User talk:Scientizzle

---

---

Directory:
Archives
March 2006 – July 2006 August 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 – April 2007 May 2007 – September 2007 October 2007 – May 2008 May 2008 –
Contents 1 THANK you 2 Brad is back... 3 RfA cblank 4 Deleted article: Fotki 5 A is for Apple at COTW 6 Italian Wall Lizard 7 That has to be some new record.

[edit] THANK you

For making me realize that it is totally futile to attempt to bring the presentation in the Homeopathy even near apparently fair. Because you and some other editors have taken the responsibility to reverting any edit which is in contradiction to you opinion under one excuse or other. You can go ahead and ban me from editing that article, because I am going to actively restrain myself even to visit that article in future. I am only sorry that your behavior has left a bitter taste in me, that is in contradiction with my experience with wikipedia so far. Bye Hallenrm (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've take the responsibility of reverting poor quality edits, which is, in my opinion, largely what you've provided to the article. I have no wish that you "actively restrain" from editing homeopathy, just that you better follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines in both your content edits and interactions with other editors. — Scientizzle 19:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for leaving a massage on my talk page! I always had a high regard for the wikipedia project, but considering the behavior of editors like you, I am sometimes doubtful of its future. You succeed in repelling more editors than attracting. Perhaps that's what you want. I would only like to request you to be a bit more thoughtful in your reverts, and do not think that all opinions expressed contrary to your current opinions to be in bad faith. Editors who hold contrarian belief can also be equally scientific. Hallenrm (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

do not think that all opinions expressed contrary to your current opinions to be in bad faith. I don't; but I do hold obvious bad-faith statements to be so. I have not reverted based on your opinion, I've reverted based on the poor addition to content quality and equally poor adherence to Wikipedia policy. I welcome quality edits from anyone, scientific-minded or otherwise. — Scientizzle 19:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But your actions indicate otherwise. Because if what you say was true you would not have reverted my edit for removing a reference to an article in Newsweek, on grounds that are not defensible when you had reverted my edits simply because that they were not supported by peer reviewed journals. Since when articles published in Newsweek are more authentic then those published In New Scientist, and that too on science subjects. The revert clearly indicates your bias against Homeopathy. You will accept any edition as long as it is against homeopathy and not that even remotely suggests that there may be some merit in further investigation,or even attempts to further our current knowledge. It is indeed unfortunate for wikipedia that an editor like you has been made a wikipedia Administrator. You are not, in my considered opinion fit for this responsibility. I have come across several administrators since i started editing on wikipedia,it is almost five years by now, but have not come across any brash administrator, but my latest experience has proved otherwise.Hallenrm (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Apparently you still don't understand all of the separate issues involved in my two reversions. Perhaps, I should should explain once again, maybe you'll understand. I do hope you'll stop with the unnecessary invective.

Part one

• You added "neutral comments" that were clearly not neutral.
• I eventually reverted, attempting to explain in my edit summary these important issues:
  • As a matter of practice, those of us that have edited at Homeopathy, from all sides, have eschewed using primary sources (such as single research publications) to support tenuous claims, instead preferring secondary sources (i.e., reviews and meta-analyses), particularly since they often cover all the relevant primary sources. To wit, see conversations I had with very pro-homeopathy editors here, resulting in this research. I encourage you to ask any other editor familiar with Talk:Homeopathy if this characterization is incorrect...
  • Your link to the New Scientist was demonstrably inaccurate. I hope you can see that. Please note that I have no problem with using New Scientist as a source--I often read the publication. I've never argued that "articles published in Newsweek are more authentic then those published In New Scientist" or anything remotely close; I cannot honestly understand how such an opinion can be attributed to my statements or actions.

On a further note, Tim Vickers and I subsequently worked together to create a better-sourced, more accurate version of what you were evidently trying to accomplish. (Certainly further evidence of my immutable bias?)

Part two

• You removed an accurately and properly cited direct quote, from a reliable source, by an individual of obvious merit and interest in the field.
• As I explained in my revert, I see no compelling reason to remove such good-quality material. Would you care to explain?

Finally, statements such as

You will accept any edition as long as it is against homeopathy and not that even remotely suggests that there may be some merit in further investigation,or even attempts to further our current knowledge

are inaccurate, insulting, and entirely unreasonable. Clearly you have not followed my editing history on this page.

Hallenrm, you swept into the homeopathy page, making large obviously-one-sided edits, without any prior discussion on the talk page. You then went about insulting a number of editors, insisting on bias (no doubt under the spell of multinational drug companies). And I'm the "brash" one? I welcome a response from you regarding any responses to the questions I have asked above, disagreements with the facts I have cited (I won't hold my breath for any apologies regarding the untoward treatment). Further incivility on my talk page won't be tolerated. — Scientizzle 05:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You reverted one of my edits saying "Research on medical effectiveness: deleted a statement that is a PPOV, not supported by any paper in a peer reviewed professional jounal"

So i edited a statement that does not meet the above limits viz that referring to an article in Newsweek, satying "deleted a statement that is a PPOV, not supported by any paper in a peer reviewed professional journal" because Newsweek does not meet the criteria of a peer reviewed journal. You then reverted me saying, "there are multitudionous sources presented in the article that support this claim; it's of obvious interest and relevance, properly cited, ". Obviously you are changing your stand as and when it suits your bias. Why not otherwise support the statement in Newsweek by even a single of these multitudionous sources rather than giving a reference to a NMews magazine published from USA. Similarly when I added a statement from an article published In New Scientist, it was not accepted because "Source insufficiently reliable to counteract statements of peer-reviewed research" So what is exactly the policy? To accept only statements from peer reviewed journal or any statement, anywhere that puts homeopathy in doubt?

