This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 18 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||
Happy New Year BullRangifer!BullRangifer, Send New Year cheer by adding {{
subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
Hi BR. You recently reverted my revert of an IP's re-add of a load of material on Pearlasia. That was a mouthful. Basically, the Pearlasia article was created by someone who's been using WP to promote himself and to attack this woman, with whom he's having legal troubles. I'd reviewed the Pearlasia article and trimmed a lot of material that was (a) not relevant or (b) not sourced. His latest IP added it back, so I reverted. Compare my version here with the version you reverted to. So I've reverted. Happy to go into further detail on the Talk page if you'd like. Bromley86 ( talk) 17:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
This was nothing to do with OTRS. Just thought I'd let you know that I was acting in my own personal capacity here. I could not really find a link, but following off-wiki discussion, there appears to be a bit more of a link between him and the organisation. Please stop assuming this is in response to OTRS, especially following my post on the talk page saying OTRS's involvement with this ended with the posting of the draft - it's up to them if they wish to engage with further dialogue now. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 13:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:G. Edward GriffinHello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Closure ReviewThis message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Please take the closure review to WP:AN. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Baby hatersActually, I went a bit over the top there, especially about hating babies, but yes, I'm thinking about a response comparing Ayurveda to astrology. Both are ancient and now considered PS. This topic just makes my blood boil, with not only the fringe POV pushing, but the nationalist crap as well, so I gotta cool down a bit. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 20:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Information for Autism Research InstituteHello, I saw that you had begun work on the Autism Research Institute article, reworking information there to pertain to the organization rather than to its defunct initiative, DAN! As I've disclosed on that article's talk page, I work for ARI and I'd like to help editors such as yourself add more material to explain what ARI is and does. Knowing that it is not best for me to make any edits myself, I've provided a few pieces of information at Talk:Autism Research Institute about ARI that could be added, along with links to third-party references for them. Would you be able to look and see if any are appropriate to add? Thank you, Difulton ( talk) 19:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
SBDHi BullRangifer, I don't think we've ever crossed paths before, but I've been working around a WP:MEDICINE topic in recent months, and your " importance of collaborative editing" essay caught my attention—as a matter of fact, I spent several weeks last year involved in a discussion where I don't think this was followed at all. Quick background: the article was South Beach Diet, and early last year I agreed to work as a consultant to the company responsible for the brand to fix what was then a terrible article. I care a lot about following WP:COI responsibly, so I have limited myself to the Talk page only. Unfortunately, only a few editors got involved, and the most active editor seemed determined to make the page as unfavorable to the diet as possible. It became so frustrating that I stepped away from the issue in late 2014. However, I remain concerned that the article is very POV, with negatives cherry-picked from sources that are overall far more balanced, and I'm struggling to determine what to do next. I left a last round of suggestions when I withdrew from the conversation; if you'd be willing to take a look and offer your opinion, to me or on that page, I'd be most grateful. Best, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 19:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requestedThe Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America: Imagine the World Without Her". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2015. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. Please comment on Talk:Creation–evolution controversyHello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Creation–evolution controversy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Lead improvement - new WikiProjectHi Brangifer, I looked at your essay on leads and wondered if you would be interested in WP:WikiProject Lede Improvement Team, currently being formed. I like your idea of clickable references and would like to see it adopted more widely : Noyster (talk), 11:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Request for mediation rejectedThe request for formal mediation concerning America: Imagine the World Without Her, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Sears postI was with you until the last paragraph. Probably not helpful with keeping things focused on content and emphasizing NPOV. -- NeilN talk to me 04:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
AC/DS - BLPPlease carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri ( talk • contribs) 06:29, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
The AC/DS templates are not an indication of wrong doing, but you are now aware of the fact that they are in existence. Cheers. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 07:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this. Yup. -- NeilN talk to me 19:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI: User_talk:FloNight#Robert_Sears_.28physician.29 -- NeilN talk to me 19:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Your talk comments to the subject of an articleHello BullRangifer, I suggest that you re-read the entire Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy which discussed that BLP need to be written in conservative manner. While, it can be appropriate to have criticism in an article, when that is all the article is, then something is wrong. I've copied below the talk page comments that you left for a subject of article. In several ways the comments are rude and not conducive to having a friendly working relationship with the subject of an article. The subjects of articles need to be approached with kindness, and not given lectures based on your own opinion of their work. The subject of the article should be encouraged to discuss the problems that they see with the article. They are often the best people to point out errors, suggest reliable sources, and release images with a free licence for use on Wikipedia and Commons. Most subjects of an article are newbies when they edit their own article, so should be approached with offers of assistance rather than given harshly worded warning that threaten blocks, or appears to discourage their participation. The Robert Sears (physician) article is under two Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, BLP and Complementary and Alternative Medicine. I strongly encourage you to read the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors. And if you are too emotionally invested in this topic area to follow the guidelines, as seems to be the case from the comments you made to the subject, then I suggest that you refrain from editing the article and engaging the communication with the subject of the article. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 19:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I will admit that my comment was a bit bitey, but other admins seemed to find them good instruction, except for a sentence which I redacted (and which the subject will likely never read. Since they claim to be religious, I was appealing to their religious conscience, but that was a bit much.) I'll be more careful in my communication with them in the future. You hold and defend a fringe position in this matter, as well as a rather unique and controversial interpretation of BLP, so you too should be careful and not be so intimidating. As an admin you should not throw your weight around in defense of fringe positions and odd interpretations of BLP. There are many actors on both sides, so don't pick on one side. We're all discussing things and that's how it should be. Let's just keep it civil and we can all learn. That doesn't mean it will always be pleasant, but we're all adults here. -- Brangifer ( talk) 19:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
