This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Valjean. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Opinion: How Wikipedia is misused to censor real world information
Censorship in the real world isn't just about images or pornography, but often about suppression of political POV (think China, North Korea, USA, and Iran), and that's the type we are seeing here. It's extremely unwikipedian and undemocratic. In this instance it is an extension of the Koch brothers' well known fetish for secrecy, in which they use shadow groups and dark money to carry out their political activities. Since Fox News is on their side, mainstream coverage is limited, because they are successful at hiding and manipulating any coverage of their activities. Therefore any reliable sources from the opposing side (usually activists) are fair game for use as sources (per WP:PARITY) and should be used here. Why PARITY? Because when mainstream sources fail to deal with a subject because of successful censorship, we must use other sources, usually partisan activist organizations whose POV can be cited as their opinion.
The same thing which applies to pseudoscience and other fringe subjects applies here. If we don't do this, their abuses extend to Wikipedia, and their real world political activities, much of which they seek to hide, are not covered at all. Arzel and others continually harp about our need to cover their charitable activities, but we already mention that and their charity balls and support of the arts. It's minimal and mostly directed at things which benefit other wealthy. Big deal. Their political activities do exist and need coverage. They learned long ago that democracy (one vote per man) does not work in their favor, so they are all about using their money to subvert it, and some editors wittingly or unwittingly aid them. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
User talkpages
BullRangifer, you make a good point about Worldedixor's antagonistic and hostile attitude toward other editors. I don't foresee a good end if they continue in their unbridled battleground manner. But that said, they're allowed to remove stuff from their talkpage, and you're not supposed to reinstate it. Bishonen | talk22:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC).
Your behavior on my Talk Page
Brangifer: I will assume good faith and give you a fair chance to clarify your actions on my talk page. I would like to know on what Wikipedia rule exactly have you based your "unwelcome" revert of my edit on MY talk page? Thank you. Worldedixor (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Worldedixor, there is no need to be so aggressive. P123ct1 addressed you very politely, and you answered with confrontational nonsense about " WP:COMPETENCE that calls for an enforced parole of "don't interact with this other editor"" (you might try actually reading WP:COMPETENCE), and then removed a civil and reasonable question from P123ct1 in preference to answering it. Brangifer shouldn't have reverted you on your page (and I've already told him that), but it's hardly surprising that he was irritated into doing so. There's no need for you to come here and WP:REHASH the issue, as if your own conduct had been ideal. Let it go. I advise you not to post on this page again, unless you have something nice to say. Bishonen | talk00:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC).
I reverted only because my comment was in connection with what you had deleted. I assumed that you would then likely revert the whole business, which you did in your, unfortunately, typically hostile manner. No harm was done, and you got the message. That's all I intended. That you make a big deal out of it is more telling. A you will notice, I will NOT delete your comment, and I have replied in a civil manner. You are welcome to comment here in the course of legitimate Wikipedia business, even if it may be unpleasant for me. I happen to be an adult. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Help
Hello! Please I need help. Actually am interested in working on genes. Great work has been done on human genes. Althou there are some that are still left such as MTF2 (metal response element binding transcription factor 2 [Homo sapiens (human)]) gene. Am interested in working on them and certain gene in aves (Chicken). Am so suprised that this template: { {PBB:geneid=ID} } didn't work for those genes that has not been published here. Can you put more light on that? Can you explain why? Thanks. Wikicology (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello BullRangifer. This is Merriels. The following is in reference to the page "List of acupuncture points". I saw some misleading/incorrect information on this page. The statement "There is no anatomical or histological basis for acupuncture points or meridians" is patently false. In my daily work I am able to locate acupuncture points on a variety of individuals precisely because they are anatomical structures, which can be palpated on the surface of the body, and are located proportionately in the same places on every human body. The source of this statement is older than the source I cited, which, more recently, reviewed the evidence and found that imaging of the fascia of the human body produced patterns which coincide well with the patterns of "acupuncture points" laid out thousands of years ago in traditional medicine. If you'll allow me, I can cite several other corroborating studies. For now, I would like both competing statements to stand, or neither, as they are cited from equally reliable sources. Merriels (talk • contribs) 06:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! This can be a daunting place, what with all its policies, guidelines, essays, and various written and unwritten cultural norms. I don't think anyone understands all of it. I've been here since about 2003, with my account since 2005, and things have changed a lot in that time, making it hard to keep up with newer policies.
I can understand your concern from a professional POV. As a health care professional myself (Physical Therapist), I have been tempted to edit based on my personal experience, or on certain "primary" sources I know about, but that is not allowed. I rarely even edit the PT article because I have a conflict of interest, as do you with this subject. It's not forbidden to edit these articles, but be very careful.
What you've done (unwittingly) is considered original research, editorializing, and a violation of WP:MEDRS, which prefers secondary reviews, not primary research. That's why I deleted your additions about "holes" in fascia. (I couldn't even find any mention of the holes in that source. If it's there, what words should I search for?)
Regardless, the source is a primary source, and a very poor one at that (pure fringe advocacy and speculation...basically pseudoscientific BS), and it isn't allowable per MEDRS. It presents speculative ideas that are totally foreign to modern medicine and science, but which are accepted by believers in TCM and acupuncture, where unscientific speculation and religious ideas are all blended together and generally believed as fact. That's the nature of alternative medicine.
