page, because I brought the issue up here, on your talk page. I therefore regard this as the place to discuss the issue. Again, please refrain from attacking me. It doesn't get either of us anywhere. Canaen 04:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Canaen, as I've repeatedly mentioned on your talk page, moving polite discussion to a sub-page titled "nonsense" in your user space is not conducive to civility. I recently left you a number of polite comments regarding consensus, edit summaries, personal attacks, and civility, only to be accused of "defacing" your talk page and having my comments labeled "nonsense" and being told they were "worthless". After pointing out that I found this disturbing and highly damaging to effective communication and asking you to refrain from doing it, you intentionally did it again, moving my polite comments to a "nonsense" page with the edit summary "nonsense". Please keep this in mind when making your "report". Thank you. --Viriditas 06:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, I know your position about my page. I have tried to explain it to you. I use Nonsense very lightly, and explained this to you. I appreciate your reminders, I really do. However, they aren't incredibly relevant anymore. especially to others. I can access my Nonsense page whenever I like, as can anyone else if they've a mind to read its contents. My edit summary of "nonsense" was because the edit invovled my nonsense page. If it truly is that big of a deal to you, I will change my words. However, I sincerely wish you to know that I am not trying to offend you with those words. Canaen 08:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I notice that you have stated that Veganism "has been subject to a Livejournal-based campaign to eliminate contradictory information." Can you offer any links (or diffs) to discussion on which you base this claim? I only ask because I haven't been following this issue as closely as I would like. And, if this is indeed the case, I believe that according to WP:SOCK (see Meatpuppets section) we may treat them as sock puppets. Please leave me a comment on my talk page or send me an email. Thank you. --Viriditas 07:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. I've found it, and I've added the link to the RFC page. --Viriditas 07:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Try to collect the diffs (links) for the personal attacks from the edit history. I'll ask an admin to contact you. --Viriditas 14:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My collection is being placed here: /RfC Skinwalker 18:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Lets not put the link on the RfC please -- evidence can be diplayed on the relevent talk page, but the RfC project page is not the place to continue the dispute. Thanks! .:.Jareth.:. 21:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

While I completely agree that the link and suspected meatpuppetry may be relevant to the current content dispute, I do not agree that the RfC page is the right place for that discussion. The LiveJournal link is discussed on the talk page already and I'd hope anyone wading into the RfC would be contentious enough to read about the dispute before offering an opinion. I know it has to be incredibly difficult dealing with the personal attacks and threats -- I noticed that the IP did receive a block for their behavior, so perhaps you'll have a little relief. I put note on the Admin's notice board that I made the change and someone is welcome to revert it if they feel the longer comment on the RfC was more appropriate. .:.Jareth.:. 22:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Environmental vegetarianism

Could you come and take a look at the Environmental vegetarianism page, read through it thoroughly and give your opinions on the talk page, noting if you have any objections. I've tried to introduced a world-wide view into the article as well as making it NPOV and would like to get your input - FrancisTyers 17:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Hi, there. I wish you had waited a little bit longer to post the RfC. It really needs a lot of work, and many of the links need to be fixed. I'm attempting to clean some of it up. --Viriditas 03:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted recent vandalism to your talk page by 195.82.106.78 (talk · contribs) You can view it here. --Viriditas 09:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked 195.82.106.78 for 24 hours. I've had enough. He had been warned twice about personal attacks but just kept on going. --Woohookitty 23:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well we'll block that one too. We'll stop it. Just a nasty troll. --Woohookitty 00:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV on Veganism

I can't name any specifics other than the "pigs in crates" picture. Overall the artcle seems to exhibit a form of pro-vegan bias. I'll look at it more. --Member 23:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Veganism

Put a request up at requests for protection on that. I think I'm too involved to judge. --Woohookitty 23:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Rod Coronado revert

I see you reverted my recent changes to the Rod Coronado article. I explained in the Talk page why I thought the statements were POV and removed/changed them. Why did you revert them? Mycota 23:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the fact that you put the "terrorist" charge later in the article and gave it more context. I still didn't like the ELF reference in the intro, since he is not a part of that movement. But I added a bit to clarify his actual views and allegiances. Mycota 00:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Homeopathy