DTsRangi I have no personal issue with you at all - I am strict in the BLP matter, but I have loose ties to the WMF through the Wikipedia Library and I've not submitted my identity and oppose it because I got an e-mail which arrived to my true-email after an enwiki dispute. And to be clear - last time things got heated I got the threat - not by anyone here in this matter, but it was for defending a controversial figure whom I personally disagreed with. I'll sometimes get nods to the Sopranos, but an e-mail containing your identity is a sickening blow. To be clear - I don't know about vaccines, it is not my job - but I've disagreed with many a person over principals and find allies in all sufficiently long conversations. I do not agree with Sears' stance, but I don't jump on bandwagons. I've met everyone from US Senators to magicians and tried to deal with issues they've raised, I strive for balance in all things. I reacted to the issues because there was a problem and while it may not be a popular - the nature was good and I prefer slowness and moderation over piling criticism up. Though I'm serious, I'm out of the article before I wind up on Stormfront. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 21:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
SorrySorry for calling you out so quickly at Talk:Breastfeeding. I was prepared to meet resistance, and instead of clarifying or actually looking at what you first reverted I reacted rashly. I hope you understand what the issues are with the article, and that we can work together to improve it. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 23:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:AutismHello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Autism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC) RatelAs an affected user you should note In all fairness: Indef block appeal for Ratel -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 06:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Lock Request (by blocked User:Janagewen)Just because User:Barras blocked all my IP segments on meta, so I could not request lock there. I request lock for all my IP addresses for the following reasons: 1. I could not help myself helping improve Wikipedia articles, whether you could understand or not, I have no ideas. 2. People here, such as User:Antigng and User:Claw of Slime make me feel sick always with Wikipedia.org. 3. Block could not prevent me from reading Wikipedia.org articles, only lock could make it possible, so I request lock! This is Janagewen, without needing hide or anything else. 221.9.24.116 ( talk) 12:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI SPI openedSince you've recently engaged in conversation with an IP, I'm providing an FYI that I have filed an SPI complaint. Please comment here, if you wish NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettesHello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC) ComplaintThis is an official complaint against this editor. I do not feel comfortable with the way he wrote to me just now and would ask him to refrain from further communications with me. This is not an open invitation for other editors to harass me either, thank you for your understanding. Friendlymilk ( talk) 22:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
MarketerHey Bull this user appears to be a marketer User:Solutions 2015. The pages she links to appear to be written by her at her PR firm. Have indeffed. Ping me if you find people "fixing" dead links and replacing with spam. We are now blocking on first infraction. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Unsimulated sex pageHi B, I realize now that the deletion you may have been referring to was probably the removal of the 'failed verification' tag on Pasolini. Contrary to the tag, the review does indeed refer to unsimulated sex in the film, so I removed it. I should have noted that. If you were referring to my removal of the Journal of Lady M film, that was explained on the talk page first. ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 19:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:BitcoinHello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Fox News BiasHi BullRangifer, I notice you reverted my edit to the Fox News page, and with legitimate cause. But to explain, I originally changed the Fox News heading to "Alleged Conservative Bias" after looking at the MSNBC page, which said "Alleged Liberal Bias." Not to be too nit-picky, but both networks admit to bias. I just think that the option I suggested is a little more descriptive than just "objectivity and bias" because it describes the nature of that bias. And I always like to have consistency between related subjects, especially when stuff like NPOV is in question. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq ( talk) 04:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Do you have something to say about this... ? Perhaps you could elaborate on why "alleged conservative bias" is not an appropriate section header for Fox News when "alleged liberal bias" is perfectly fine for MSNBC. I'd love to hear a response of some sort... Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq ( talk) 03:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
War on WomenBullRangifer, Your recently reverted my edit to the article, " War on Women." Please explain to me how the politifact critique of some obscure website belongs in the context of an article on the war on women. The blurb I deleted doesn't actually fit in with any themes discussed in the article and it makes no sense to include it. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq ( talk) 03:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq ( talk) 07:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:SyngentaThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syngenta. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Extraordinary wiki suppression mechanismsDiscussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Guideline_or_Policy_proposals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.82.216 ( talk) 14:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Here are my thoughts on the matter of suppressing information found in RS which might endanger the lives, in this case, of terrorist captives. There is a hatted the discussion on Jimbo's talk page. Note that I haven't followed this matter closely, and I haven't even read that thread...yet, because I want to develop some of my thoughts without any influence from such discussions. My thoughts have to do with the concept of "risk/degree of harm" and how notability/publicity is a big factor. I leave open as a legitimate possibility that, to cause less harm, we sometimes may need to (temporarily) ignore RS and suppress the information here. We are not obligated to immediately use any or all RS which exist, only to use them when we finally do write about a subject. If we choose to temporarily ignore a subject, then we can keep the RS on our own PCs at home. The issue is that most RS related to current events are of a temporary, less notable, nature. They are newspaper and magazine articles. Print media are already gone tomorrow, but on the internet they may remain visible for a short while, and then are archived, often behind a paywall, so many of them do disappear, but not all of them. Those forms of RS coverage have limited notability and thus a limited potential for causing harm. If we accept that Wikipedia likely has the largest degree of notability on the internet, and that by enshrining these otherwise temporary RS into very notable and high profile articles here, we are greatly increasing the degree of risk/harm, then we are justified in temporarily suppressing coverage of a story which can increase the risk of great harm to individuals. Wikipedia magnifies and amplifies the influence of RS, and we share the responsibility for consequences. Our articles can increase the likelihood of individuals being used as hostages, or being moved to the front of the line of hostages to next be executed. Their notability and value to kidnappers and terrorists was greatly increased by Wikipedia, and we actually facilitated and hastened their demise! It's a rather sobering thought, and should cause us to take our job seriously. We must consider BLP issues and potential for harm each time we are dealing with such matters. These principles need to be encoded into policy, likely as an addition to WP:BLP. It needs to be explicit, and not hidden away. For the record, avoiding harm was rejected, including as part of BLP. It's now just an essay. -- Brangifer ( talk) 15:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Relevant links:
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Hi BullRangifer, I believe we have not met, but we have both had significant interactions with Blades, and so I noticed your posts on his talk. While you're right that it reflects poorly on him when he deletes it, I believe he is within policy when doing so; [2], and it isn't worth your while to get involved. John is likely to see it, and if you are concerned he might miss it, post on his page. Regards, Vanamonde93 ( talk) 07:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep The Signpost: 18 March 2015Great coverage in the Signpost: RemovedBullRangifer, this kind of remark could really get you in trouble, please don't mention stuff like that. I've removed it. In this case there wasn't even any call for it — the age thing is plenty. Bishonen | talk 22:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC). ANI NotificationThere is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nakon 05:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC) requesting essay inputI started the page User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet to basically deal with editors who are a bit beyond being simple POV pushers but don't necessarily have a monetary COI. Basically, to include the real fanatics and evangelists out there. I figured you probably know a few from the field of pseudoscience as well. Feel free to make any copy-editing (which I'm pretty sure it needs) or any additions you think reasonable. John Carter ( talk) 18:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Discretionary sanctions notification - CAMThis message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.ThanksJust wanted to say thanks for what you said over at the IP user's page. This person now appears to be socking and hasn't learned his/her lesson. Tsk tsk tsk. TylerDurden8823 16:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Stay off my User TalkI've had enough of your hounding (following my edits), harassment (attempts to defame), and baiting (modifying/subverting my Talk page post). Quit hounding me, quit baiting me, and from here on out stay off my User Talk. IHTS ( talk) 16:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Your commentsHi BullRangifer! I noticed your comments at the noticeboard, and was surprised by them. I have only had a few interactions with you, but you have always struck me as a smart and reasonable person and much more ethical than most other editors I may disagree with from time to time. So anywho, I thought I would reach out to you away from the heated discussion at ANI. From what I had observed on talk pages, DrChrissy was expressing his frustration with several sources being excluded, came to conclusions about them, and was threatened with a topic ban. It seemed uncivil to me for Guy and Kww to behave like that, instead of engage in a normal dialogue. Both Guy and Kww are better than that. I don't know Guy, but he seems like he is above that. And Kww is a good editor too, but just seems to have been slipping up lately. I mentioned that others supported the sources DrChrissy is accused of incompetently evaluating, and I didn't mention the racism accusations, but probably should have because DrChrissy caught me incorrectly saying he accused others of this as well. I apologize if I did not make that apparent in my comment or if there was anything else I left out. You said I was IDHT'ing, and I really do abhore that behavior since I go through it with QuackGuru regularly. Would you mind specifically telling me what I'm not hearing? Seriously, shoot. I really do value your opinion. LesVegas ( talk) 19:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Charlotte's Web (cannabis)Hey BullRangifer. I realize that I have extensively rearranged this article you worked fairly extensively on. I hope you view the changes as a positive. Lots of excellent sources were present in the article, they just needed slightly greater prominence IMO. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
COI issuesHi BullRangifer. I don't know if you are aware that I do a lot of work on COI issues in Wikipedia. I wasn't aware of the arbcom case regarding Quackwatch that you were involved with nor the relationships disclosed in that case. That was several years ago, for sure. Arbcom, which doesn't deal a lot with COI issues but rather behavioral issues, warned you to beware of advocacy in your Wikipedia editing, which is the behavioral manifestation of both COI and, well, real-world advocacy. Clearly you had a close association with QW back then and I don't know what your current relationship is. I would encourage you to consider a) making a disclosure of past/current relationships with QW and related sites on your User page, and including a link to it in your signature (like user:Formerly 98 does; and b) depending on whether there is currently a COI, avoiding directly editing content related to QW but instead making edit requests on Talk. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on potential COI you may have, and how you have managed it. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 12:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
RE:Why?I redacted it because I saw that the admin that logged it had placed a message in regards to it two seconds before. I did repost a modified version back there. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 07:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Conversion therapyThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Conversion therapy. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Problematic articlesThese articles have issues of various types: their notability, promotional tone, use of primary, inhouse, sources and unreliable sources, and strong medical claims in Wikipedia's voice (not just documentation that such claims are made):
BullRangifer ( talk) 02:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
OrOn the all-encompassing alt-med definition: Agreed that FloraWilde's is very good, but it's logical that we need "or" and not "and" punctuating the various definitions, no? Salud! Middle 8 ( t • c | privacy • COI) 07:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It feels a little strange to be arguing about the finer points of a fictional and mythological concept, but I suppose that even silly concepts should be represented accurately on Wikipedia. Mindscape seems to deal with a telepath reading memories, and it specifically uses the idea of a telepath reading false memories as a plot device. Assuming that Mindscape is tangentially related enough to be in the “see also” section, I still don’t see why you think that it helps the reader understand remote viewing. Remote Viewing is a kind of long range clairvoyance. If anything Scrying seems a bit more relevant. Or is there something I’m missing? 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 14:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you didn't label my edits as vandalism.It's extremely rude and uncivil to label good faith edits to an article as vandalism, so perhaps you would consider taking back your edit summary labelling my edits as vandalism? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 12:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Chess and TheMesquito, I don't know why you are concerning yourselves with something which doesn't affect you in the least, but I'll explain. I agree that generally it's a bad idea to ban other editors from one's talk page, and that editors do not completely own their talk pages. If you had any understanding of the horrible conditions which can drive me to actually ban any editor from my talk page, you wouldn't be questioning why I did it in this case. It takes extreme harassment, personal attacks, or disruption to do that. You're welcome to study the history of my interactions with said editor to find whatever was relevant in this case. I have possibly banned a couple others in all the years I've been here. Ravensfire is correct. The reason IPs haven't had access for a while is simply that certain disruptive editors used IPs to keep on with their attacks after being blocked, and I don't suffer fools or block evaders lightly. IP editors have a right to edit, but don't have nearly as many rights as registered users in many other ways. One cannot fully function here as an IP. Most IP editors make good edits, but most vandals are IP editors, and that creates a conundrum and problem for all those good IP editors. That's too bad, especially since there is no good reason to not create an account, and lots of reasons why it's a bad idea to edit as an IP. Like so many others, I edited as an IP in the beginning, but when I got serious, I registered an account. I've actually been here since about 2003. I work fine with IP editors all the time, unless they create problems. In that case they are treated like any other editor who creates problems. The semi-protection actually expired on May 26, 2015, but I forgot to remove the instructions, so I'll do that now. If you study the history of my talk page, you'll discover that I archive all relevant content, including the most nasty and embarrassing things. I don't hide my actions or those of others. It's all in my archives. The only things I don't archive are bot notices. I don't trust editors who constantly delete content (without archiving) and revise their talk pages to make themselves look good, and I don't do it myself. Try to AGF. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:AyurvedaThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ayurveda. Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Introducing the new WikiProject Cannabis!Greetings! I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Cannabis! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 559 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in the subject of cannabis.
