User talk:Dannycarlton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Prayer

Danny, basically the link adds nothing to the article. Rich Farmbrough 23:03 6 June 2006 (UTC).

Neither do most of the other links, by that standard. Why delete that one and not others? I see it as very pertinent to the article. Unless of course the purpose of the article is to assume prayer is meaningless (which it certainly implies in many places in spite of the the "policy" of a neutral point of view.) How is a page of Bahai prayer pertinent, but a list of important people to pray for not pertinent. Oh, wait, the people deleting it were Canadian and Dutch. Now why would they object to a list of American officials to pray for? Hmmm? Dannycarlton 23:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Danny, could you please start using your common sense with regards to the Prayer link. Wikipedia is an international project, and your link is USA-focused (hence Dutch and Canadian users wondering what the fuss is all about). It is not a link about prayer (which would be useful) but it promotes prayer for particular people, which is an implicit violation of our neutrality policy. I can carry on.

This whole business is starting to sound like trolling. You have been given abundant reason why your links are inappropriate, yet you feel the need to post messages on other users' talkpages. Wikipedia is not benefiting from serial addition of external links. It will benefit when you start contributing original and useful context to the article bodies, preferable with reliable sources. I'm always available for help if you have any further questions. Oh, and using sockpuppets is a bannable offense. JFW | T@lk 23:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but deleting a link because it's only about Americans would be as stupid as deleting the Bahai link because it's only about Bahai. I have yet to be given a rational reason for the link being removed. Dannycarlton 23:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I gave you a reason: because it is not about prayer. It is about American public figures. JFW | T@lk 23:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a prayer list. That's it's purpose; that's explained at the top of the page. Praying from a list is a very important part of prayer for some people. Excluding other's methods of worship is hardly being neutral. Dannycarlton 00:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll be responding on Talk:Prayer. JFW | T@lk 00:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bossy mood

I am indeed in a bossy mood, and I wish you'd edit Wikipedia in a more constructive fashion than adding links to all your webpages to this project. It strikes me that you have not attempted to contribute anything substantial.

If you'd really like to know about the CAH page: it is a non-authoratitive source that is not clearly endorsed or verified by a professional organisation, and on those grounds alone qualifies poorly for inclusion into Wikipedia. I'm rather surprised you seem to think I know nothing about CAH; that is a serious allegation that I suspect you will not be able to support, and I suggest you withdraw it. JFW | T@lk 02:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You've clearly shown your lack of knowledge on the subject, and I'm not in the practice of withdrawing truthful statements.

As for my web pages...

A. Most I added are not commercial and offer free services and are very relevant to the topic.

B. The site policies clearly state "Ignore all rules. If the rules discourage you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them" The rule against submitting one's own site is stupid. I have sites that are relevant, and your mods seem more interested in defending their opinions than finding relevant sites, and some apparently can't recognize relevant sites when they see them. It's also a rule that's widely ignored, as is very clear if one browses the site only a little.

But, I'll leave you to your petty feifdom. I did what I wanted to do. Delete to your heart's content. Apparently ignorance and arrogance rules here. Dannycarlton 22:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Regarding edits such as this: Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --InShaneee 02:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My original purpose was to do something about your horrible entry for Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia. But I discovered that very few people take Wikipedia seriously enough to bother offering a valid entry, and it's become plain that valid entries are that last thing you guys seem to want. It alarmed me that the Wikipedia entry was #1 on Google. Since then I've resubmitted the sitemap for http://congenitaladrenalhyperplasia.org and it's now #1 and Wikipedia is #12 (off the main page, and therefore virtually hidden from most people). As for civility. You seem to have an odd definition. The guy who keeps deleting the link for CongenitalAdrenalHyperplasia.org claims the site "qualifies poorly for inclusion into Wikipedia" when it is the #1 site for info on the condition, visited by thousands of people across the globe. On the message board people beg me to let more people know about it because medical sites offer little if anything useful to people suffering from the condition. The bane of our struggle with this condition is arrogant doctors who know little about it, but assume they know more than anyone who's not a doctor, when the typical parent of a CAH child knows volumes more than the vast majority of doctors. Children die from that arrogance, but perhaps that not something you care about. Dannycarlton 22:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll warn you a second time about personal attacks. If you want to help improve this site, you're more than welcome, but you're going to have to do it without harrassing other editors. And for the record, IMHO, if doctors are making any sort of decisions based what they see on Wikipedia, we've got a lot bigger problems than Google page ranks. --InShaneee 00:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You still need to explain why what I said is a personal attack, yet what he said isn't.

I'm not worried about doctors. The are for the most part stuck on believing the only medical information they can get is from medical journals. One mother told us her General Practicioner assured her that Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia wasn't even an actual condition, and her child actually had Addison's Disease.

There are people out there who are told their newborn child has a life threatening, congenital disease, and they'll have to give them medicine daily or they'll die. They are overwhelmed with medical jargon and go home confused and frightened to death. They almost all have exactly the same questions, and get vague answers from doctors. Eventually they find CongenitalAdrenalHyperplasia.org and there they find hundreds of others who have already been through what they are going through, are quick to give them understandable answers, as well as support and useful information. Your entry, on the other hand, is full of errors, distortions, and propoganda used to promote specific agendas. It is worse than useless, it is dangerous, yet it is doubtful that it will ever be corrected. I'm not wasting my time trying, just to have someone delete all of it because he assumes he's an expert because he heard it mentioned in a course he took once. Dannycarlton 20:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, wikipedia editors are not required to have any sort of credentials to edit anything, and you should not be demanding that they do. Second of all, Wikipedia does not promise anything, and thus should not be used as a medical reference by anyone. If they die trying to apply treatment based on something they read here, it's their own fault; we never claim to be perfect, infallible, or definitive. Regarding this, I'll warn you one last time. If you want to work with other editors, you are more than free to, but if you're going to spend your time complaining and defaming them, you will be blocked. --InShaneee 17:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)