Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TimWhiskas (talk | contribs) at 17:58, 26 August 2008 (← Created page with '<!-- IF YOU WANT TO LEAVE ME A MESSAGE PLEASE GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE --> <tr><td valign="top"> <table style="padding: 5px; width: 100%; border: 1px solid #...'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online

Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained

As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:48Z

Barnstar

It was a while ago, but I haven't forgotten.

<Moved to trophy cabinet> :)

ref:deletion Satish Babu

Hi, The page Satish Babu was deleted on 13th of February.It was about the contributions of a journalist to the Regional Media. Can you let me know how it could find relevance and where i can find the deleted page? User:Madhuritalluri(talk)

Admiration

I admire your image works !

Thanks!

thank you very much!!! You´ve been very useful, keep in touch! blitox

RfA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, was unsuccessful with 61 support, 25 oppose, and 4 neutral. I've been taking the advice of the Opposes into practice and hopefully I can improve myself. Once again, thank you. ^_^

Thank you

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

April 2008

OK :)

Barnstar

Moved to trophy cabinet.

Thanks!

Moved to trophy cabinet

Well done

Moved to trophy cabinet.

For your help on Pulmonary contusion

Moved to trophy cabinet

Lyme disease updates

I recently updated the discussion on the controversies section of lyme disease because the section currently misleads readers into believing that four different reputable organizations support one theory. However all of those sources themselves do not perform their own research but rely on guidelines that were found corrupt by the conneticut attorney general from another organization (IDSA). There is no mention in the entire page on lyme disease about ILADS which is an international research based organization consisting of physicians currently treating these diseases. The fact that it was changed is very discerning due to the reputable sources cited. It may be hard to believe corruption and bribery (which violations of anti-trust laws are) exist in such large organizations, but until it is pointed out and fixed misinformation and miseducation continues. I ask that if you don't appreciate what I added that you do some research and editing instead, because as it stands the information is no less corrupt than that which resulted from bribes the IDSA accepted. A separate problem is there is so much mention and reference to IDSA when they've been found to be corrupt and no mention of ILADS and all the research they've done around the world. Pryorka82 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is reference to ILADS - their guidelines for Lyme disease treatment are cited in the article, currently reference #81.
• "Corruption and bribery" are either exaggerations or downright fabrications based on the claims of one side of a dispute in which no legal charges of any sort were brought, much less decided. Thus, their absence from the article is a reflection of Misplaced Pages's core policies of verifiability and neutrality.

Please take a look at Misplaced Pages's policies on verifiability, appropriate sourcing, neutrality (particularly undue weight), and the issue of multiple account use or recruitment of editors to advance a specific agenda. Among many other things, Misplaced Pages is not a venue for advocacy, nor a place to Right Great Wrongs. MastCell  21:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have since posted references on the lyme discussion page that I'm hoping people will take the time to read. I am fully aware of Misplaced Pages's policies on verifiability, appropriate sourcing, neutrality. Where we have a problem is on the neutrality of the subject. The subject is heavily weighted with one point of view therefore not neutral. One sentence on the position taken by a differing organization (ILADS) is referenced. Which is followed by texts suggesting just the opposing view. Even mentioning death from sepsis to add to that point of view instead of death by infection which would be the other road that could be traveled. This is the problem with neutrality that I'm trying to get addressed. Stop being so hypocritical quoting Among many other things, Misplaced Pages is not a venue for advocacy, nor a place to Right Great Wrongs. While I'm trying to get editors to stop this and quit advocating one point of view it puts your intentions in question by saying that. Understand what is meant by one sided arguements and unjust support of single points of view http://en.wikipedia.org/One-sided_argument . This hurts the purpose of wikipedia.

Further understanding of what corruption entails is also needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/Corruption Understand that antitrust violations for personal gain at the expense of the people the organization is suppose to support is by definition corruption.

Nineteen members of Congress recently sent a letter to the CDC requesting that agency to review the IDSA guidelines, which they said have "the potential to effectively shut down" all treatment of chronic Lyme disease. So this is not a minority matter as was suggested.