You call references to clinical studies POV? --Leifern 20:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Veganism

Hi, again. When you have time, I would appreciate it if you could respond to my comment directed towards Idleguy in the "Ethical criticism: Intensive farming" section over at Talk:Veganism. Also, could you address Canaen's latest comment in that same section? Thanks. I'm just trying to get a representative sample of opinions. —Viriditas | Talk 08:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Koko_nipple_luv.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Koko_nipple_luv.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Misplaced Pages is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Misplaced Pages talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 08:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

Please weigh in on this proposal and see User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies. Thanks in advance, and feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 17:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

nortman homeopathy

I've left note on User:Davidnortman re his bad behaviour. If we proceed to RfC you may like to do same. Mccready 18:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

veganism and feminism

noticed that you removed my inclusion on the sex of the majority of livestock with the reason 'uncited'. i've reincluded it with a {{fact}} tag. the statement as it stands is referenced in Carol Adams work, although references are unavailable online. i think, though, that if you stop to ponder the source of products such as eggs and milk and consider the absence of rooster at your local supermarket you may come to the conclusion that such a reference may not be entirely necessary. frymaster 20:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Venlafaxine

I put a mergeto tag on the discontinuation section of Venlafaxine, after the POV-ish edit this morning. After you have removed the POV-section, I have decided to go on and boldly merge the section into another page, leaving (for what I know, I'm a chemist, not very knowledgable about pharma) the minimum of the original section. Could you check over the pages to see if the information contained is relevant (with chemical compounds I try to uphold the philosophy that the data in the compound should describe the compound, not extra things, and if a part is split off and gets a {{main}}, it should be reduced to a minimum). Cheers. --Dirk Beetstra 12:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, that is where I do not have the knowledge, in which class of pharmaceutical to put the specifics, could use some help there (I'm a synthetic chemist in organic and organometallic chemistry, post-doc at Cardiff university at the moment). The subject in venlafaxine seems big enough to warrant an own article then, i.s.o. in ISSR disc. synd. I will leave that to others.

I know/experience that these pages attract a lot of POV edits (e.g. bupropion and the edits made by the IP's in the range 62.56.xx.yy, see also and here, I'm the chemist in question, I guess). The points people make are sometimes OK, and I try then to merge them into a less POV way (as I tried for bupropion). But my main edits on chemical pages are more 'getting the pages into one line' (user:beetstra/Chemicals), but stumble across these edits every now and then. When too obvious I will rvert, hope that the rest will be spotted by others. Thanks, hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra 13:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Orthorexia nervosa (again)

Hi,

After reading your comment and giving it some thought, you're right; the DSM-IV photo is maybe a bit much. Sorry. However, I feel otherwise what I wrote is certainly not POV. There's a very formal, strict process in the western, industrialized world for how medicine and science work. Asserting that Orthorexia nervosa is neither science nor medicine because it works outside this process, and has not been peer-reviewed because it's professionals see no value in it, wouldn't be any different than making the same claims about shark cartilage being a miracle cure for cancer. Or, if you see a difference, please clarify, because I don't see it. There's a danger of striving so much to be neutral that you give a false impression. FireWeed 23:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclator (talk · contribs)

Please help me baby sit this pov warrior on Veganism. Kellen  08:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hartal and legal threats

I'm too involved to make a block, but you may want to talk to Will Beback who has warned Hartal before. JoshuaZ 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha!

Well, that explains it. I was wondering where all these angry people were coming from. Suppose this explains it. Adam Cuerden 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Imperialism

I completely disagree with your comments and maybe you, as an obvious imperialist, can justify your claim that this excellent piece is so POV? Peter morrell 13:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I will mount a defence of my article in due course...am a bit busy right now, but it will appear hopefully within a few days...cheers Peter morrell 13:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

George Vithoulkas

Adam is entering FALSE information, repeatedly. He is a WP editor. That can get both WP and Adam sued. This is not a threat, is a reality, and you'll be in a very difficult position tomorrow if this attitude continues.