Secondly as per the wikipedia article on reliable sources says "The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in google scholar or other citation indexes."

The article that i referred to was written by a Pharmacist holding a degree of PharmD [1]and on the website of a person who had a meeting with the Polish Minister of Health and delivered two lectures. But that is not considered reliable by you and other editors who are currently active in reverting and deleting edits by other editors, who have been enpowered to decide what is a good quality edit unilaterally. Hallenrm (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you are changing your stand as and when it suits your bias.

Are you even reading what I've written?! Newsweek is a good source. New Scientist is a good source. I didn't reject your New Scientist addition because it doesn't meet WP:RS, but because you attributed wildly inappropriate claims to its 150 word blurb. Isn't this clear yet? Furthermore,

I can only answer for my own edits, so if you have issues with the revert by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs), take it up with him.

If you want to start an actual, civil conversation on the applicability of a source, the proper thing to do is start a talk page thread or head to WP:RS/N, not sling around accusations of bias because you didn't get your way. You have yet to treat anyone around the Homeopathy articles with any respect. I won't allow further incivility on my talk page, so if you respond, it should be with the decorum appropriate for civilized adults. — Scientizzle 15:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am a bit sorry for my conduct. I read the full homeopathy article again with a cool mind and found that it is indeed not too much biased afterall, give and take some statements here and there, but that is indeed inescapable on a wiki. So, please pardon me, we may not come across each other very often, but, whenever we do i shall remember my folly. Hallenrm (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I will offer my apologies regarding any statements I have made that were inaccurate or rude. I hope we can work together to improve this article...I am not unsympathetic to the stance that the current version is a just a bit heavy on the skepticism, but I feel WP:NPOV is best acheived not by the addition of similarly strong claims in the other direction, but by measured rewording of relevant passages to give the most accurate and dispassionate view. — Scientizzle 18:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brad is back...

67.176.92.102 (talk • contribs • logs) Katr67 (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 'im last night. — Scientizzle 15:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw, thanks! Katr67 (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA cblank

Thanks very much. Daniel (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. Seemed perfectly reasonable. — Scientizzle 18:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if the title should have read "AfD" :) Daniel (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm. It's amazing that I didn't even notice the wrong acronym...(!) :) — Scientizzle 00:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted article: Fotki

Dear Scientizzle,

I am sorry to bother you and I know that you are very busy but I hope you can spare a minute of your time to help me resolve this issue or perhaps redirect this message to someone who may be willing to help.

I am contacting you regarding the article about Fotki which was deleted from Wikipedia some time ago because it did not meet WP:WEB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEB), which states that an article must have non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. One of the Fotki staff members spoke with Phillip who suggested that we contact you. He also wrote that if we have proper references, we may be able to put the article back up. This is what I am trying to do. Fotki is a popular and well-known image hosting service and one of the oldest photo sharing web sites on the Internet.

I am not on Fotki's payroll but I've been a Fotki user since 2003 and I've done various volunteer work for Fotki. I truly believe that I am the right person to write an article about Fotki since I know the site very well and I am not closely affiliated with the company.

I rewrote the article that was deleted keeping in mind the basic principles of Wikipedia which I carefully studied. I also improved and expanded the reference list in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines. I will further improve the article if my request is approved. I have put the draft version (unformatted) on my user page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pikerecords.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,
Pikerecords (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pikerecords, if you haven't seen it yet, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fotki (2). Fotki was clearly on the borders of notability and the prior version was lacking in reliable sources to establish notability. You are certainly welcome to give the article another shot...I'll restore the old version to User:Pikerecords/Fotki for you to continue improving the content--it'll also help with the formatting if you've got the basic setup ready. When you think you've got it in a finalized version, drop on by--I'll take a look and help you move it to the mainspace if you need help. Cheers, — Scientizzle 18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will edit the article at User:Pikerecords/Fotki and will let you know when it's finished. Pikerecords (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A is for Apple at COTW

Hello again to those of the WikiProject we call Oregon. Time for another edition of Collaboration of the Week. Last week there was some good improvements to Music of Oregon and Phil Knight, great job everyone. This week, by request is the Applegate Trail, which is short enough to easily conjure up a DYK. Then, I’m trying something a little different, with the Portland State stuff. We included the two high profile schools during Civil War week last year, so now its time for the younger sibling that gets no respect to get some attention. After all, it is the largest college in the state. Feel free to help with whatever aspects you like, though to help with some ideas I added some to the article talk page. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Nana na na, hey hey hey, goouud byeeee. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Italian Wall Lizard

On 8 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Italian Wall Lizard, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] That has to be some new record.

Blocked for vandalising his own page. Well, at least he got it over with quickly... HalfShadow 23:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Even with tabbed browsing I couldn't get a quick delete-then-salt done before recreation... — Scientizzle 23:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering the circumstances, you probably should have protected first, then blocked. Moot point now, I guess. HalfShadow 23:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I blocked first to keep it contained within the usertalk page. My problem was the short cycle of the vandalbot (9 revs/minute) was quicker than my attempts to delete the page history and immediately salt. Maybe I should ask the devs if there's a way that protection can stick around after deletion...? — Scientizzle 23:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)