The existing source is a RS which is allowable for use in the manner in which it is used. We don't remove properly sourced content without good reason. It's considered vandalism. I'm sure that's not what you intended. I hope this helps you understand what's going on. BTW, I moved your comment to the bottom of this page where it belongs, and added a heading. Next time just use the "new section" tab, and remember to always sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello BullRangifer. I sincerely apologize if this is not the preferred method of communicating with you. I am brand new as an editor on Wikipedia and am unsure how to ping you. Also sorry for "edit warring". When I first came across the sentence about acupuncture points having no known anatomical or histological basis (which I know to be untrue), I left that sentence there, and merely added another sentence to point people in the direction of other information to the contrary. I referenced an appropriate review article. I was most unhappy that my first ever edit of Wikipedia was immediately removed, however I am not unreasonable. I am a state licensed and nationally certified acupuncturist, with a degree in Biophysics. Being very familiar with acupuncture, it is obvious to me that there is an anatomical basis for the traditional acupuncture points, as I am able to palpate them on the surface of any and everyone's human body. The Chinese word for an acupuncture "point" means more like "cave" or "hole". In my education, at an accredited four year school of Oriental medicine, I was taught that the acupuncture points are located in the fascia--oblong holes through which small nerves and vessels traverse between deep and superficial levels of the body. In this past week I haven't had a chance to do an exhaustive search of research articles to support this position. I wonder if you'd be interested in looking at the Wikipedia page on Helene Langevin. She has carried out much research in this area. When I read WP:MEDRS, I got the impression that citing single studies is not welcome on Wikipedia. What to do then if there is no systematic review? It makes sense to me in light of "neutrality" to present different sides of the "controversy". I see that you keep watch on all things "pseudoscientific" and I appreciate you protecting the scientific truth. However, I wonder if you have an inaccurate perception of acupuncture. I have seen it cure paralysis, neuropathy, autoimmune disorders, all manner of inflammatory conditions, and more. Something is going on with it. Would you please respond to me on my talk page, as I think I could find that : ) ? Any advice on how to become a responsible and helpful Wikipedia community member is welcome. Merriels (talk • contribs) 05:19, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
Hi Merriels. I have moved your comment to this existing section where it belongs as a continuation of a previous conversation with you on the same topic. I also added the missing signature. I have just written some tips for you here. That link is what's called a "dif", because there you will see the exact edit, code, time, and who wrote it. It will never change or disappear. You have the code and below you also have the result and placement. Using difs is handy at times. Take a look there and then comment there or here. I have both places watchlisted. To ping me, just use my formatted signature, with proper capitalization, as I did with your name at the start of this paragraph.
Your education is interesting (to you), but that is what's called unsourced speculation and OR (original research). We can't use it here. The idea of holes in the fascia corresponding to acupuncture points is not a recognized scientific idea. It's a claim made by your school, and possibly your textbooks. There are lots of holes, and many do not correspond. There is no real correlation, and you would definitely NOT want to poke a needle into structures passing through those holes. That could cause serious injury. You would need to find reliable sources (mainstream ones) to back up such an idea. Otherwise, in some cases, we could use an alternative/fringe source to document that such claims are made, but we would also have to make it clear that they are controversial or undocumented claims. We do that all the time. This conversion should really happen at Talk:List of acupuncture points. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC) -- Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for collaborating... care to do a bit more?
Hello Brangifer, I appreciate our back-and-forth with several helpful little edits coming from you on Template:Manipulative and body-based methods. I checked out your user page and see that you are someone who appreciates the critical thinking aspect of the Skeptic point of view yet sees a need for balance in terms of how that POV is executed in WP articles. Certainly some alt med articles have almost a rabid tone; I have been slowly chipping away at a number of articles to try to correct this issue by providing written sources to flesh out the descriptions of various modalities (though the lack of scientific studies is not something I can help!). Sometimes there are only a few very interested editors and outside, moderately neutral opinions are so helpful. Would you consider chiming in?
The alt med article that seems the most heavy-handed on the Skeptic POV to me is Alternative medicine. It's such a big article with so many moving parts, I haven't even begun to interact with it much. Also I'm expecting it to be contentious and I don't wish to drive into the fray too quickly. So that would be a big-picture type issue. Have you been watching this page?
On a much smaller scale, I'm presently in a discussion with two editors - one who is a hardcore Skeptic and the other who is likely more aligned with you (in terms of valuing encyclopedic content over any one point of view yet leaning toward Skeptic) - over whether a classic Skeptic source is a valid source for Rolfing - originally the article was very light on sources and at the time it was better than nothing. The source is Trick or Treat, which has four chapters each of which extensively cover one subject (chiro, acupuncture, herbs, and homeopathy). I've read the book a few years ago. It's a great source for those 4 topics, and for how to critically assess alt med claims. But it's not an acceptable source for the many modalities that are briefly "defined" with 1-sentence sound bites. The bit about Rolfing focuses on its stereotype (from the early years) for being heavy-handed yet doesn't mention the 10-session series format, or more importantly, the purpose of "aligning the body in gravity". It seems to have been written hastily, without research, from the author's mental impression. I wrote the author (Simon Singh) an email asking him about it and he was surprised that WP was citing ToT as a source, since there must be much better, more authoritative sources on Rolfing. I agree, but the two Skeptic authors want to hang onto it. The Skeptic POV is presently nicely represented by Carroll's article in The Skeptic's Dictionary, which has quite a bit of detail and seems to be largely accurate. What would be your opinion on this matter? Thanks!--Karinpower (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm definitely interested in helping where I can. My "specialty" areas of knowledge are Chiropractic, Alternative medicine, and Homeopathy, although I've studied and followed the whole spectrum for decades. My skeptical activities have cost me dearly, once in a malicious SLAPP lawsuit (the judge accepted my written response and used my logic and exact wording in her decision to throw the lawsuit out, thus getting over 30 individuals and entities off the hook!), and also when anonymous chiropractors threatened my life and my children. Very nasty business when one criticizes a "profession" that operates more like a $cientology cult. Mainstream medicine deals with criticism by producing evidence, but alternative medicine lacks good evidence, so it resorts to ad hominem attacks and threats.