Well, it's very interesting you intentionally support Adam's behaviour. You want it your way, you have 24 hour to resolve this, according to the three-revert rule. After that, other measures will be used. Homeopathic 16:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW there's nothing personal with Adam like you described. The fact is he is intentionally misleading and misinforming users worldwide regarding Homeopathy and Vithoulkas. I suggest you read the article he refers to *carefully* to understand the situation. This will be dealt formally if necessary.Homeopathic 16:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wallace W. Rhodes

Yes, it should be discussed, I noticed you did not offer any discussion on the article's page, why the rush to AFD? You're moving it ti AFD because I deleted the unclear tag? Not everything is a about you, it wasn't a slight, just put a clearer one up if you think it should be there, and add some discussion. I think you have me mistaken for someone with an agenda. I'm a microbiologist if you give me some time I will add some content and references, if not, oh well.Tstrobaugh 16:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply. The part I was confused about, and still am is:"I added the bit about moving to AFD since this is the usual step after the prod is removed." I don't see anything like that on Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion, where does it come from?Tstrobaugh 17:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

George Vithoulkas editors

Think Miri Rozenberg and Homeopathic are the same person? They seem rather similar, and Miri started editing just as Homeopathic began only talking on the talk page. Adam Cuerden 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe, but I'd say no until further evidence. Homeopathic likes to argue on talk pages, and he rarely uses edit summaries. Ms. Rozenberg, on the other hand, shows up and blanks large sections of the article and SHOUTS IN HER EDIT SUMMARY, which I haven't seem Homeopathic do - and she has ignored the talk page, despite my 3RR warning asking her to discuss changes. They seem to have slightly differing, um, syntactical issues with English, judging from the limited amount of Ms. Rozenberg's writing I've seen. While I would love to see the results of a checkuser on some of the single-purpose accounts, I think our main problem here is one of meatpuppetry. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Orthorexia peer-reviewed studies - full text located and available for reference use

Hello - Regarding your comments on Talk:Orthorexia nervosa#"A first scientific study on the subject was published in 2004...": - I have located the full text of the studies you abstracted from the peer-reviewed journal you mentioned. The PDFs are not authorized for publication in full on Misplaced Pages, but under WP:FAIR reasonably short quotations or references would be acceptable to include in the main Orthorxia article. Please contact me by email to discuss this further if you like. You can reach me by email through my user page at User:Parzival418 by clicking the toolbox link for "E-mail this user" on the left hand side of the page. Your Misplaced Pages account is not currently set up for you to receive emails from your user page so please include you email address in the message so I can reply by email. Parzival418 05:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

invitation

You are invited to join the Homeopathy WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Homeopathy. Please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Don't delay---the first 25 members will receive this beautfiul toaster  !!!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abridged (talk • contribs) 14:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks

Thanks for saving Frederick K. Humphreys. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks indeed

I did read your complaint (strange as it was, since it only involved two reverts (not a 3RR), both of which were trivial and both are still in the current version of the article as they are perfectly straightforward and perfectly in accord with WP policy). And I did note that you strongly suggested sockpuppetry. What the heck that has to do with four edits that were explicitly from the same person I don't know. Perhaps you have a new definition of the word. --192.150.5.150 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR blanking

No matter if somene was reveting blanking they still can get blocked and I know this fist hand--Migospia☆ 23:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Veganism, of course

Hi. If you could keep an eye on the edits to Veganism I'd appreciate it. I'm going to try to keep to the talk page, to forestall the appearance of edit warring, though I don't expect to be able to persuade those behind our current round of POV complaints. Kellen 07:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I have begun a discussion on the talk page for the homeopathy article, regarding the categories. --Sapphic 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Veganism

I proposed a change in sentence for the Vegan article--Migospia†♥ 13:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey bureaucrat

The "unconstructive" edits that I made to the SSRI talk page were edits of the content that I had just added minutes before. I think I have the right to edit my own words, and I would think that any edits I do to my own words are inherently constructive. I was a little PO'd when I wrote the first comments, so I rephrased them. Besides, this is a freaking talk page, not the actual article.

