Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:08, 22 April 2008

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

User talk:Enric_Naval/June2006-March2008

Reply to your response

I'm sorry, I sometimes take things the wrong way. If my reply sounded at all sarcastic or attacking, I apologize; I was just sort of irritated this morning. Sorry! It's not your fault at all. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 22:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

documenting Ullman

No no: this is how you do it =P Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Anonymity

I saw this comment, and I didn't want to discuss on Ldemery's page, since he's a bit odd to me. I think that many of us prefer anonymity, for whatever reason. There are individuals who have been attacked for posts here. There was a professor of Medicine in Toronto, who, as a result of his edits to the Abortion article, was outed and attacked. I think they even accused him of pedophilia or something as repulsive. I intentionally do not edit in any article with which I have a professional interest, just so I do not have to claim to be an "expert", and therefore, do not have to make an Essjay mistake. So, I would never, under any circumstance, agree to publish anything about me. And Ldemery's requests are ridiculous at any rate. OrangeMarlin 19:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning

I do not like the naked accusations you are making against User:DanaUllman. Please include evidence in the form of diffs to substantiate what you say; otherwise, you may find yourself blocked for violations of civility and assume good faith. Jehochman 21:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because civility rules around here and Dana is free to continue to bring up the same tired studies over and over (and have them rejected over and over) because it seems everyone has the memory of a goldfish. Sorry for this rude awakening, Enric. As someone who has had many dealing with this editor, I will just advise you to tread lightly. Baegis (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid attacking the messenger just because you don't like the message. I try to provide RS and NPOV references, and I do my best to AGF and maintain civility. We may not agree with each other, but let's be civil and avoid personal attacks. You have done editing on lots of different subjects, but as Jehochman asserted, you haven't been adequately civil nor AGF with me. I have taken a break recently from homeopathy articles. Perhaps it is time for you to consider doing likewise or at least edit on subjects for which you are more technically competent (and less emotionally charged). Please also know that just because an editor criticizes a study for one reason or another does not mean that this criticism is either valid or RS. Unless there is a secondary source for that criticism, it is often OR and has no place here. Finally, as you read past dialogues on the homeopathy article, please note that many of the strong antagonists to homeopathy have later been found to be socks. We all need to tread lightly and be kind to each other. DanaUllman 17:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In any case, that comment was posted just above about 20 diffs that I had carefully set out and explained. Hence, Enric, as I believe you were aware of it, I'm not sure why Jehochman's criticising you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#An_analysis_of_Mr._Ullman.27s_claims_as_to_studies

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated a bit. Here's what I think is the best new section: Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's clear evidence of him saying that assume good faith = I am right. The details are just to show his claims are groundless. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the correction is wrong: I don't think he IS capable. That's my paragraph setting out the case for banning him. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it, he's Dana Ullman. His entire career is devoted to promotion of homeopathy, and part and parcel of that is his representing favourable studies in the best possible light, and denigrating any negative ones. To get him to follow Misplaced Pages policy would require that he give up using the things that have made him famous and made him such a major promoter of homeopathy. His entire career and livelihood are based on those things. He's not going to change them because Misplaced Pages asks him to. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Pinoybandwagon

He created yet another new sockpuppet again. (User:Radiospeed) What shall we do? -Danngarcia (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Rational

There is nothing wrong with my rational, the issue of independence in 1700's is disputed, yet presented as a fact, and large portions of pre-Islamic history have been neglected or suppressed while the minor events in post-Islamic history (ie Saudi tribal incursions) have been given undo weight. Please do not remove the tag, I am merely asking third-party users who are interested or familiar with the topic, yet not associated with the topic, to review it for neutrality, as most of the editors who have constructed the section in its current form such as User:Arabbi, User:Slackerlawstudent and User:Dilmun‎ , appear to be from from an Arab background (either Saudi Arabia or Bahrain). Please do not remove the tag. -- --07fan (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If I was disputing it, then I would be using "POV" or "accuracy" or "totally disputed", not "POV-cehck". You do realize the difference between these tags, don't you? The whole point of POV-check is to raise questions and ask uninvolved editors who are not associated with the topic, to review it for neutrality. I seriously doubt, you're familiar with this topic, so please allow the tag to remain, so that we can get the section reviewed by such editors. --07fan (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Enric, thanks v. much for your intervention and taking the time to review the POV tags on the Bahrain and History of Bahrain pages. I think the interpretation is the right one, given that the justification on the Talk:Bahrain page used for placing the tags provides nothing specific that can be refuted and there's no justification at all on the Talk:History of Bahrain page.