My position on NPOV means I favor any notable subject's inclusion and coverage. Because fringe subjects lack RS, WP:PARITY allows more use of skeptical sources, simply because they are more accurate and reliable, and aligned with mainstream science and medical evidence. Yet, the subject must be explained accurately, with neutral explanations of methods and (nonsensical) claims, and documentation of the criticisms and controversies associated with the subject. That content is obviously not neutral, but content here is not required to be neutral. It is only Wikipedia editors who must edit neutrally, and Wikipedia's voice should normally be neutral, or reflect what RS say, even when they are not neutral. That's why some articles will contain very non-neutral descriptions in Wikipedia's voice, since RS use those terms. It's always a balancing act. When in doubt, use good sources, quote accurately, and attribute the quote.
Thanks for your comments. There are indeed some elements of the chiropractic world that are quite slippery; luckily in my hometown I know several who are of high integrity and so it always reminds me that individuals' bad behavior doesn't represent all.
I agree that WP needs to have a neutral voice, even when that means neutrally describing non-neutral sources, and that those various opinions need to be kept in balance. I find that with alt-med topics, some are quite fringe and belief-based, while others are based on anatomy and plausible yet unproved premises. The more grounded modalities don't tend to have as much strong criticism.
I think the Skeptic Dictionary is one of the few decent critical sources on Rolfing. That source outlines the situation pretty thoroughly, enumerating the criticisms while also providing fairly balanced background info. Many of the other common go-to Skeptic sources don't bother to rip into Rolfing because it's not nearly as fringe as homeopathy, etc.
My point about Trick or Treat is that just because it mentions Rolfing briefly, does not mean it's an adequate source to be worth citing. You can see the page in question here: [1]. Given the errors in this source (Rolfing is incorrectly categorized under massage, description of therapy only describes one aspect of a range of modes, the purpose and series format are omitted), it's not WP-worthy for this topic. That's not to knock the book in general - it's a great book and actually a pretty interesting read.
The other two editors I mentioned are pretty attached to anything Skeptic in nature and want to hang onto this source, despite the fact that the article now has over 20 good sources. That's why I thought your perspective on this particular issue could be useful. What do you think? --Karinpower (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That's the ONLY reference in the whole book, and the comment isn't worth mentioning and using the source. Other sources must be used. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Would you be willing to comment on this topic on the article's talk page? Talk:Rolfing/Archive 3#Strengthening_references We've had a lengthy discussion that has gone nowhere - including one author suggesting that I find a substitute source that is similarly brief (why? heavens only knows), which was probably intended as a wild goose chase but I did happen to be able to produce several, yet not surprisingly, they were not good enough to warrant removing ToT. That's why we are ready for a WP: Third Opinion. Thanks again. --Karinpower (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
For some reason I didn't even notice that it wasn't an article talk page! Odd for me. Otherwise, personal attacks are not allowed anywhere at Wikipedia, even for unnamed individuals, so just be more careful. Such comments do not reflect well on you, so take the high road. You're better than that. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, attacks on unnamed indivduals can never be "personal" attacks. Do point out which policy states that one cannot describe typical troll behavior. Oh wait, we even have an article on Troll (Internet). Better delete it, it's attacking multiple unnamed individuals. Sorry, your assertion is contrary to logic. Yworo (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It still reflects badly on you, and we know who you were talking about. Your recent conflicts tell a story. Take the high road. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I view it as more of a misunderstanding than a conflict. An intentional misunderstanding intentionally overblown by the other party. More of a molehill than a mountain, despite the mock tears. Yworo (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, BullRangifer, for your message related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buteyko_method. Following rules of Wikipedia, I posted a note on a talk page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Buteyko_method. My note is:
"Clinical evidence claims that chronic hyperventilation is the norm in chronic conditions. This is a fact of science and a reminder to provide supporting medical evidence for anyone who has objections to this statement or continues to reverse the Buteyko page to claims that "this theory is not widely supported in the medical community due to the lack of evidence supporting either the theory ".