Hope to see you join! Harej ( talk) 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Blatant deletion of comments by editors with the intention of keeping this a protected article and enforcing a non-neutral POVHi BullRangifer, Just want and honest and direct answer over why my comments regarding the editor Uncle Milty have been all removed? He has clearly shown a lack of regard for the facts out there regarding the massive news coverage over the recent Planned Parenthood situation. I want to emphasize massive here. I have checked through all the recent edits and I can clearly see him targeting and mocking me, including making fun of me being "new". On top of it all we have decided to silence all the voices that wish to present even the most fair and balance criticism behind Planned Parenthood right now. The fact is that as of now nobody can go and read the Wikipedia article concerning Planned Parenthood and have all the recent facts and findings, as preliminary as they can be. And sure, WP is not news BUT this case has been covered in basically ALL the major news outlets for close to five days and Wikipedia is still embattled in "finding consensus" while protecting the page. I am going to quote here, just so it remains to be seen, what Uncle Milty has been removing constantly and to see if this is some sort of "personal attack" or anything violating WP's rules, which I humbly believe it is not. Suffice to say I don't know said editor but the history of the Planned Parenthood Talk Page shows he has targeted my talks by deleting them without posting why. Thanks for your time, Quote: "== Blatant deletion of comments by editors with the intention of keeping this a protected article and enforcing a non-neutral POV == Dear all, Uncle Milty has deleted, edited and even mocked several of my posts here. He has not even referenced why he has done that and I have been forced to undo these edits in order to have at least one comment here. Let's remember the Principles of Wikipedia [5] and if you look at this editors history, within this article and others referenced in his talk page, you can clearly see that he is violating the 2dt, 3rd and 7th Principles. I am quoting the last comment I had that he deleted, in what seems to be an attempt to keep this article protected even though every major and most of the minor, yet oft-used-as-sources news outlets have referred to recently. The facts are that several members of Congress in the US and several prominent researchers have been quoted over this issue, such as bioethicist Art Caplan of New York University [6] and Wikipedia has chosen to "protect" this page. This clearly does not happen when it comes to far more controversial current event topics (whether religious or political in nature) yet it seems there are dedicated editors out there who have and agenda to push. Tolerance includes allowing the other parties to speak as well. "Hi Uncle Milty. Thanks for deleting my previous comments and not even making a reference to them. If you believe that my IP is not enough for keeping track of what changes I perform, I'd like to remind you that the spirit of Wikipedia includes freedom from any hierarchy or cabal where people like you, sword in hand, go and edit enough to make things go their way. Apparently, tolerance is not part of your ethos. I am surprised that you, being part of the "Wikipedia is not censored." userbox prefer to protect this article from the topic that Google News measures as more than 100 outlets writing about, up to and including the name of Dr. Nucatola." 200.42.237.185 ( talk) 18:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)"
CIVILHi BullRangifer, just a friendly reminder "In light of your hypocrisy" to another editor may be a CIVIL issue. It looks like a lot of IP users are being canvassed into the article talk page, and if they are warned about CIVIL then experienced editors should be too. Thanks for your contributions, your decade of editing and extensive work. -- Callinus ( talk) 04:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Infectious medicineThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Infectious medicine. Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC) sting termBullRangifer, the following is on Sting operation:
Which part of the lead section describes sting operations out of law enforcement settings?