You guys are a bunch of wet blankets and are getting in the way of good content. It's pretty obvious that you just summarily reverted the info without even bothering to research it, so you are doing more harm than good.

[[User talk:208.16.91.240|208.16.91.240 18:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fragmentalism

Hi there. In response to a request from User:Peter morrell for a second opinion, I've rewritten the article and added some more references. Could you have another look and see if you still think it should be deleted? Thanks. TimVickers 15:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy sock

11:49, 18 June 2007: Berberis' first edit.

...Yeah, sounds like a sock to me. Adam Cuerden 15:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Veganism GA review

Hi there, I've reviewed the article and put it on hold until some corrections and clarifications are made. If you could help out with this that would be great. All the best Tim Vickers 22:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed article rewrite project for homeopathy and related articles

Hello, I noticed that you were an active editor in the homeopathy article and I'm leaving you this message asking you to add some input into a proposed article rewrite project I have planned for it and related articles. This means that I will rewrite the article, post a rough draft as a sub page of my username, then when I am done I will gather all major contributors to work on the article from there following specific rules. Anyone who has been in previous disputes concerning this or related articles should be able to come to a compromise if they are reasonable. This project will take several weeks and will probably involve several other articles. Hopefully we can turn homeopathy and related articles into Featured articles or at least Good articles. If you're willing to aid in such a project then please leave a note of support here Talk:Homeopathy#Proposed_article_rewrite_project and answer these simple questions here Talk:Homeopathy#Questions_for_editors. Thanks. Wikidudeman 02:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if you took a glance at the draft and made some suggestions for improvements on the talk page of it. Thanks. Wikidudeman 06:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Danielfolsom

Is it ok if we take this discussion to your talk page? :-) No need to reply. I've tried to tell Daniel that the conversation is over. If I stop replying, he takes it to my talk page. Let's see what happens. —Viriditas | Talk 16:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

B.Jain

Hi I just thought I'd warn you that B. Jain is still there. Don't think it's supposed to be due to the prior AfD? I find AfDs a faff to make but probably you or someone else who cares needs to do something else about this one. I'll put the speedy tag back up. Don't know how long it'll last.:)Merkinsmum 21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy draft

Don't worry about Peter, He just wants the draft to turn out alright. I want to encourage your proposed change to further improve the draft as I want to implement it pretty soon. Wikidudeman 16:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I've been accused of worse. I've been concerned about his editing patterns for a while, but you seem to have him (mostly) contributing positively on the rewrite project. Thank you for addressing my concerns on the draft. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tell me if you see any other problems with it before we implement it. Wikidudeman 09:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is pretty close to being ready to go live. If you have any other proposals then just let me know and we can discuss them. Thanks. Wikidudeman 17:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please take another look at the draft and tell me if you think anything else should be changed. I think it's about done. Wikidudeman 19:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Benveniste

I am sorry if I came on too heavy about the Benveniste thing. Please go ahead and suggest any changes you wish. I will try not to be hostile towards you. I am sure we have some common ground on this subject that is clearly of interest to us both. Can I suggest that henceforth we try to cooperate together as grown adults for the sake of the article, and that we both try to make a fresh start? what do you think to this idea? Carping and sniping over issues is not good. I have been guilty of this I freely confess. I am even willing to find you some good source material. Please let me know your thoughts on this proposal. cheers Peter morrell 06:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's good that you want to work things out Peter. I think that the longer you stay on Misplaced Pages the more important it is to assume good faith all of the time. Assuming that someone who adds something that may not quite be correct or may be something that you disagree with wants to destroy the article won't work well when working things out with other editors. It's very important to totally ignore insults, assume that the editor means well, and don't counter rudeness with rudeness. Wikidudeman 20:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Skinwalker, You should probably respond to Peter's attempts to resolve any disputes. Hopefully the two of you can work things out, however it takes two to resolve a dispute. Wikidudeman 15:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this barnstar for your help in rewriting the homeopathy article. It is now implemented and hopefully will improve even further in the near future. Great job! Wikidudeman 18:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sybian

