This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Dana, the agreement with your unblock was that you not edit the article space until consensus had been reached on the talk page. You've not upheld this part of the deal. For that reason, your editing of the article space is now revoked for an undetermined period of time.
I'm also imposing the following restrictions:
Lara ❤ Love 14:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Dana, a request was placed on my talk page that's for you. Please read this. Lara ❤ Love 18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the information and the photo Dana. I haven't examined any of it yet. Perhaps when all the Wikilawyering stops (Which may be never) a stronger article will prevail. I do hope so. Thanks again : Albion moonlight ( talk) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've put up a temporary user sandbox page for the deleted bio at User:Durova/Sandbox/Harris Coulter and am requesting input from editors on both sides of the issue about improving this so it can be moved to article space. Do you know which field Harris Coulter earned his doctoral degree in? Your participation is very welcome. Durova Charge! 23:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Since we seem to all be talking past one another and the present article doesn't even discuss succussion and seems to be wholly about something other than homeopathy, and I can't make sense of it, perhaps you can suggest a new LEAD? — Whig ( talk) 01:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Because of your past editing history and main area of contributions, I'm letting you know that all articles related to homeopathy are now under article probation. Please familiarize yourself with the terms located here. I hope you'll be careful and set a good example for some of our other editors. east.718 at 09:07, February 1, 2008
I have been banned for taking that position. Anthon01 ( talk) 01:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This comment can be construed as uncivil. Please refrain from engaging in such rhetoric. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow...my apologies...I do not want to escalate drama, though I hope that people will be more careful in making statements equating homeopathy and astrology (THAT is to some people a much more seriously offensive, uncivil, and inaccurate remark). Dana Ullman Talk 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's leave arguments about ball lightning and go back to whether homeopathy should be considered as pseudoscience or not. Dana Ullman gave a ref as an authoritative criticism of a trial that showed homeopathy as no better than placebo. In the same ref the authors stated that homeopathy was outside science. From the ref, either homeopathy is pseudoscience or it doesn't work, in which case, to anybody who pays respect to evidence based medicine, it is pseudoscience. Unless a better argument is given I support calling it pseudoscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acleron ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Having read the Alternet article on this, it seems as if you did not advise people at risk not to use Cipro, but to the contrary pointed out that overuse of antibiotics carries its own risks to both individual and public health. I'm trying to understand why this is controversial at all. — Whig ( talk) 02:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I found this article which you wrote, and I think it explains your perspective very well. I think you explained it very carefully and when read in full it makes excellent sense. While this article is not about Cipro, it is clearly the same general issue, antibiotics may be vastly overprescribed and overused. — Whig ( talk) 18:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Dana, I'm going to remind you of the restriction of your edit summary usage. Do not use it for anything more than a simple, brief explanation of your edit. Examples above. If you continue to abuse this feature, you'll be limited to one word summaries.
This is not appropriate. If you want to talk to the man, send him an email. Detailing your issues with another editor on the talk page of an unrelated article is not cool. With Homeopathy-related articles on probation, it's great to see that you all have managed to find reason to war on talk pages... and by "great" I mean there are foreseeable blocks in the near future if this mess doesn't stop.
Lara
❤
Love
15:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Heads up that I (finally) responded to you on my Talk page. -- Otheus ( talk) 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, when you link to policies and guides and such ( WP:V, WP:N, and anything else in the project space), you need to include "WP:" before the shortcut. Otherwise, you end up sending people to the article for the letter of the alphabet or the disambiguation page for the acronym as used in the real world. When linking to users, you need to use "User:" before their name. Otherwise, it's just a dead link, unless they've got a famous name. Regardless, it's really not necessary to link these so much. Everyone you're discussing these things with already know them. And linking to users involved in the conversation is not necessary as their sigs provide the needed links. Lara ❤ Love 14:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have filed a complaint about your behavior on Arsenicum album at the probation noticeboard Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents. You made changes that went far beyond the changes you discussed at the talk page, but asserted in edit summaries that you discussed it on the talk page. PouponOnToast ( talk) 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Where exactly did you discuss this? PouponOnToast ( talk) 18:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I've not seen your name pop up anywhere as of late. No hate mail on my talk page or in my inbox... everything running as smoothly as it seems? Lara ❤ Love 16:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to invite you to help draft a question for the reliable sources noticeboard. I have posted my draft here and for the sake of making sure that I get the details correct, I would appreciate your review before I submit it. — Whig ( talk) 03:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Dana, the agreement with your unblock was that you not edit the article space until consensus had been reached on the talk page. You've not upheld this part of the deal. For that reason, your editing of the article space is now revoked for an undetermined period of time.