On the Talk:Bahrain page, User:07fan has been invited to amend the page to include the information he wants as per wikipedia's POV policies, but hasn't done so. With 07fan's reverts of the deletion of the tags we're back to the same situation, whereby User:07fan's providing nothing specific with sources that can be responded to yet insists on leaving the tag there.

If this is acceptable under wikipedia policy, then this again raises my original point at the start of this subsection: does the policy need to be tightened up on POV tagging?

Thanks,

Dilmun (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As I explained to Erik, his interpretation is not the right one, I have given sufficient rational on Talk:Bahrain, and I am not "POV tagging", if I was actually disputing the page or wanted to "amend the page" in the fashion you're describing, then I would be using "POV" or "accuracy" or "totally disputed" tags, not "POV-cehck". There is a difference between these tags for a reason, and the whole point of POV-check is to raise questions and ask uninvolved editors who are not associated with the topic, to review it for neutrality. A simple "POV-check" on a section of an article does not "undermine the credibility of the article", it actually serves to improve the article by inviting uninvolved editors to review and improve the article.--07fan (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

I don't appreciate your false accusation that "07fan is clearly not abiding by this policy on Bahrain page, since he has engaged on drive-by tagging of other tags , has not made any other edits to the article except for tagging (which means that he didn't try to mend the article before or after tagging)"

Since when an editor needs to ask for permission to place a fact tag in front of an obvious false claim that English is the official language of Bahrain? The fact that you're using that as an example that I engaged in "drive-by tagging": shows your total lack of knowledge of the issue at hand, and a total disregard for WP:AGF and associated polices. I invite you to take back your false accusations, and assume good faith. Also, "POV-check-secton" is the right tag, not "POV-section", unless you're disputing the section in question, which I doubt, given your unfamiliarity with the topic. --07fan (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Justified how? Show me the policy that one needs to use the talk page in order to use citation/fact tags or that it should be used as a "last resort"? Either do that or take back your accusation. As someone aspiring to become an admin, you should know better. --07fan (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You just can't claim that placing a fact tag, in front of the false claim that an Arab country's official language is English!?!?, is an example of "driveby-tagging", that's a false accusation against an established editor. I am really disappointed by your one-sided and assumptious conduct. I understand that you're trying to become an admin, and think that you're helping out. But if you really want your future RFA to succeed, I would advise you not to get involved in topics, on which you have absolutely no expertise to make a sound judgment, so that you'd not lose the support of the editors you would needlessly offend by doing so.--07fan (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, your advice was ignored

By –MattisseTalk, more than an hour after you warned him ... He is still going on about Notability Redthoreau (talk TR 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, great edits to the article thus far. Much improved and appreciated.       Redthoreau (talk TR 17:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bahrain

Hi Enric,

Regarding your solution to the POV tag on the Bahrain page you proposed on 6 April, you didn't go forward with it because the other two editors came to an agreement to go for RfC, with 07fan stating that he was going to file a request the following day. Its now over two days and nothing's happened. Therefore, I think we should go with your proposal, which is most certainly in line with wikipedia's guidelines on tagging:

"Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."

Three days starting from today seems reasonable for those who want to keep the tag to provide concrete information. Otherwise the tag goes.

Dilmun (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was away on business, I will file the RFC shortly. Nobody has the authority to remove the tag until the RFC generates response, and the section is reviewed by third-party users who are familiar with the topic. --07fan (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Enric, given wikipedia's policy above, is there any onus on me not to put wikipedia's rules on tagging into place and, as you proposed before, give 07fan 3 days to come up with some concrete sources to substantiate his objections before deleting the tag? I wasn't a party to the agreement to go to RFC, but the RFC 07fan's raised on the page doesn't relate to the issue of the POV tag but to the page's content - even though the placing of the tag was the issue of debate when the two users agreed to go for RfC. I'm not saying an RFC can't take place & I'd welcome it, but an RFC doesn't require a section tag; browsing through the pages listed on the RFC page and few of them have POV tags on the page.

Furthermore, 07fan has stated that the tag can only be removed when the page has been reviewed by "third-party users who are familiar with the topic". How this is defined and work in practice is unknown, and do you know of anything within wikipedia's policies that could support such an approach?