Car jacking, computer hacking, underage alcohol, drug trafficking, child molesting, terrorism, illegal prostitution, murder, animal cruelty - which of these is not illegal? Which of these is not related to law enforcement? No part of the article has a section header about non-law enforcement operations. MOS:QUOTE says "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." If media use the term "sting operation" then that may not guarantee that they intend for the reader to use the term in the way that the wiki article Sting operation uses it. If a user clicks the link then the first image they will see is an armed police officer and the first three words they will read is "In law enforcement" - the imputation that Sting operation is related to law enforcement is obvious, it's in the first three words - arguing against this seems disingenuous. -- Callinus ( talk) 06:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
helloThat article isn't created by me , its created by someone else , i just made few changes such as put my cast , website name , reference , album name and picture its allowed here or not ? and how would you fix this article for me ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj1kamal ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The title mistakeHello, sorry for messing up the title, mistook it by part of editorial POV in a sentence, not in a link when I read the text to be edited.My wrong! Had problem formatting link and got confused, Geez, my apologies, no way I would edit original title if not by mistaken it for a non quote. Thanks for speedy revert! Bialosz ( talk) 18:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hiis this possible can i revert back my article to 28 july ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj1kamal ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Please do not blanket undo to change one wordCould you please restore the rest of my copy-editing to Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. It appears you objected to "edited" vs "highly-edited" [7] but reverted a lot of basic copy editing in the process. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 04:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
WhoopsRegarding this edit, I wasn't sure how that got into the reference section. I think it belongs somewhere else in the article. I didn't try to sneakily delete it. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 19:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (software)The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (software). Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC) |
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 18 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||
Happy New Year BullRangifer!BullRangifer, Send New Year cheer by adding {{
subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
Hi BR. You recently reverted my revert of an IP's re-add of a load of material on Pearlasia. That was a mouthful. Basically, the Pearlasia article was created by someone who's been using WP to promote himself and to attack this woman, with whom he's having legal troubles. I'd reviewed the Pearlasia article and trimmed a lot of material that was (a) not relevant or (b) not sourced. His latest IP added it back, so I reverted. Compare my version here with the version you reverted to. So I've reverted. Happy to go into further detail on the Talk page if you'd like. Bromley86 ( talk) 17:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
This was nothing to do with OTRS. Just thought I'd let you know that I was acting in my own personal capacity here. I could not really find a link, but following off-wiki discussion, there appears to be a bit more of a link between him and the organisation. Please stop assuming this is in response to OTRS, especially following my post on the talk page saying OTRS's involvement with this ended with the posting of the draft - it's up to them if they wish to engage with further dialogue now. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 13:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:G. Edward GriffinHello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Closure ReviewThis message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Please take the closure review to WP:AN. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Baby hatersActually, I went a bit over the top there, especially about hating babies, but yes, I'm thinking about a response comparing Ayurveda to astrology. Both are ancient and now considered PS. This topic just makes my blood boil, with not only the fringe POV pushing, but the nationalist crap as well, so I gotta cool down a bit. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 20:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Information for Autism Research InstituteHello, I saw that you had begun work on the Autism Research Institute article, reworking information there to pertain to the organization rather than to its defunct initiative, DAN! As I've disclosed on that article's talk page, I work for ARI and I'd like to help editors such as yourself add more material to explain what ARI is and does. Knowing that it is not best for me to make any edits myself, I've provided a few pieces of information at Talk:Autism Research Institute about ARI that could be added, along with links to third-party references for them. Would you be able to look and see if any are appropriate to add? Thank you, Difulton ( talk) 19:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
SBDHi BullRangifer, I don't think we've ever crossed paths before, but I've been working around a WP:MEDICINE topic in recent months, and your " importance of collaborative editing" essay caught my attention—as a matter of fact, I spent several weeks last year involved in a discussion where I don't think this was followed at all. Quick background: the article was South Beach Diet, and early last year I agreed to work as a consultant to the company responsible for the brand to fix what was then a terrible article. I care a lot about following WP:COI responsibly, so I have limited myself to the Talk page only. Unfortunately, only a few editors got involved, and the most active editor seemed determined to make the page as unfavorable to the diet as possible. It became so frustrating that I stepped away from the issue in late 2014. However, I remain concerned that the article is very POV, with negatives cherry-picked from sources that are overall far more balanced, and I'm struggling to determine what to do next. I left a last round of suggestions when I withdrew from the conversation; if you'd be willing to take a look and offer your opinion, to me or on that page, I'd be most grateful. Best, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 19:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requestedThe Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America: Imagine the World Without Her". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2015. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. Please comment on Talk:Creation–evolution controversyHello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Creation–evolution controversy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Lead improvement - new WikiProjectHi Brangifer, I looked at your essay on leads and wondered if you would be interested in WP:WikiProject Lede Improvement Team, currently being formed. I like your idea of clickable references and would like to see it adopted more widely : Noyster (talk), 11:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Request for mediation rejectedThe request for formal mediation concerning America: Imagine the World Without Her, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Sears postI was with you until the last paragraph. Probably not helpful with keeping things focused on content and emphasizing NPOV. -- NeilN talk to me 04:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
AC/DS - BLPPlease carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri ( talk • contribs) 06:29, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
The AC/DS templates are not an indication of wrong doing, but you are now aware of the fact that they are in existence. Cheers. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 07:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this. Yup. -- NeilN talk to me 19:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI: User_talk:FloNight#Robert_Sears_.28physician.29 -- NeilN talk to me 19:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Your talk comments to the subject of an articleHello BullRangifer, I suggest that you re-read the entire Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy which discussed that BLP need to be written in conservative manner. While, it can be appropriate to have criticism in an article, when that is all the article is, then something is wrong. I've copied below the talk page comments that you left for a subject of article. In several ways the comments are rude and not conducive to having a friendly working relationship with the subject of an article. The subjects of articles need to be approached with kindness, and not given lectures based on your own opinion of their work. The subject of the article should be encouraged to discuss the problems that they see with the article. They are often the best people to point out errors, suggest reliable sources, and release images with a free licence for use on Wikipedia and Commons. Most subjects of an article are newbies when they edit their own article, so should be approached with offers of assistance rather than given harshly worded warning that threaten blocks, or appears to discourage their participation. The Robert Sears (physician) article is under two Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, BLP and Complementary and Alternative Medicine. I strongly encourage you to read the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors. And if you are too emotionally invested in this topic area to follow the guidelines, as seems to be the case from the comments you made to the subject, then I suggest that you refrain from editing the article and engaging the communication with the subject of the article. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 19:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I will admit that my comment was a bit bitey, but other admins seemed to find them good instruction, except for a sentence which I redacted (and which the subject will likely never read. Since they claim to be religious, I was appealing to their religious conscience, but that was a bit much.) I'll be more careful in my communication with them in the future. You hold and defend a fringe position in this matter, as well as a rather unique and controversial interpretation of BLP, so you too should be careful and not be so intimidating. As an admin you should not throw your weight around in defense of fringe positions and odd interpretations of BLP. There are many actors on both sides, so don't pick on one side. We're all discussing things and that's how it should be. Let's just keep it civil and we can all learn. That doesn't mean it will always be pleasant, but we're all adults here. -- Brangifer ( talk) 19:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