The required clinical references can be found on the Homepage of NormalBreathing.com and includes measurements conducted by 100s of medical doctors on thousands of patients. It is not about who is right and who is wrong. We are discussing matters of science and medicine not personal needs of individuals.ARakhimov 06:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtourRakhimov (talk • contribs)
Thanks again, BullRangifer. I collect clinical evidence and facts. This evidence includes dozens of medical studies. I refer to NormalBreathing.com Homepage in order to avoid posting 70+ references on this page or on Buteyko page. Do you suggest that I provide these 70+ references (that people with diseases and modern normal subjects hyperventilate - breathe 2-3 times more than the norm) first on the Talk page and then we can decide what to do with facts? I can do that (without a referral to NormalBreathing.com), if it is better for a discussion and finding a consensus.ARakhimov 07:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtourRakhimov (talk • contribs)
Blue Is the Warmest Colour
Hi. Per WP:FILMDIST we don't list all the international distributors in the infobox ("... the distributor(s) should be restricted to the country or countries that produced the film..."). As it's not an American film, I've removed it. Feel free to add it as prose in the body if needed. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead17:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I notice that it says that if there are only two, to include them, but there are actually quite a few distributors, so I see your point and will self-revert. Thanks for the explanation. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Generation Rescue
Given the changes already made and the "preferred version" soon to come, would a mention on FTN be warranted on this? I have no doubt GR will push to get any hint that their view is fringe out of the article, as shown by the changes they've already managed to have made on their behalf by OTRS. Ravensfire (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
And after that last post on the talk page - I posted on FTN. I'm still waiting for OTRS to post GR's "draft" version. I doubt we'll be able to prevent OTRS from shoving that down our throats and locking it down, based on the comments made. Ravensfire (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I am shocked by all this, having only discovered it late in the evening here in the UK. OTRS has made a huge error AFAIC, but on the other hand, I'm not really awake enough to make rational judgement. I shall be back when awake and rational. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking that this should result in some strict rules which forbid OTRS volunteers from themselves making the edits, unless they are clearly and unequivocally BLP issues.
Especially legal threats (not an issue here) received through that system should be met in the same way we normally deal with them....strong resistance. We will not be intimidated by such threats. We rely on RS for our content, and editors are protected by laws which protect users of the internet who reproduce content created by others. OTOH, the original creators of those RS may be liable if they libel someone, but those who copy or quote their work are protected by law.
The OTRS system must not be compromised by COI suspicions. The volunteers should not be allowed to get caught in such situations. They can get caught in the middle of matters which are far beyond their knowledge and area of responsibility. Their job is to relay concerns and let other editors deal with it in the normal manner, and they should act like any other COI editor....just use the talk page to give guidance. They should never use OTRS as a means to intimidate editors and stifle normal editing, as was done here. They are not above our policies and guidelines. Using vague OTRS and WMF concerns as an excuse to make disputed edits is wrong on so many levels. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
AGF
Are you aware of any edit that user:WhatamIdoing has made that is not a good faith edit? If not why did you add "Reverted good faith edits by WhatamIdoing (talk): See talk. It's a very minor quibble and OR can't undo it. (TW)" as a comment to this edit?
While such a comment may be useful when reverting the edits of an IP address or a new user, both to reassure the inexperienced editor and to inform other editors, if you are changing the edit of an established editor, I think such a comment is a breach of WP:AGF as you should assume that all the edit made by an established editor are made in good faith, and implies that you think the established editor makes bad faith edits (if not why add it the phrase with a link to AGF?). -- PBS (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Under the argument "I didn't shoot her the gun did"? I think the individual editor has to take responsibility for the comments they place in the edit history of an article. If TW can not be altered by an editor so that it does not place such comments in the edit history, then one is free to revert an edit by self selecting the edit to which one wishes to revert and place a more appropriate comment in the edit history. -- PBS (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a standard Twinkle message used by all editors who use Twinkle, so you should not try to imply bad faith. Reversion also offers the other option, which is to treat it like vandalism, and that would indeed be an assumption of bad faith on my part, but that was not the case. If you want to make some big deal out of an old edit, then start attacking the thousands of edits made with exactly that message every single day between long time editors here. Don't just single me out. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
WPcorrector
I've got this now. I see you've reverted 3 times at a talk page. Not really necessary. Anyway, I've told him firmly not to do it again or I'll block. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Please see my latest post at ANI. If this is a dead horse let me know, there or on my talk page. If you feel my five point summary needs addressing a note at ANI would be appreciated. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)
Research assistance available