Please do some reading.Pryorka82 (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

what is a species?

Tim, can you show me where you moved the material on species I wrote and sourced? I was surprised - I thought you too were disatisfied with the current article. But I have no problem with moving wehat I wrote here if you and GetAgrippa and others would be working on it and improving it in order to reinsert it into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What is the time-table for moving things from the draft to the article? What is the process for working on the draft? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 03:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wha ... ?

Are you going American on us? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, know what I mean? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

RCSB

Restore away :-) I didn't see anything to the effect of being copyright-free when I looked at the page, and there was nothing listed on the image description page such as a link that you left me, so I didn't know that it was free. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wording

The wording sounds fine to me, although I'm not sure what measure of plausibility we're employing. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. I don't know much of anything about Orthomolecular medicine; certainly not its standing with mainstream science. If you provided supporting sources, that would be helpful. -- Levine2112 17:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, certainly by the measure of the existence of atoms and molecules, orthomolecular medicine is more plausible. My issue, though, is that there is no evidence that orthomolecular medicine is any more effective than magic water memory. What's worse, orthomolecular medicine has the potential to be much more harmful than homeopathy, for example. People can die of vitamin overdoses, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

People can, and actually do, drown in their bathtub. Surely you are not against bathing!--Alterrabe (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OMM

I think the propopsed wording could be improved; orthomolecular medicine is not regarded as unscientific, but as not scientifically proven. There is no understanding of the theory how homeopathy is supposed to work, on the other hand. Why some orthomolecular therapies should work is clear, the question is whether they do.

How about: This lack of serious testing of orthomolecular medicine has led to its practices being classed with other less plausible forms of alternative medicine and regarded as not scientifically proven?"--Alterrabe (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked sock using talk page for soapbox

See here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It is continuing. Should I ask elsewhere for page protection? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Idiopathic inflammatory diseases

Hey Tim, I see you recently closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology (2nd nomination) and deleted Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology. I draw attention to the AfD template on Idiopathic inflammatory diseases, which also points to the same AfD. I think this is due to User:DRosenbach's page move during the course of the AfD "19:17, 14 August 2008 DRosenbach (Talk | contribs) moved Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology to Idiopathic inflammatory diseases ‎ (this would be the proper terminology) (revert)". I'm no sure how these things work, I would have thought that there would be nothing at Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology to delete after the move, but it seems to me that Idiopathic inflammatory diseases ought also to be deleted. Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Idiopathic inflammatory diseases

Hi, unsure what all got crossed here but isn't this Idiopathic inflammatory diseases the deleted article? Banjeboi 04:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Natal hypnotherapy

The author has provided reliable sources on which this article could be based, please review the AfD discussion and consider whether or not your vote remains the same. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to copy the contents into another language Wiki?

Hi! Could I copy the contents of the protein box, for example, from the NOTCH1 when I create a page in the Russian Wiki? If yes, how do I do this? Thanx. --CopperKettle (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!

I realize I have been doing a lot of reverts, in fact a good deal of them were my own...my computer has been acting really crappy, while I am typing it takes me back in my text and erases things! Anyway, I agree I have been a bit edit happy of late, I will try to not do that so much. Thanks for your warning and I apologize.Jumacdon (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I will not attempt to edit this page for awhile, if ever. I hope you do see that my position has merit, I am not arguing anything unscientific. I am, in fact, a scientist. However, I know when a battle cannot be won :) Take care! Jumacdon (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

advocacy, promotion, and advertising not allowed

Mr. Vickers you know that those articles are promoting one organization and one point of view and in violation of neutrality. Why are they still there? I know we can say they are reputable and verifiable, but they most certainly advertise one group with one unproven opinion. This makes wikipedia look bad. It makes the people that include these comments look questionable. I can't go on editing because you and sandygeorgia have teamed up on me. Do you not see a problem with this? I see your involved in biology which helps with the entire rest of the article, but try to picture this from a legal perspective. Pryorka82 (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Temazepam

'faces' or 'feces'? Philip Trueman (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Verbiage on OMM