DTsRangi I have no personal issue with you at all - I am strict in the BLP matter, but I have loose ties to the WMF through the Wikipedia Library and I've not submitted my identity and oppose it because I got an e-mail which arrived to my true-email after an enwiki dispute. And to be clear - last time things got heated I got the threat - not by anyone here in this matter, but it was for defending a controversial figure whom I personally disagreed with. I'll sometimes get nods to the Sopranos, but an e-mail containing your identity is a sickening blow. To be clear - I don't know about vaccines, it is not my job - but I've disagreed with many a person over principals and find allies in all sufficiently long conversations. I do not agree with Sears' stance, but I don't jump on bandwagons. I've met everyone from US Senators to magicians and tried to deal with issues they've raised, I strive for balance in all things. I reacted to the issues because there was a problem and while it may not be a popular - the nature was good and I prefer slowness and moderation over piling criticism up. Though I'm serious, I'm out of the article before I wind up on Stormfront. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 21:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
SorrySorry for calling you out so quickly at Talk:Breastfeeding. I was prepared to meet resistance, and instead of clarifying or actually looking at what you first reverted I reacted rashly. I hope you understand what the issues are with the article, and that we can work together to improve it. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 23:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:AutismHello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Autism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC) RatelAs an affected user you should note In all fairness: Indef block appeal for Ratel -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 06:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Lock Request (by blocked User:Janagewen)Just because User:Barras blocked all my IP segments on meta, so I could not request lock there. I request lock for all my IP addresses for the following reasons: 1. I could not help myself helping improve Wikipedia articles, whether you could understand or not, I have no ideas. 2. People here, such as User:Antigng and User:Claw of Slime make me feel sick always with Wikipedia.org. 3. Block could not prevent me from reading Wikipedia.org articles, only lock could make it possible, so I request lock! This is Janagewen, without needing hide or anything else. 221.9.24.116 ( talk) 12:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI SPI openedSince you've recently engaged in conversation with an IP, I'm providing an FYI that I have filed an SPI complaint. Please comment here, if you wish NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettesHello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC) ComplaintThis is an official complaint against this editor. I do not feel comfortable with the way he wrote to me just now and would ask him to refrain from further communications with me. This is not an open invitation for other editors to harass me either, thank you for your understanding. Friendlymilk ( talk) 22:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
MarketerHey Bull this user appears to be a marketer User:Solutions 2015. The pages she links to appear to be written by her at her PR firm. Have indeffed. Ping me if you find people "fixing" dead links and replacing with spam. We are now blocking on first infraction. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Unsimulated sex pageHi B, I realize now that the deletion you may have been referring to was probably the removal of the 'failed verification' tag on Pasolini. Contrary to the tag, the review does indeed refer to unsimulated sex in the film, so I removed it. I should have noted that. If you were referring to my removal of the Journal of Lady M film, that was explained on the talk page first. ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 19:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:BitcoinHello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Fox News BiasHi BullRangifer, I notice you reverted my edit to the Fox News page, and with legitimate cause. But to explain, I originally changed the Fox News heading to "Alleged Conservative Bias" after looking at the MSNBC page, which said "Alleged Liberal Bias." Not to be too nit-picky, but both networks admit to bias. I just think that the option I suggested is a little more descriptive than just "objectivity and bias" because it describes the nature of that bias. And I always like to have consistency between related subjects, especially when stuff like NPOV is in question. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq ( talk) 04:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Do you have something to say about this... ? Perhaps you could elaborate on why "alleged conservative bias" is not an appropriate section header for Fox News when "alleged liberal bias" is perfectly fine for MSNBC. I'd love to hear a response of some sort... Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq ( talk) 03:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
War on WomenBullRangifer, Your recently reverted my edit to the article, " War on Women." Please explain to me how the politifact critique of some obscure website belongs in the context of an article on the war on women. The blurb I deleted doesn't actually fit in with any themes discussed in the article and it makes no sense to include it. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq ( talk) 03:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq ( talk) 07:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:SyngentaThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syngenta. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Extraordinary wiki suppression mechanismsDiscussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Guideline_or_Policy_proposals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.82.216 ( talk) 14:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Here are my thoughts on the matter of suppressing information found in RS which might endanger the lives, in this case, of terrorist captives. There is a hatted the discussion on Jimbo's talk page. Note that I haven't followed this matter closely, and I haven't even read that thread...yet, because I want to develop some of my thoughts without any influence from such discussions. My thoughts have to do with the concept of "risk/degree of harm" and how notability/publicity is a big factor. I leave open as a legitimate possibility that, to cause less harm, we sometimes may need to (temporarily) ignore RS and suppress the information here. We are not obligated to immediately use any or all RS which exist, only to use them when we finally do write about a subject. If we choose to temporarily ignore a subject, then we can keep the RS on our own PCs at home. The issue is that most RS related to current events are of a temporary, less notable, nature. They are newspaper and magazine articles. Print media are already gone tomorrow, but on the internet they may remain visible for a short while, and then are archived, often behind a paywall, so many of them do disappear, but not all of them. Those forms of RS coverage have limited notability and thus a limited potential for causing harm. If we accept that Wikipedia likely has the largest degree of notability on the internet, and that by enshrining these otherwise temporary RS into very notable and high profile articles here, we are greatly increasing the degree of risk/harm, then we are justified in temporarily suppressing coverage of a story which can increase the risk of great harm to individuals. Wikipedia magnifies and amplifies the influence of RS, and we share the responsibility for consequences. Our articles can increase the likelihood of individuals being used as hostages, or being moved to the front of the line of hostages to next be executed. Their notability and value to kidnappers and terrorists was greatly increased by Wikipedia, and we actually facilitated and hastened their demise! It's a rather sobering thought, and should cause us to take our job seriously. We must consider BLP issues and potential for harm each time we are dealing with such matters. These principles need to be encoded into policy, likely as an addition to WP:BLP. It needs to be explicit, and not hidden away. For the record, avoiding harm was rejected, including as part of BLP. It's now just an essay. -- Brangifer ( talk) 15:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Relevant links:
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Hi BullRangifer, I believe we have not met, but we have both had significant interactions with Blades, and so I noticed your posts on his talk. While you're right that it reflects poorly on him when he deletes it, I believe he is within policy when doing so; [2], and it isn't worth your while to get involved. John is likely to see it, and if you are concerned he might miss it, post on his page. Regards, Vanamonde93 ( talk) 07:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep The Signpost: 18 March 2015Great coverage in the Signpost: RemovedBullRangifer, this kind of remark could really get you in trouble, please don't mention stuff like that. I've removed it. In this case there wasn't even any call for it — the age thing is plenty. Bishonen | talk 22:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC). ANI NotificationThere is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nakon 05:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC) requesting essay inputI started the page User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet to basically deal with editors who are a bit beyond being simple POV pushers but don't necessarily have a monetary COI. Basically, to include the real fanatics and evangelists out there. I figured you probably know a few from the field of pseudoscience as well. Feel free to make any copy-editing (which I'm pretty sure it needs) or any additions you think reasonable. John Carter ( talk) 18:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Discretionary sanctions notification - CAMThis message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.ThanksJust wanted to say thanks for what you said over at the IP user's page. This person now appears to be socking and hasn't learned his/her lesson. Tsk tsk tsk. TylerDurden8823 16:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Stay off my User TalkI've had enough of your hounding (following my edits), harassment (attempts to defame), and baiting (modifying/subverting my Talk page post). Quit hounding me, quit baiting me, and from here on out stay off my User Talk. IHTS ( talk) 16:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Your commentsHi BullRangifer! I noticed your comments at the noticeboard, and was surprised by them. I have only had a few interactions with you, but you have always struck me as a smart and reasonable person and much more ethical than most other editors I may disagree with from time to time. So anywho, I thought I would reach out to you away from the heated discussion at ANI. From what I had observed on talk pages, DrChrissy was expressing his frustration with several sources being excluded, came to conclusions about them, and was threatened with a topic ban. It seemed uncivil to me for Guy and Kww to behave like that, instead of engage in a normal dialogue. Both Guy and Kww are better than that. I don't know Guy, but he seems like he is above that. And Kww is a good editor too, but just seems to have been slipping up lately. I mentioned that others supported the sources DrChrissy is accused of incompetently evaluating, and I didn't mention the racism accusations, but probably should have because DrChrissy caught me incorrectly saying he accused others of this as well. I apologize if I did not make that apparent in my comment or if there was anything else I left out. You said I was IDHT'ing, and I really do abhore that behavior since I go through it with QuackGuru regularly. Would you mind specifically telling me what I'm not hearing? Seriously, shoot. I really do value your opinion. LesVegas ( talk) 19:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Charlotte's Web (cannabis)Hey BullRangifer. I realize that I have extensively rearranged this article you worked fairly extensively on. I hope you view the changes as a positive. Lots of excellent sources were present in the article, they just needed slightly greater prominence IMO. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
COI issuesHi BullRangifer. I don't know if you are aware that I do a lot of work on COI issues in Wikipedia. I wasn't aware of the arbcom case regarding Quackwatch that you were involved with nor the relationships disclosed in that case. That was several years ago, for sure. Arbcom, which doesn't deal a lot with COI issues but rather behavioral issues, warned you to beware of advocacy in your Wikipedia editing, which is the behavioral manifestation of both COI and, well, real-world advocacy. Clearly you had a close association with QW back then and I don't know what your current relationship is. I would encourage you to consider a) making a disclosure of past/current relationships with QW and related sites on your User page, and including a link to it in your signature (like user:Formerly 98 does; and b) depending on whether there is currently a COI, avoiding directly editing content related to QW but instead making edit requests on Talk. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on potential COI you may have, and how you have managed it. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 12:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
RE:Why?I redacted it because I saw that the admin that logged it had placed a message in regards to it two seconds before. I did repost a modified version back there. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 07:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Conversion therapyThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Conversion therapy. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Problematic articlesThese articles have issues of various types: their notability, promotional tone, use of primary, inhouse, sources and unreliable sources, and strong medical claims in Wikipedia's voice (not just documentation that such claims are made):
BullRangifer ( talk) 02:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
OrOn the all-encompassing alt-med definition: Agreed that FloraWilde's is very good, but it's logical that we need "or" and not "and" punctuating the various definitions, no? Salud! Middle 8 ( t • c | privacy • COI) 07:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It feels a little strange to be arguing about the finer points of a fictional and mythological concept, but I suppose that even silly concepts should be represented accurately on Wikipedia. Mindscape seems to deal with a telepath reading memories, and it specifically uses the idea of a telepath reading false memories as a plot device. Assuming that Mindscape is tangentially related enough to be in the “see also” section, I still don’t see why you think that it helps the reader understand remote viewing. Remote Viewing is a kind of long range clairvoyance. If anything Scrying seems a bit more relevant. Or is there something I’m missing? 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 14:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you didn't label my edits as vandalism.It's extremely rude and uncivil to label good faith edits to an article as vandalism, so perhaps you would consider taking back your edit summary labelling my edits as vandalism? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 12:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Chess and TheMesquito, I don't know why you are concerning yourselves with something which doesn't affect you in the least, but I'll explain. I agree that generally it's a bad idea to ban other editors from one's talk page, and that editors do not completely own their talk pages. If you had any understanding of the horrible conditions which can drive me to actually ban any editor from my talk page, you wouldn't be questioning why I did it in this case. It takes extreme harassment, personal attacks, or disruption to do that. You're welcome to study the history of my interactions with said editor to find whatever was relevant in this case. I have possibly banned a couple others in all the years I've been here. Ravensfire is correct. The reason IPs haven't had access for a while is simply that certain disruptive editors used IPs to keep on with their attacks after being blocked, and I don't suffer fools or block evaders lightly. IP editors have a right to edit, but don't have nearly as many rights as registered users in many other ways. One cannot fully function here as an IP. Most IP editors make good edits, but most vandals are IP editors, and that creates a conundrum and problem for all those good IP editors. That's too bad, especially since there is no good reason to not create an account, and lots of reasons why it's a bad idea to edit as an IP. Like so many others, I edited as an IP in the beginning, but when I got serious, I registered an account. I've actually been here since about 2003. I work fine with IP editors all the time, unless they create problems. In that case they are treated like any other editor who creates problems. The semi-protection actually expired on May 26, 2015, but I forgot to remove the instructions, so I'll do that now. If you study the history of my talk page, you'll discover that I archive all relevant content, including the most nasty and embarrassing things. I don't hide my actions or those of others. It's all in my archives. The only things I don't archive are bot notices. I don't trust editors who constantly delete content (without archiving) and revise their talk pages to make themselves look good, and I don't do it myself. Try to AGF. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:AyurvedaThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ayurveda. Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Introducing the new WikiProject Cannabis!Greetings! I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Cannabis! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 559 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in the subject of cannabis.