The WP Library has granted me access to Cochrane, BMJ, OUP and HighBeam, if there is something from these resources that would be helpful drop a note on my talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Please could you assist me. I am being harassed by this user. He/She/It keeps imposing, and making others do it for them, their will on my talk page. I never archived any discussions, he/she/it made an administrator do it. All I wanted to do was clear my page - which is an acceptable practice - archiving is not required, nor wanted by me - everything anyone wants to know is in the history. I apparently did not do it right the first time, and accidentally moved the page as I wanted to delete the comments. I tried to have the page in question removed, while also re-integrating the history into the original talk page to satisfy the " can't run away from past mistakes " criteria that users like this need to have to " bring up past mistakes ". This person is edit warring, not following simple directives/common sense on pages, and is using my inexperience and other diversionary tactics to continue their behavior on my page and articles. Let me make this clear: I did not archive anything, did not want to archive anything, do not have to archive anything - it was done by another. If my actions are so detrimental to Wikipedia, then they can report me to the authorities, and let them make judgement on me.--NotWillyWonka (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Your actions haven't been very collaborative, and that's causing you more problems than necessary. You tried to delete the history of the past content of your talk page. It wasn't an "accident" (you even edit warred over it) and we couldn't allow that to happen. Wikipedia works on openness. If you'd be more friendly, open, and not so combative, you'd be more successful in your editing and get a lot more help. So do what reputable editors do and leave comments on your talk page, including negative comments and warnings. Archive all older content when the page gets too long, and always leave a link to your archives. The archives should also contain that negative content. Don't try to hide it. Secrecy only creates distrust of you. Editors who aren't trusted don't last long. Their every move is scrutinized and they get followed. That's not harassment. That's protecting Wikipedia from editors who create problems. If you change your attitude and treat other editors nicely and try to cooperate and follow their instructions, you demonstrate that you have a positive learning curve and you'll become an experienced and trusted editor. As far as K7L's actions, they aren't perfect either and I'm watching them. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I did not try to hide anything, I was open and even requested the history be merged back in when I asked for page the "delete" page to be removed, I knew of no other way to undo the mistake I had made over a year ago. Re-Removing restored contents (see: WP:BLANKING), aka clearing, from one's user talk page is not edit warring (see:WP:3RRNO), having those restored by one other user constantly is harassment. Having someone go back and constantly find little things done, or re-adding things that were removed, as per policy/guidelines, is harassment. If you look at the events, the page that I moved was last year - and at the time did not know how to clear the page properly. A username acceptability was done last year also, and I was told there was no problem. Now that this user K7L did not like that one of his/her/its edits were undone by myself, they then started to find all sorts of faults with me to distract from their actions. They revert to their controversial edits on two pages that I contribute to, without consensus, and then accuse me of vandalism. You yourself have even reverted the same on one page, telling them to use common sense in the edit summary. They accuse me of opposing them on creating an article split, which I did not, I stated that I do not think there is enough material to create one stand alone article about one single Mexican area code. I have tried to comply to the policies and procedures to the best of my knowledge, and have learned things along the way, and have made mistakes in some places, but do not need the constant harassment of this user. Your statement: "Your actions haven't been very collaborative, and that's causing you more problems than necessary." is perplexing to me, as I have followed the guidelines, and the directives of others who at the time seemed in an "authoritative" know-how, and looked like they wanted to help, to only have administrators who did not even take the time to look at the events, and actions of all involved, come down on me for already resolved situations, and did not help where I asked.--NotWillyWonka (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Just so you know this user is still harassing me, and not discussing edits that have been reverted. User will not follow simple wikipedia guidelines, yet demands that others follow his/her/its impositions even when against guidelines.--NotWillyWonka (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Did you review this [2] this [3] and this [4] before jumping in?
Investigations happen all the time, we don't include all of them because we don't know what lasting affects it will have. In the 150 year history of the university, it's not undue for this to have it's own section? Seriously? If anything comes from the investigation, then it can go in. I suggest the editor take it to dispute resolution if they want.Dkspartan1 (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I did review them. Your reasoning isn't good enough. It's censorship and whitewashing. Whether it should be in its own section or not is another matter, but it should be included somewhere. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
However, I was not sharing personal beliefs, I was sharing factual information for the benefit of the discussion.
I was just concerned about how people treat the theory of evolution as a fact/law, but in reality, it is just a theory and there is not enough evidence gathered yet to make it a law, using The Scientific Method.
I was trying to shed light on this and apologize if this came out as a bias or as a personal opinion.
I checked out the Talk Guidelines site and followed your directions. I also read your comment.
I am not very "Wikipedia-Savvy" and am still learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia. I got my account two days ago.
Also thank you for setting me straight regarding the Creationism Vs Evolution matter.
Also, can you keep an eye on the "Luther Jackson Middle School" article? There has been a lot of repeated vandalism on it and no one is paying attention to the polite reminders that vandalism is not allowed.
I see papers by Deng Yu in Chinese alt-med articles in promanent locations (i.e. cite 1) such as TCM, Meridian (Chinese medicine)QiDENG Yu et al，Ration of Qi with Modern Essential on Traditional Chinese Medicine Qi: Qi Set, Qi Element, Journal of Mathematical Medicine (Chinese), 2003, 16(4),346-347. Deng Yu seems to publish quite a few. It appears (from a cursory view) that the cites are added by different IPs from China without comment. When the cites are removed, they are later added again added without comment. The journals seem to be rather unknown outside of China and, I suspect, are not peer reviewed. I have not been able to find any of the papers not behind a pay-wall. Any idea what gives? Google-bombing? Cheers Jim1138 (talk)
Can you figure out which IPs are doing this, and then geolocate them? Make a list of the diffs. I'd like to see them. We are likely dealing with COI link spamming, so they should be removed. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if these are students attempting to impress their prof? Hopefully, they won't turn into an embarrassment to their prof... Jim1138 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I really haven't a clue. You have made an impressive list! I'm wondering about the Journal of Mathematical Medicine. Is this come kind of Chinese self-published journal with zero impact factor? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your contributions to Jane Mayer (",)
(ec) Thank you. I do what I can. I no longer use that page. I was having trouble with vandals spamming and vandalizing my talk page, so I had it protected. I'm giving this a try now, without protection.
