This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.36.251.228 (talk) at 19:08, 29 December 2010 (→Edit warring). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:08, 29 December 2010 by 66.36.251.228 (talk) (→Edit warring)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome!
|
A barnstar for you
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| For your tireless contributions in defence of[REDACTED] policy and against POV pushing. Verbal chat 10:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC) |
Vaccine Controversy
I appreciate the message, but I would prefer next time that you ask for specifics before changing my edits - simply because I did not follow customary practices does not negate my reasons for the edit. I understand Undue Weight. My main argument is with argument placing, tone, style, and word usage. I have posted my reasons in detail in the Talk section under the POV section. Perhaps we can collaborate there. Fontevrault (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Invitation to communicate
Apologies if this is an inappropriate use of your talk page, feel free to delete this in revision. I am trying to achieve a more efficient understanding of how Misplaced Pages works, or rather of why it works so well. I am a neurobiologist teaching a neurobiology of disease course at Brandeis University. I am deeply impressed with the accuracy of the content in this article, and well, frankly, of almost every article I have consulted (much more so in the realms of academic inquiry than popular culture, but that is not so hard to understand). This has gotten me interested in the process itself. The topic that brought me here (autism and the thimerisol controversy) is arguably one of the most subject to distortion and disinformation on the web. I am sure your own personal intellectual clarity (as well of course to that of the other editors) contributed to the quality of the article. But that is not what surprises me. Why are the crazies (if I may short-cut with this characterization) unable to subvert this content? I am not really interested in the answer with respect to this article, but more globally. (I realize that perhaps if I studied the Wikki culture as embodied in the many help pages etc. I might figure this out in time, but I am hoping for a quicker pointer as a help in the mean time). I do not find it shocking that some articles are to the point and accurate. I find it shocking that virtually all of the articles I consult are. This suggest the editing policies are remarkably resilient and efficient. I am curious as to your view of which policies contribute most to this state of affairs.
feel free to delete this and answer via email (nelson@brandeis.edu) and of course I realize you may not have time to answer in any event. But I appreciate any help you can provide.
best,
Sacha
Sachanelson (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Mainstream Media
I know that being bold is one of the tenets, but there is a line between being bold, and unilaterally making decisions to do things that are not warranted. If you have a problem with the page, why not try to fix it instead of deleting it? Joshua Ingram 23:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've reverted this to a redirect, eliminating the imported material, because Conservapedia's licence terms are not free enough—they reserve the right to revoke their licence, making it impossible to assert (the irrevocable) CC-BY-SA 3.0 in good faith. Please see this article's talk page for details. TheFeds 02:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Request For Mediation
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Vaccine_controversy has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Vaccine_controversy and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Misplaced Pages's policy on resolving disagreements is at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
Thank you, Sebastian Garth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC).
Request for mediation accepted
|
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Vaccine controversy.
|
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
Acceptance by mediator
Hi Yobol. I am willing to mediate this case. If you are ready to proceed, let's begin on the case talk page. Sunray (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
New approach
I've asked some questions in a new section of this title. Would you be able to respond? Sunray (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Proposal to close
I'm not sure whether you saw my note on the mediation talk page, but I am proposing to close the mediation. However, there are some conditions under which we could continue. Any comments? Sunray (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Please accept my GF
Please accept that I am editing in good faith. I am a supporter of vaccines and completely against homoeopathy and other unscientific mumbo jumbo. Looking at your edit history, I doubt you are working for industry, but seem more motivated by a concern for the defence of science. I am a brother in arms in this sphere, but I also have concerns about corporations whitewashing products in the face of persistent and justifiable scientific concerns about safety. Even if a chemical only affects a small % of consumers, this needs to be acknowledged. TickleMeister (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Peter Duesberg
Please explain why you've reordered the chronology of the subject's career and removed a citation needed tag for an assertion about what he is best known for. You also undid grammatical improvements and clarifications.