Skinwalker, I think you should revert to a previous version. The user in question who deleted many of the links I believe acted in an overzealous manner. There were a number of relevant sources that had been listed in that article for quite some time, and they contain information not found in the main article. JMHO --Buttysquirrel 22:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please have all postings and images contributed by me removed. I will move on. --Buttysquirrel 14:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your response. Let us look forward then to collaboration and an era of peace! kind regards Peter morrell 09:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Whig 2

How come you didn't endorse my comments? You signed that you had attempted to resolve disputes with Whig but you never signed to endorse my actual statements. Is there some part of my statements that you don't endorse? Thanks. Wikidudeman 15:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops. There is no part of your statement that I disagree with. I didn't think it was kosher to endorse a statement that I had also certified the basis for - but I see that Adam has done so, therefore I'll endorse as well. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the COI hints on User:Profg. It's quite clear once you look at the record. As an admin I was able to look at the deleted edits and articles, and found them especially interesting. Raymond Arritt 15:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Sorry I was coy about it... I have a strong aversion to identifying other editors by their real name, even if they're jerks, but he did out himself in the AFD. The COI edits are fairly stale - he stopped doing it soon after the election, but this will provide more evidence against him when he violates his unblocking agreement. Cheers, Skinwalker 20:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:TIMETRACE

Frankly, there's a lot of nutters in that project. Adam Cuerden 13:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Antireductionism

Hi. Thanks for the msg, I have replied on my talk page. thanks Peter morrell 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with COI

Hi Skinwalker, thank-you for your help with the conflict of interest. I really appreciate it--Vannin 19:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nev skinwalker?

Hey, are you the same skinwalker who used to play Neveron a few years back? mattbuck 09:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not me. I'm weaning myself off a world of warcraft addiction, but I use other names there. Cheers, Skinwalker 13:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, good luck with the addiction. mattbuck 14:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Jenkem

Hi! I see you already undid a split once (I saw it after I split it again). I gave my reasoning on the talk page of both articles as well as FisherQueen's talk page. The recent coverage and resulting hoax I believe is worthy of an article in itself but not inside the main article which should focus on Jenkem itself. I am not happy with the title of the new article but could not come up with anything better. spryde | talk 14:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But why shouldn't the recent coverage be part of the main article? Why should we have one article that focuses on the "drug", while another that describes the moral panic, while both are marginally notable on their own? No one seems to want to explain this. Cheers, Skinwalker 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The orignal article deals with the "drug" itself. The escalation based on the hoax can be considered a secondary topic. Much akin to tasers vs tasering incidents. I don't care if the article is deleted either way. I just hope if a remerge happens, that the merge leaves a passing note, a few references, and that is it. I don't want to see 300kb of fluff describing a hoax in excruciating blow-by-blow detail which is not the focus of the article. That is all :) spryde | talk 18:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the defensive. I share your concerns about the fluff - the moral panic material is terribly sourced, as many of the sources use the original jenkem article on[REDACTED] as a source themselves. This sort of irresponsible sourcing is the sort of thing that makes[REDACTED] look bad. I've also asked for input at the reliable sources noticeboard. I'm going to put a note on the AFD nomination restating this reply as well, because I don't want to come across as defending the material that was split off. Cheers, Skinwalker 18:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister

Thanks! I definitely screwed that one up! ScienceApologist 16:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2007 Jenkem moral panic

It is not necessary to create an AfD nomination if you think the article should be merged. Anyone can be bold and perform a merge. If you think it may be controversial, you can discuss it first on the article's talk page or with its principal author(s). —dgies_c 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought at the start that it was something of a borderline case for AFD. I objected to the merge, but it went ahead anyway - I then undid the merge, and was reverted. Other editors had mentioned the possibility of an AFD on Talk:2007 Jenkem moral panic, so I attempted boldness and listed the AFD. I will not take a merge proposal to AFD again, but the AFD discussion did generate some useful comments about the sourcing in the article. I appreciate your speedy close. Cheers, Skinwalker 20:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

my rfa

...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.