As far as your editing goes, while I don't like Arthur's extremely unwikipedian whitewashing right wing articles of properly sourced criticism, and his pushing of fringe and unscientific views on climate change (I thought he was topic banned!), as a block evading editor I don't want to appear to ever be cooperating with you. You're on your own. I don't like sock puppetry. You make it hard for legitimate editors, because anytime a legitimate editor restores one of your edits, they get tainted and accused of meat puppetry for a block evading sock. That's bad. Please stop editing as an IP and use only one registered account. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Nothing new to me. The Tea Party/Koch brother/right wing/corporate bias which denies anthropogenic climate change, represented by the editing of Arthur Rubin, is known. It's a problem, but your method is not working. The problem can be dealt with properly, by registered editors, who can then get him and other anti-science editors topic banned and blocked for their violations of NPOV. Your guerrilla tactics just make it harder, so stop it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
While I sympathize with the problems you mention about Arthur's editing, any comment or edit made by a block evader should be deleted. Get ONE registered account, and use it alone. Please stop posting to this page, or I will delete your comments and possibly get it protected again. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
LOL! You noticed . Good questions. To see the default settings (just make a test edit on your talk page), hit the "new section" tab, then add a title and a couple letters of content. Save it and then try to edit it while looking at the code. You'll notice that Wikipedia's default settings place spaces at each end of a heading (between the = signs), and a blank line below the heading.
That helps editors because the heading stands out visually and is easier to see for editors who are trying to quickly find the headings, or whose eyes are getting a bit old, like mine. It's a minor thing, but it really helps me when I'm editing. Scanning a page without those visual helps makes it easy for me to miss the location of a heading. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. No need to experiment, just looked at this section which I started and of course you're right. I'm lucky in that although I'm quite a bit old, my eyesight has decided to improve. Don't ask me about my teeth though! Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You cannot dilute water. Beneviste claimed was that the water was altered by having substances diluted in it. The passage in question reports his claim without endorsing it. Pelarmian (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah! I think I see your point. Yes, the common vernacular used in most RS isn't technically correct. It is of course referring to the dilution of the original substance in the water, and then repeatedly diluting that solution with a lot more water. That phrase does need improvement, so good catch! -- Brangifer (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "India Against Corruption".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Mdann52talk to me!08:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Opposition to immigration in Europe
Hello, I see you delited my edit on opposition to immigration. You can't have a source that have viewes that defies the definition of racism. You are not a racist if you don't want immigration, that is simply absurd and shouldn't be on a wikipedia page. If this so called encyclopedia is supposed to have some credibility, please stop. Olehal09 (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Olehal09, I don't see that anyone believes all opposition to immigration is rooted in racism. Of course not, so don't get defensive. Only wear the shoe if it fits. Unfortunately lots of opposition to immigration is rooted in racism, especially in right wing movements, both in the USA and Europe. Europe has whole right wing parties which are very racist and oppose immigration on those grounds, and they don't deny it. On the contrary, they boast of it! They are also often sympathetic to neo-Nazi racist ideology. That's what it's talking about, so don't delete it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Racism is the belife that some races are more worth or capable than others and that the human kind is divided into such higher and lower races. Opposition to immigration in Europe don't have such charactreistics and has more to do with wanting the land of their forfathers to belong to their children, and this is right and moraly higher than to say otherwise because their forfathers want to give it to them and it is their blood and sweat that has made it, the fear of the consequenses of immigration in national and personal manners, economics and lose of welfair trough the disruption of peace and trough crime. I am an European and have never heard any racist remarcs from parties that don't want immigration. But I do have to say that the people who are pro immigration tend to value their etnich European population less than others, and is therefore closer to having a racist ideology. Olehal09 (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm an American with home base in Scandinavia. I don't know why you think you need to teach me what racism is. I've seen it in America, Europe, and Asia, all places where I have lived. From your comments, I suspect you actually do favor some of those parties I mention, which would explain how you can accuse people, those who aren't afraid of foreigners coming to their country, of being "closer to having a racist ideology". That's a pretty weird way to turn the normal definition of racism on its head. Regardless of that, opposition to immigration has many reasons, and in some cases it is racism. Not everyone who opposes immigration is a racist, but some are. We have sources which discuss those people, so don't remove it.
In all that you've said, I don't see any discussion about your actions of removing properly sourced material. We don't do that. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't have anything to do with a few foreigners coming, but touhsands who spreads to millions. It is a difference here, and I recognice people who attack opposition to such things as racism. That some races are more worth than others and so forth. We can rather have this discussion on the article itself. Olehal09 (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take a look. I hope it's not more of his massive IDHT behavior, which I suspect is actually an inability to understand matters and see himself as others see him, which indicates a serious competence problem. Megalomania is rarely curable. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Copyright
I just want to make sure you're ok with my using your "ignorant flea" line as the headline on my user page. Feel free to delete it if you object, but I figured you'll be fine with it as fair use. Djcheburashka (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I am notifying you as you had recent contact with this user on their talk page and your discussion is what prompted me to start the ANI. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 09:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Brangifer. Thanks for your input in the past; I don't always agree with you but I respect your approach and opinion, so I'm requesting your assistance. Three new Skeptic sources have been added to the Rolfing article; all 3 of these sources only mention the word "Rolfing" once, and only in a long list of alternative medicine topics. In each case, the author is making a blanket complaint about alt-med (though the grouping is quite different in each of the sources), and there is no specific information or criticism about Rolfing provided. The Skeptic's Dictionary is already cited, which is a much better Skeptic source, offering a full page of information and several specific criticisms. I believe these three new sources should be disallowed as they don't add anything about Rolfing. I don't think this will take much of your time, just a quick glance at each source and a few minutes to share your opinion on the article's talk page. Thank you in advance!--Karinpower (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I checked the other day in connection with Glenn Beck's dubious treatment, and it seemed to be a different organization, but if they really are the same, then a merge should be done. That means tagging, discussing, and waiting. We can't place an article in the chiropractic category when the article doesn't even mention chiropractic. That angle needs to be developed first. If you can document it, then go for it. If that happens, we can include mention of Glenn Beck and the criticisms from many mainstream scientists, including of Carrick's dubious credentials. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
"Curiouser and curiouser!" cried Alice. That article has been here since 2007, written as an autobiographical puff piece, and it's about time it gets picked apart and totally revamped. Every edit at Wikipedia made by the author(s) needs to be checked and likely undone. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the "Black salve" wiki page, you need to explain how this sentence is scientific and proven:
"The effectiveness of escharotics is unproven, and much safer and more effective alternatives exist, such as radiation therapy and Mohs surgery"
This statement is self- contradictory. It is unproven how effective echarotics is, and it may be dangerous, but its never been compared to conventional cancer treatment. Even so, you will insist that its safer and more effective with radiation therapy and Mohs surgery. I would love to see your data from research on the comparison between the use of Black salve, radiation therapy and Mohs surgery.