Dilmun (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this looks more and more like a content dispute than a NPOV dispute. However, since the RFC is already open and it has a limit of 30 days, I strongly suggest keeping the tag while the RFC is open, and then re-assess its need on view of the RfC comments, since this would avoid unnecessary edit wars and disputes among editors. I have to say that if after the RfC closes there are still no sources for the information that is claimed that is lacking from the history section, then the tag should be removed. If sources are found, then the information can be added to the section, and the tag removed then. As I think I said before, the tagging does not devaluate the topic of the article, it's just about the way the topic is treated, so it's not damaging for Bahrain's fame to leave it on place a few days more. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: even if looks like a content dispute, we are still using the POV tag because the editor disputing the section claims that the lack of information is due to a POV. (Then again. I compel 07fan to find sources for the missing information and post them on the talk page, so the info can be added to the article). --Enric Naval (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Enric. I'll go for that. Unless some evidence which so far hasn't been forthcoming is provided the results going to be the same: either now or in 30 days time.

Regarding my second point about 07fan's requirement for "third-party users who are familiar with the topic" to have edited the page, do you know anything in wikipedia's that could justify this or how this would work? 07fan hasn't provided any evidence that wikipedia's policies support this requirement.

Sorry to keep asking you questions, its just that I understand you've ambitions to be an admin, so in effect I'm doing you a favour making sure that you're fully au fait with implementation of wikipedia's policies. :D

Dilmun (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that a RfC is enough for any reviewing requirement for the tag. Once the RfC is closed, the need for the tag needs to be re-evaluated. Notice that you can improve the article during the RfC, specially if some of the comments provide info for improving the article.

About the admin, thing, erm, well :D I think that you need to look at my comments on 07fan talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah...I see. Well if you ever do decide to become one in wikipedia as well as in your job, this place would benefit from some more careful and considered admins. Dilmun (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Barcelona

Nahuel (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Refering to your message: About this edit , the prefered domain by the city council is ".cat" even if examination of it would indicate that it's just a redirection to ".es". From a neutral point of view of wikipedia, none of them is preferable to the other one, and there are political reasons for Barcelona prefering .cat and many of the internal links on their website point to bcn.cat even if you enter thought bcn.es, so let's use .cat and leave it at that --Enric Naval (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

well the use of both .cat and .es at the same time is as you said for political reason, so then, why take sides? bcn.cat probably just used to apeace the nationalists, but the real domain is .es which points to the country where Barcelona is. At any rate both should be present. Besides, some other wikipedia languages use .es (ie Galego and Spanish). If there are two domains, let's include both, there are two domains for a reason

Nahuel (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, ERC, PSC and ICV were voted by the people, but from that you can't infer that people elected them to form a coalition. The Govern had to mainly apease ERC I guess as you say, which is a party centred on identity and ethnic politics... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahuelmarisi (talk • contribs) 16:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Tanoli page

Hello, I appreciate your work on recognising and banning vandals on the Tanoli page. The page has improved and is now in very good state. I want to know how the stubs regarding 'factual accuracy' and 'tone' of the article can be removed as these are no longer necessary there. take care Wikitanoli (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for you consideration and removal of those stubs, I will footnote refrences and further improve the quality of the article. Cheers! Wikitanoli (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider focusing on content issues rather than attacking the messenger

Sadly, it seems that you believe that if you throw enough mud at the walls that some of it will stick (there are too many instances to reference here, but you certainly know about which I am referring). I sincerely hope that you will now focus on content issues rather than attacking the messenger. The fact that I remain civil and that I work to provide RS, notable, secondary references, and NPOV encyclopedic information has seemed to inflame you. It is a tad ironic that you have asked me to take a break, when it seems that you are spending a lot more time and energy evaluating me and the people who appreciate me than I spend on wikipedia in entirety. I hope that you will show good faith by working harder towards moving to consensus rather than towards attacking me. Can't we get along? If not, please consider taking your own advice and take a wiki-break or focus your editing on other subjects to which you are less emotionally connected. Let's move into a different gear. DanaUllman 04:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Dana, I think you are referring to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/DanaUllman, which was of course something I did based on compelling evidence based on multiple diffs, coincidences on account date creation, similar writing style, similar lacking of technical hability, editing on the same topics, apparent bias on the contributions, gaps on contribution history, etc. I am not going to remind you of AGF again, since other editors have already done so. I had already brought up two sockpuppet cases based on similar evidence, so I had no reason to not do the same with this evidence. I would have done the same for any other user, given the evidence, mind you.