Correction

Thanks. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV/SPOV answer

Hi there! I expanded my answer about NPOV/SPOV on another voter's talk page. I hope that can provide some clarification as to my position. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Thanks! :) --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll chew on it for a while. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, great. :) --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

While I know people are going to oppose me, it was not my intention to be "evasive" with any question; just point me to what specifically you thought my response left out and I'll be happy to clarify. :) David Fuchs 00:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The draft I promised

Is taking shape at . There is some discussion on the talk page as well you might find interesting. If you want to check my arithmetic, feel free. It is obviously very very rough at this point and it is very early days. But it is a start...--Filll (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your mentorship of User:Whig

Whig has drifted away and I can't be bothered to chase him down. However, he is still under the first three restrictions listed here, due to them being imposed on him by the community as opposed to me. east.718 at 22:13, January 25, 2008

you might want to consider

--Filll (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing your recent talk page post, you might want to comment at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked user Paul Hartal seems to be back again. --Orlady (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Anarchists for deletion

Yo, I understand your justified concerns about the assertion of notability on anarchist biographies, but I wonder if you could stop tagging proposing for deletion. The articles are not very closely watched, and I am worried worthy articles could be deleted because of expired PROD's because no-one interested noticed. The Anarchism task force would be more than happy to do the research and referencing work needed for the articles if you would be so kind as to list the articles you have issues with at WT:ATF instead of prodding them. If you are not happy with the references after a week, we can go ahead and prod them then, after they have been vetted. Does this sound acceptable? Regards, Skomorokh 16:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I ran across the American anarchists category during the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert Thaxton - there's a lot of unreferenced cruft in those articles. Bios about Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre, for example, are indisputably notable, and well-referenced. However, many of the modern anarchist bio pages lack good references, and in some extreme cases (see David Rovics) seem to be extensions of an individual's myspace page. My objections will evaporate if you can put some better references in each article I prodded, and provide better assertions of notability. I had gone through most of the articles in the category by the time you messaged me - I'll list the remaining unreferenced bios at WP:ATF, as you suggest. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration, I hope we can eliminate the cruft and get the articles up to proper referencing standards. See you around, Skomorokh 17:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

UBF article COI

Hello skinwalker. I've added your citations about UBF into a Reviews and Reaction section. Does this begin to satisfy the COI/neutrality issue? Bkarcher (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Orthomolecular

Hi there. I've been trying to find a form of words that might cover the same ground as that pseudoscience box and be acceptable to everybody involved. I think most of the editors on the page would agree that OM isn't as unreal as homeopathy or therapeutic touch, but is obviously seen as not mainstream science. Could you live with "This lack of serious testing of orthomolecular medicine has led to its practices being classed with other less plausible forms of alternative medicine and regarded as unscientific." diff? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Talkback at RfA

I have replied to your oppose at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Malcolmxl5. Happy editing! John Sloan (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as a side note, please keep in mind RfA's are designed to be discussions. If you oppose a candidate, you can only expect that somebody will question your opposition. It truly has nothing to do with being badgered (which I see you've claimed a couple times now). - auburnpilot talk 01:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Badgered" was a poor choice of words, and I have struck the sentence. I do not mean to imply that I won't discuss the issue further, but the main RFA page may not be the best place for it. Thank you for nudging me to extemporize on my oppose rationale. Skinwalker (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. A novel reason for an oppose but I dare say that there is some truth in it. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmph. Good luck with that. Skinwalker (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

request for your feedback

Hello. I am a very new contributor to Misplaced Pages. I noticed you have made comments on the paroxetine page. I think the main page is biased against the drug and its manufacturers. If I were in need of education on anti-depressants, I might be scared away by the page. Perhaps you would be willing to lend your input. Sorry if this is an inappropriate request. All the best. Mwalla (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)mwalla

The issue has been adressed. Thank you Mwalla (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)mwalla

Checkuser

Let's see a checkuser for this accusation. Dreadstar † 01:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)