"Radiation therapy to the brain can cause problems months or years after treatment ends. Side effects can include memory loss, problems doing math, movement problems, incontinence, trouble thinking, or personality changes. Sometimes, dead tumor cells can form a mass in the brain, which is called radiation necrosis."
Necrosis is a severe side effect, its lethal and is only one of many you can get from radiation therapy.
Surgey in and of it self can, in worst case, cause death. Even simple procedures do, on rare occasions.
Wikipedia is not a battle ground. Its an online dictionary and should be kept as such. I dont care if Black salve works or not, but I do care that unproven claims like the one you insist on having up there, gets by without having a citation to an actual study on Black salve vs conventional cancer treatment and which one is safer and/or more effective.
Our content is based on the reliable sources used. I have made several changes which hopefully improve the content in that article. You say that this is not a battleground, and yet you bring ideological accusations against proven mainstream methods, thus using Wikipedia as a battlefield for promotion of the discredited fringe POV found in alternative medicine circles and dubious websites like NaturalNews and mercola.com. No one denies that side effects exist, but skin cancers are often very deadly, so strong measures must be used, and that very quickly. Eva Cassidy is a notable victim of melanoma. Read the lead of that article, and also check out the success rates for Mohs surgery. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Review request....
Having noticed your interest in the medical field, I was hoping you would review Gabor B. Racz. It received some attention as a DYK, readily passed the criteria, so I nominated it for GA back in July. I know there is quite a backlog, and it appears medical articles tend to end up at the bottom of the heap. In the interim, I figured it probably wouldn't hurt for another set of eyeballs to give it a look-see. 11:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Oops, forgot my sig Atsme☯Consult12:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Edit Warring
Hello BullRangifer, I removed the criminal charges from the lead of Jian Ghomeshi after reading the request at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard that said too much information about the criminal charges was inserted outside its section. To me its clear that WP:BLPCRIME states that criminal charges should be dealt with extra care because of the repercussions that they can have to the subject. That is why I removed it from the lead, keeping in mind that the information is included and explained in detail in the proper section, as I explained in the talk. After that initial edit, I have only done one reversion, my last edit in the page, I also explained the reasons for why I did the reversion in the talk page. You yourself reverted me without any explanation in the talk page. That is fine, but the edit warring template is totally uncalled for, since I only did one reversion, and I did it following policy trying to improve the article, and posting the reasoning in the talk page. I will leave this issue on the hands of the big boys since I can see that there are enough experienced eyes on the matter,I could do it myself, but as a sign of good faith I ask you to remove the edit warring template from my talk page as I think it is undeserved.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, as you know, a deviation from BRD is an act of edit warring, and I wanted to stop it from continuing. Discussion is the way to determine the matter. BLP is being followed because it's all properly sourced content, and LEAD is followed because it is significant enough for short mention in the lead. I'm sure that this can all be worked out, but edit warring is not the way to do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the information should clearly be in the article, My interpretation is that it would be best to wait for conviction before including in the LEAD to address WP:BLPCRIME concerns, but I may be wrong, what I fully agree with is that the best course is discussion and consensus.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Exactly what did you find problematic about my edit to Homeopathy that led you to revert it? Was it the fact that the article I was citing said that its conclusions had to be regarded as preliminary? Or was it the way I worded my addition? Or both? Are you saying preliminary conclusions are inherently excluded from meeting WP:MEDRS? Everymorningtalk to me03:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed your edit on the acupuncture page and reverted it based on the justification you gave in the edit summary. The NCCAM is an extension of the NIH, which is clearly a MEDRS source. Their advisory council is made up of mostly M.D.'s and the types of people you would expect to populate something the NIH was involved in. Anyway, since Wikipedia only gives us a very limited space to add edit summaries in, you may have had a longer explanation that you feel better justifies your edit. If so, please feel free to revert me and explain yourself in any further detail on the acupuncture talk page. Thanks! LesVegas (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Revert of my edit
Hello, I noticed you recently reverted an edit I had made and wanted to let you know we had discussed this very topic on the talk page. It's a little disorganized in parts so you probably didn't notice the discussion. I will tell you no editors who discussed it have said what you did, that it was "not a review" and that it does not "meet MEDRS requirements." But you might have a point that we have not considered and I welcome you to make it on talk. I didn't want to restore the edit until we have heard from you fully because that's just a recipe for senseless edit warring that nobody wants. Hope to hear from you soon! Peace! LesVegas (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Pit Bull, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Onefireuser (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
"100% Pants on Fire rating" om Breitbart
Is a claim made repeatedly by Scoobydunk and Gamaliel - and I furnished the links so you can verify them. My claim that editors made that specific claim is thus 100% verified <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
It's also irrelevant to building content and a violation of TALK. You should stick to the content, which happens to be correct. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your mother tongue is, but I notice that you also erroneously believe that an untruth is the same as a lie or deliberate deception. In English they are not. Motivation makes the difference.