Please notice that I have taken already a break of those articles, specifically of discussing the studies. Mind you, I couldn't stop myself from pointing at past discussions of Ernst, which I hope is not too controversial . I also had to edit to mend the duplications you caused when reverting the thread archiving and tell Misza not to hurry so much on archiving (I see that I didn't tell you then: the archiving is done automatically by a "bot" called Miszabot for every thread that has not a comment on a given ammount of days). Mind you, I never stopped editing on the probation incident page, and I also posted on Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Homeopathy/Selection of studies. I have also added the "cite study" template on Arsenicum album and made some minor uncontroversial change on Water memory .

Compare all of the above with you defending the studies many times on talk pages (too many diffs to put them here) and making a change on Water memory referencing a consensus on the talk page that didn't exist --Enric Naval (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, Dana, opening a sockpuppet case when I think that I have evidence to support it is not "throwing mud" and doesn't get me "more and more dirty" , specially when it later turns out that one of the accussed socks was blocked like 8 days for before for "obvious meatpuppet" by an admin, which means that at least he was giving the appearance of being a meatpuppet. I hadn't seen that last message of yours before writing my comment above. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Misdirected Message?

Apologies, but I'm afraid I'm not responsible for the edits outlined in this message:

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did to User:Colchicum, you will be blocked from editing. Also, unexplained removal of text on Economy_of_Canada, Spanish Inquisition , George Shrinks , etc --Enric Naval (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I recall that I reverted the George Shrinks vandalism edit. I think the user you should be directing this message to is actually User talk:64.141.49.2.

24.84.5.55 (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Pinoybandwagon's "sockpuppet"

Uhm... I don't want to be to conclude it too soon but I think he created another sockpuppet (User:Martindanza). Check out his recent contributions. Thanks! -Danngarcia (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe this, Martindanza is still not blocked despite of proofs presented against him at the noticeboard. An editor even said that the sockpuppet case is not a proof that Martindanza is a sock of Pinoybandwagon despite of the obvious similarities.

Waco siege

Okay, I added the attributions and did a little cleanup. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My User Page Deletion

Yes, not needed, but thanks for the thoughful notice regarding it. Best wishes for a good weekend. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Klaatu barada nikto

Good work on cleaning this stuff up. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

GDS

No point in voicing on the AFD. NPOV is an editorial problem. Sceptre 16:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Catalonia

OK, I'm waiting for you to explain what's the problem with my version of Coat of arms of Catalonia. --Jotamar (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have taken the time to revise the recent versions in Coat of arms of Catalonia, and it's obvious that you know Misplaced Pages policies very well. Anyway, I think you haven't reached to the root of the problem yet:

• I've been dealing with Sclua since January the 5th, and I've come to the conclusion that he has zero interest in Misplaced Pages's principles, for him Misplaced Pages is just another way to advertise a certain view of History in accordance with his likings. Please check his 'list of contributions'. It's the first time in 2 years as an editor that I come across such a guy.
• My version for the article is as bad as it gets, but it tries to be NPOV. I'm no specialist in medieval History or anything similar, and I don't care very much about whether the four bars are Catalan, Aragonese or Chinese. I'm just enraged by Sclua's unabashed manipulation of the article, and you would be too, if you took the time to review all his edits. Please read the complete discussion for the page, including the Cabal Mediation that I had to call in.
• I suggest that you write the vital page heading and a framework for the rest of the page, then I can work on it. But I very much doubt that Sclua will be willing to do that, he'll sooner or later revert anything that can threaten the idea that the catalanitat of the four bars is beyond any doubt. --Jotamar (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Ditto

Anyway, thanks for the advice. I won't be becoming an admin until maybe in at least 6-8 months.

Well, I've been doing good. I redesigned my userpage if you haven't notice, but let's get to the important parts. I've been really active, editing articles. I'm also in the verge of upgrading 2 articles for WP:GA.

How about you?--RyRy5 (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk since Philippe joined.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Cute lolcats? Maybe (yeah!).--RyRy5 (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice to know.

Well, I'll be voting on WP:AFD's and editing articles. I guess I should tell you that I put Jackie Robinson for WP:GAN. That's all really.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your evidence

I was reading through your evidence here, and it seems that your provided diff for the claim "Claiming effects similar to cold fusion" doesn't really support it. I can see Dana talking about atomic bombs here, but this is far removed from cold fusion. Did you perhaps link the wrong diff by mistake? --Infophile 04:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy article probation

The homeopathy article and related pages are on article probation, due to past editing problems. Please read the terms at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation and be sure to comply.

Hello Enric, after your recent contribution here I realised that you haven't been formally notified yet, although obviously you already know about it. Please be aware that you are responsible for what you propose, even when OffTheFence has proposed it before you. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)