I'm also imposing the following restrictions:
Lara ❤ Love 14:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Dana, a request was placed on my talk page that's for you. Please read this. Lara ❤ Love 18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the information and the photo Dana. I haven't examined any of it yet. Perhaps when all the Wikilawyering stops (Which may be never) a stronger article will prevail. I do hope so. Thanks again : Albion moonlight ( talk) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've put up a temporary user sandbox page for the deleted bio at User:Durova/Sandbox/Harris Coulter and am requesting input from editors on both sides of the issue about improving this so it can be moved to article space. Do you know which field Harris Coulter earned his doctoral degree in? Your participation is very welcome. Durova Charge! 23:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Since we seem to all be talking past one another and the present article doesn't even discuss succussion and seems to be wholly about something other than homeopathy, and I can't make sense of it, perhaps you can suggest a new LEAD? — Whig ( talk) 01:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Because of your past editing history and main area of contributions, I'm letting you know that all articles related to homeopathy are now under article probation. Please familiarize yourself with the terms located here. I hope you'll be careful and set a good example for some of our other editors. east.718 at 09:07, February 1, 2008
I have been banned for taking that position. Anthon01 ( talk) 01:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This comment can be construed as uncivil. Please refrain from engaging in such rhetoric. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow...my apologies...I do not want to escalate drama, though I hope that people will be more careful in making statements equating homeopathy and astrology (THAT is to some people a much more seriously offensive, uncivil, and inaccurate remark). Dana Ullman Talk 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's leave arguments about ball lightning and go back to whether homeopathy should be considered as pseudoscience or not. Dana Ullman gave a ref as an authoritative criticism of a trial that showed homeopathy as no better than placebo. In the same ref the authors stated that homeopathy was outside science. From the ref, either homeopathy is pseudoscience or it doesn't work, in which case, to anybody who pays respect to evidence based medicine, it is pseudoscience. Unless a better argument is given I support calling it pseudoscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acleron ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Having read the Alternet article on this, it seems as if you did not advise people at risk not to use Cipro, but to the contrary pointed out that overuse of antibiotics carries its own risks to both individual and public health. I'm trying to understand why this is controversial at all. — Whig ( talk) 02:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I found this article which you wrote, and I think it explains your perspective very well. I think you explained it very carefully and when read in full it makes excellent sense. While this article is not about Cipro, it is clearly the same general issue, antibiotics may be vastly overprescribed and overused. — Whig ( talk) 18:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Dana, I'm going to remind you of the restriction of your edit summary usage. Do not use it for anything more than a simple, brief explanation of your edit. Examples above. If you continue to abuse this feature, you'll be limited to one word summaries.
This is not appropriate. If you want to talk to the man, send him an email. Detailing your issues with another editor on the talk page of an unrelated article is not cool. With Homeopathy-related articles on probation, it's great to see that you all have managed to find reason to war on talk pages... and by "great" I mean there are foreseeable blocks in the near future if this mess doesn't stop.
Lara
❤
Love
15:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Heads up that I (finally) responded to you on my Talk page. -- Otheus ( talk) 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, when you link to policies and guides and such ( WP:V, WP:N, and anything else in the project space), you need to include "WP:" before the shortcut. Otherwise, you end up sending people to the article for the letter of the alphabet or the disambiguation page for the acronym as used in the real world. When linking to users, you need to use "User:" before their name. Otherwise, it's just a dead link, unless they've got a famous name. Regardless, it's really not necessary to link these so much. Everyone you're discussing these things with already know them. And linking to users involved in the conversation is not necessary as their sigs provide the needed links. Lara ❤ Love 14:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have filed a complaint about your behavior on Arsenicum album at the probation noticeboard Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents. You made changes that went far beyond the changes you discussed at the talk page, but asserted in edit summaries that you discussed it on the talk page. PouponOnToast ( talk) 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Where exactly did you discuss this? PouponOnToast ( talk) 18:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I've not seen your name pop up anywhere as of late. No hate mail on my talk page or in my inbox... everything running as smoothly as it seems? Lara ❤ Love 16:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to invite you to help draft a question for the reliable sources noticeboard. I have posted my draft here and for the sake of making sure that I get the details correct, I would appreciate your review before I submit it. — Whig ( talk) 03:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)