Those editors are referring to one particular situation where, very loosely speaking, Breitbart website got a 100% Pants on Fire rating. They aren't saying that it never gets anything right. Generally speaking (thus not about this specific incident), Breitbart.com has gotten lots of Pants on Fire ratings, which shows they have very little credibility and very poor fact checking. They have also been caught several times running very deceptive "punking", so they actually do engage in deliberate deception at times. Breitbart and James O'Keefe ran plenty of such scams and were caught several times. Be careful about believing them. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
One more thing. You need to learn to use diffs. A link to a discussion thread isn't good enough. Get the actual diff. That would help a lot. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Not just one example -- they have repeatedly said the rating was for Breitbart -- not just one issue. BTW, Politifact has also found some Breitbart claims to be "mostly true" as well -- the stress on a single story is pretty useless. Cheers. BTW, moght you show me the "lots" of POF ratings Breitbart has gotten as a source? I am from Missouri on that claim. Collect (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
A search of the Politifact website (an equal opportunity critic and totally nonpartisan) pulls up 40 statements, with their ratings. As I said, they aren't always telling falsehoods, but most of the time they are. It covers two pages, so you'll have to click to the next page. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I went through them. Note some of them simply have links in a sidebar to other articles -- you need to actually read them. Trust me - you will find only a small handful where Breitbart is in any way at issue, and some of them were rated "mostly true". In short, since Politifact generally only checks articles where questions were raised, Breitbart is pretty much as good as the DNC is. As I said - read them all, you will find almost all of the 40 you found using "search" do not relate to Breitbart at all. Collect (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
In fact the single and only finding of POF specifying Breitbart appears to be the single example given. I went through every search result <g>. [5] has Breitpart being "more trusted" than ThinkProgress, Daily Kos, Ed Schultz and BuzzFeed (which has the singular distinction of being distrusted by four times as many people as trust it). Politifact did dislike Ben Shapiro's claim that half of all Muslims are radicalized, as it found that simply saying one wants Sharia law to be in effect is not the same as being "radical". It also deemed that "applying Sharia only for Muslims" makes a person "not radical" which means the Politifact figures might be artificially low - cutting possible radical Muslims down to only 20%. I am not totally confident in either methodology, moreover. Shapiro has since written [6] which appears to be vetted. Salon [7] quotes John Tyner (I suspect of "don't touch my junk" fame) as saying " the percentage of “radical” Muslims is almost infinitesimal" which is quite likely in the POF category for Tyner. In short -- Politifact tends to look at claims they suspect are iffy - and they have not found many to investigate from Breitbart. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Fact checking isn't an all encompassing and thorough type of scientific enterprise. They deal with small and large "fires" which are brought to their attention. There are other fact checking organizations to follow as well. One should not base one's opinions on only their ratings. Many other factors come into play.
When it comes to Breitbart.com, their record of extremism and using punking to deliberately deceive people has gotten them some pretty bad press. Breitbart was the mentor for his good friend, James O'Keefe, and published O'Keefe's stuff. He has been caught several times and gotten bad press, hurting the right wing extremist cause. One of the more interesting cases involved O'Keefe's attempt to do a really nasty number on award winning CNN Investigative Correspondent Abbie Boudreau. Izzy Santa, a coworker of O'Keefe's, warned her. I exchanged emails with Izzy immediately after the incident. She had to find other work. At least she received a large payment from O'Keefe to silence her. Breitbart tried to distance himself from his connection to the planning of the incident, but not many people bought that, except his fans.
Breitbart and O'Keefe also worked closely on the nasty ACORN affair, and it cost them big money. Even though ACORN was cleared of wrongdoing, and Breitbart and O'Keefe were exposed as deceivers, the damage was done. They hurt lots of people and left underprivileged people without help by destroying an organization which was doing a lot of good. They hate poor people and anyone who tries to help them, and Obama was also doing that kind of work, which is part of the reason he is disliked by the right wing. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Breitbart was not sued in the ACORN affair -- and the NYT Public Editor specifically noted[8]: The videos were heavily edited. The sequence of some conversations was changed. Some workers seemed concerned for Giles, one advising her to get legal help. In two cities, Acorn workers called the police. But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context. Harshbarger’s report to Acorn found no “pattern of illegal conduct” by its employees. But, he told me: “They said what they said. There’s no way to make this look good.” ACORN was not "cleared of wrongdoing" - it fired all those who said the wrong things on tape. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Vulva page
I would appreciate it if you could insert the reference to The Conversation article on the hymen correctly for me, as it provides factual information which dispels some of the myths about virginity tests. Such tests, interpreted on the basis of incorrect knowledge, can have serious consequences in some parts of the world.
Mr Deskovic has just got out of a US jail after 15 years, after being imprisoned as a 17 y.o. Erroneous information about virginity testing formed a part of his trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artistry9 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
_by_Ron.jpg)