I really have never been a fan of "scientific consensus." See my comments here where I tried to elucidate why not. There is not any significant minority sourcing that supports OMM. Every exception stated in the article really supports standard nutritional practices. And ever reliable source that counters OMM, really counters it. I know I should write this on the talk page of the article, but I just wanted you to understand. If you revert my edits, I'm OK with it. OrangeMarlin 22:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Temazepam

You mean temazepam is metabolized by DEmethylation and conjugation, right? 70.137.130.176 (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

reference

I would appreciate the favor of a temporary copy for (fair use) critical review of this reference: Weitzman S (1998). "Alternative nutritional cancer therapies". Int. J. Cancer Suppl. 11: 69–72. PMID 9876483. My library does not have the Supplement. A wikipedia email with the text would be satisfactory to me but some editors use other temporary postings for all. Thank you.--TheNautilus (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why you don't wont the article on the DAN!?--Francis89 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC) It is very interesting and it is present also in the italian Misplaced Pages. It cites many sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.49.254 (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC) a lot of international doctors are part of this organization medical against autism--151.51.49.254 (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Autism and Dan!

The article about Dan! is very interesting and it is present also in the Italian Misplaced Pages. It cites many sources. A lot of international doctors are part of this organization medical against autism. If there are errors in English or remained some Italian word, if you have time you can give it a try and correct it. Surely you know English better than me! Thank you very much!--Francis89 (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Defeat Autism Now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi! I have a question: how can I create categories in Misplaced Pages? --Feierabend (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

the Italian guy is back

He's currently posting as User:82.107.211.21. I'm not an admin or anything; I mostly just watch the Autism articles to revert repeat-vandalism that has already been pretty much agreed upon as bad by the other people. So I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be able to do anything myself or just report this person to you since you're the one that took care of him before. If this is not the best thing to do, please let me know. I reverted 2 of the 3 spam-pastes he made but the third one was on a User page so I didnt want to have that escape the notice of the user. Soap /_{Contributions} 15:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Attention!

I do not understand why they cancelled my thoughts in the discussion on autism. I was not vulgar, I have not mentioned copyrighted material, I have offended anyone. I have only given a text of journal The Lancet. I did not in any way abused multiple identities being the first time today that are entered into Misplaced Pages and I registered as Samuelgood. I hope to explain the misunderstanding.

I await your reply in the same page. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.44.218 (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

AN/I:MOSNUM

Hi. I am the editor who started the recent AN/I thread on MOSNUM "hijacking". (A strong term, I know!) Was this question directed at me? I did not contest your "resolved" decision, but would be happy to suggest some admin actions that might be appropriate when a small group of editors essentially hijack _any_ article. I'd prefer not to do it at AN/I, though, unless you really prefer that forum. Best regards, (sdsds - talk) 04:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your rapid reply! Here is the edit where the over-eager editor claims a "clear consensus" was reached to, "Remove the double square brackets around month-day and month-day-year dates in the main text and footnotes". He claims this based in his own closure as "resolved" of the discussion at WT:MOSNUM made with this edit. But there are plenty of dissenting voices to the "deprecation" of date linking, not just mine. And the "deprecation" certainly doesn't include a consensus to remove links from existing dates.

Every good article includes dates. Now every good article will have those dates unlinked. This is not, as you characterized it, "a minor disagreement over date formatting." These 'bot-based unlinks can't be easily undone; the article database is losing the work of those who have done the linking. And it's happening because of an intensive effort (not to say a "crusade") by a small number of influential and eloquent (but misguided) editors. Their central conceit is that there's no way for editors to change the behavior of the enwiki website configuration; so they must change the article database instead. In this case, the cabal has just plain got it wrong. (sdsds - talk) 05:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and as for "what to do about it?" Caution them (they're well-intentioned, after all, and don't need blocking) not to edit WP:MOSNUM; leave that to un-involved editors. (sdsds - talk) 05:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Tim—I thought I should inform you of my latest post (the unindented one currently at the bottom). Thanks. Tony (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)