| Revision as of 23:55, 22 January 2008 editNumber48 (talk | contribs)141 edits →Labeling edits as vandalism← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:00, 23 January 2008 edit undoBlack Kite (talk | contribs)Administrators85,255 edits →January 2008: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ::::The article was indeed from the BHA which is, as noted on the talk page, recommended by the BMA as a sound source for information on homeopathy. The doctor in question not only wrote about the particular treatment, but also about the general use of thuja and so was a perfectly reasonable source for the claim. In addition, a further source was then provided. Re the original research point: now you are just being ridiculous. OR relates to editors here, not to research done by others and then published in reliable sources.] (]) 23:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | ::::The article was indeed from the BHA which is, as noted on the talk page, recommended by the BMA as a sound source for information on homeopathy. The doctor in question not only wrote about the particular treatment, but also about the general use of thuja and so was a perfectly reasonable source for the claim. In addition, a further source was then provided. Re the original research point: now you are just being ridiculous. OR relates to editors here, not to research done by others and then published in reliable sources.] (]) 23:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::: You're missing the point. Even if the BHA is a reliable source, Dr Marysia Kratimenos is not. Obviously, we don't say that a certain plant has homeopathic qualities on the say-so of a random homeopath. <b>]</b> 00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Labeling edits as vandalism == | == Labeling edits as vandalism == | ||
Revision as of 00:00, 23 January 2008
Welcome!
Hi Number48! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing!
January 2008
Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:ScienceApologist. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. OrangeMarlin 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not consider it an attack to request editors stop disrupting wiki by an organised campaign of deletion of well sourced material. According to Wiki rules that is vandalism.Number48 (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC) This seems to be an attempt at intimidation in a content dispute, which must be a violation of wiki rules. Hardyplants (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The material you inserted was not well sourced. For instance, the first reference was on the British Homeopathic Association's website (hardly a neutral source), and even then, it was merely a mention - not even any details - of a homeopathic doctor who claimed that Thuja cured her patient (which is hearsay & original research). BLACKKITE 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article was indeed from the BHA which is, as noted on the talk page, recommended by the BMA as a sound source for information on homeopathy. The doctor in question not only wrote about the particular treatment, but also about the general use of thuja and so was a perfectly reasonable source for the claim. In addition, a further source was then provided. Re the original research point: now you are just being ridiculous. OR relates to editors here, not to research done by others and then published in reliable sources.Number48 (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. Even if the BHA is a reliable source, Dr Marysia Kratimenos is not. Obviously, we don't say that a certain plant has homeopathic qualities on the say-so of a random homeopath. BLACKKITE 00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Labeling edits as vandalism
Please do not accuse other editors of vandalism over content disputes. ] does not include good faith content disputes. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not a good faith content dispute but an organised campaign of deletion of well sourced material in order to drive an agenda forward and the integrity of Wiki as a reference source be damned. This is the definition of vandalism on WP:Vand. Number48 (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)