- The subsequent changes you made look pretty good to me. Can you help reorder the body so it is chronological and the AIDS sections are grouped together? This seems to make the most sense and to be standard. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Salvio 15:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Transcendental meditation
A user has commented on your position here stating "some external editors progressively changed their position as they received more information". Wondering if you could clarify your position at the RfC Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Controversial issues
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| Thank you for getting involved in the controversial discussion at Transcendental Meditation. Few would wade into such a heated and draw out discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC) |
Blush
Thanks for fixing this . I read that as the NPOV Noticeboard, not the NPOV article. Fell Gleaming 17:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- NP, happens to everyone. Yobol (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Thiomersal controversy
The article Thiomersal controversy you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Thiomersal controversy for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Aaron north (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:V
Hi, you recently commented on a talk page to update WP:V, concerning the use of academic and media sources. Proposal 5 attracted a good amount of support, however a concern has been voiced that implementing the proposal represents a major policy change that would require wider input first. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Current_status; it would be great if you could drop by. --JN466 22:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Apologies and a promise of a fresh start from me
Yobol, it has occurred to me that I have been acting rashly towards your work on the Weston Price article for irrational reasons (probably tied to larger fiasco I've been too involved in recently). My attitude is not deserved and I apologize for it. I'm going to make a concerted effort to work in a collegiate, respectful and thoughtful manner. You don't have to respond even but I wanted you to know that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Price
I haven't been following the developments on the talk page. Reading about dentists is more fun than visiting them, but it's still not my main focus. If there's a particular issue where I can bring my experience or give a policy opinion, I can do that. But if you want to solve all of the problems, or even diagnose the problems, then that's more than I'm up for. I suggest reading about dispute resolution. Will Beback talk 10:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Price Sources
You have done good work bringing sources to light (as has Bruce, I think), but you did miss a critical one. http://www.drcat.org/articles_interviews/html/rootcanal.html Just read it, you'll thank me. The middle is where it really picks up. Ocaasi (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- That was a joke, if you didn't get to it yet. This is actually a nice overview of the situation from an Australian dental website http://www.shdc.com.au/Root-Canal-Treatment.html#5. Ocaasi (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Trust me, I've read it (and others), it's amazing what's presented as medical facts on the internet. I agree that Bruce has done a good job finding sources on Price (in general) and he has good intentions. I just think his approach to this one issue is incorrect, and I suspect he's very much like me - very stubborn once something gets into his head. Yobol (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- You mentioned Ludwigs in your recent edit comment, was that in reference to a discussion somewhere about an 'overexuberant reviewer'? If so, can you point me to it... thx Ocaasi (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- It was from Ludwigs2's edit comments dated 11/1. He removed several comments like that. Yobol (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- You mentioned Ludwigs in your recent edit comment, was that in reference to a discussion somewhere about an 'overexuberant reviewer'? If so, can you point me to it... thx Ocaasi (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Trust me, I've read it (and others), it's amazing what's presented as medical facts on the internet. I agree that Bruce has done a good job finding sources on Price (in general) and he has good intentions. I just think his approach to this one issue is incorrect, and I suspect he's very much like me - very stubborn once something gets into his head. Yobol (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Christine Maggiore
I've never new at an human-rubber was! Now I know... How do you define a "reliable source"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by V0db (talk • contribs) 22:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
okay
- fine then, i made a mistake thanksf or reverting it User:Smith Jones 21:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Np, just trying to keep it from being cluttered. Yobol (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for this - I think that's a clear improvement in sourcing. The old source was bugging me, because it was clearly so far below where the bar should be for an encyclopedia. Thanks for improving it, and more generally for your diligent and constructive editing across numerous articles. MastCell 19:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words, unfortunately these medical fringe articles are too full of them. Oh well, I guess that just gives me something to look forward to working on after I get through with these laetrile articles. :) Yobol (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring
Misplaced Pages:Edit warring http://en.wikipedia.org/Edit_war