Hope to see you join! Harej ( talk) 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Blatant deletion of comments by editors with the intention of keeping this a protected article and enforcing a non-neutral POVHi BullRangifer, Just want and honest and direct answer over why my comments regarding the editor Uncle Milty have been all removed? He has clearly shown a lack of regard for the facts out there regarding the massive news coverage over the recent Planned Parenthood situation. I want to emphasize massive here. I have checked through all the recent edits and I can clearly see him targeting and mocking me, including making fun of me being "new". On top of it all we have decided to silence all the voices that wish to present even the most fair and balance criticism behind Planned Parenthood right now. The fact is that as of now nobody can go and read the Wikipedia article concerning Planned Parenthood and have all the recent facts and findings, as preliminary as they can be. And sure, WP is not news BUT this case has been covered in basically ALL the major news outlets for close to five days and Wikipedia is still embattled in "finding consensus" while protecting the page. I am going to quote here, just so it remains to be seen, what Uncle Milty has been removing constantly and to see if this is some sort of "personal attack" or anything violating WP's rules, which I humbly believe it is not. Suffice to say I don't know said editor but the history of the Planned Parenthood Talk Page shows he has targeted my talks by deleting them without posting why. Thanks for your time, Quote: "== Blatant deletion of comments by editors with the intention of keeping this a protected article and enforcing a non-neutral POV == Dear all, Uncle Milty has deleted, edited and even mocked several of my posts here. He has not even referenced why he has done that and I have been forced to undo these edits in order to have at least one comment here. Let's remember the Principles of Wikipedia [5] and if you look at this editors history, within this article and others referenced in his talk page, you can clearly see that he is violating the 2dt, 3rd and 7th Principles. I am quoting the last comment I had that he deleted, in what seems to be an attempt to keep this article protected even though every major and most of the minor, yet oft-used-as-sources news outlets have referred to recently. The facts are that several members of Congress in the US and several prominent researchers have been quoted over this issue, such as bioethicist Art Caplan of New York University [6] and Wikipedia has chosen to "protect" this page. This clearly does not happen when it comes to far more controversial current event topics (whether religious or political in nature) yet it seems there are dedicated editors out there who have and agenda to push. Tolerance includes allowing the other parties to speak as well. "Hi Uncle Milty. Thanks for deleting my previous comments and not even making a reference to them. If you believe that my IP is not enough for keeping track of what changes I perform, I'd like to remind you that the spirit of Wikipedia includes freedom from any hierarchy or cabal where people like you, sword in hand, go and edit enough to make things go their way. Apparently, tolerance is not part of your ethos. I am surprised that you, being part of the "Wikipedia is not censored." userbox prefer to protect this article from the topic that Google News measures as more than 100 outlets writing about, up to and including the name of Dr. Nucatola." 200.42.237.185 ( talk) 18:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)"
CIVILHi BullRangifer, just a friendly reminder "In light of your hypocrisy" to another editor may be a CIVIL issue. It looks like a lot of IP users are being canvassed into the article talk page, and if they are warned about CIVIL then experienced editors should be too. Thanks for your contributions, your decade of editing and extensive work. -- Callinus ( talk) 04:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Infectious medicineThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Infectious medicine. Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC) sting termBullRangifer, the following is on Sting operation:
Which part of the lead section describes sting operations out of law enforcement settings?
Car jacking, computer hacking, underage alcohol, drug trafficking, child molesting, terrorism, illegal prostitution, murder, animal cruelty - which of these is not illegal? Which of these is not related to law enforcement? No part of the article has a section header about non-law enforcement operations. MOS:QUOTE says "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." If media use the term "sting operation" then that may not guarantee that they intend for the reader to use the term in the way that the wiki article Sting operation uses it. If a user clicks the link then the first image they will see is an armed police officer and the first three words they will read is "In law enforcement" - the imputation that Sting operation is related to law enforcement is obvious, it's in the first three words - arguing against this seems disingenuous. -- Callinus ( talk) 06:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
helloThat article isn't created by me , its created by someone else , i just made few changes such as put my cast , website name , reference , album name and picture its allowed here or not ? and how would you fix this article for me ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj1kamal ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The title mistakeHello, sorry for messing up the title, mistook it by part of editorial POV in a sentence, not in a link when I read the text to be edited.My wrong! Had problem formatting link and got confused, Geez, my apologies, no way I would edit original title if not by mistaken it for a non quote. Thanks for speedy revert! Bialosz ( talk) 18:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hiis this possible can i revert back my article to 28 july ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj1kamal ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Please do not blanket undo to change one wordCould you please restore the rest of my copy-editing to Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. It appears you objected to "edited" vs "highly-edited" [7] but reverted a lot of basic copy editing in the process. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 04:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
WhoopsRegarding this edit, I wasn't sure how that got into the reference section. I think it belongs somewhere else in the article. I didn't try to sneakily delete it. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 19:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (software)The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (software). Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC) |