| Revision as of 17:54, 14 July 2008 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Quackwatch: cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:58, 14 July 2008 edit undoGRBerry (talk | contribs)16,708 edits →Quackwatch: thoughtsNext edit → | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
| ::::: It's not "just one tag". You have been heavily involved in the editing of the article, as well as participating at the talkpage. You are clearly "involved" with the article. --]]] 17:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | ::::: It's not "just one tag". You have been heavily involved in the editing of the article, as well as participating at the talkpage. You are clearly "involved" with the article. --]]] 17:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::I do not see any evidence that Minderbinder is heavily involved in the editing of the article or talk page. Elonka, please provide your evidence. ] 17:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | ::::::I do not see any evidence that Minderbinder is heavily involved in the editing of the article or talk page. Elonka, please provide your evidence. ] 17:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Review the article history back in March 2007 and earlier. He is significantly involved with the article, just not particularly recently. ] 17:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *(ec) Minderbender - Before today, you hadn't recently edited the article much. Indeed, March 2007 was the last time you'd been active on the article page - but back then you were involved in reverting extensive edits. In recent months, your only talk page contributions appears to be claiming that Elonka is an involved admin. If that was all, we would think of you as an involved party for the purpose of managing the dispute, but not as an editor who was actively working on the article. Today, you also resumed editing the article, so now unambiguously belong on the list of recently active editors of the article. That list is a convenience for those of us trying to manage the dispute, and neither praise nor blame attaches to being listed there. | |||
| :As to Elonka, an admin does not become involved merely for using their tools to manage a situation. Please read ], including "one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them". I've looked at the one of Elonka's edits to the article; there is no plausibility to extrapolate from that diff to being a signifcant editor of the article. And you were attacking her as involved prior to that diff, so I can't believe that it is the real basis for your actions. Instead, the attack appears intended to drive off an admin that knows the situation so that for at least a bit more the dispute can not be effectively managed. This is a common strategy among those who might face sanctions, but in the long run neither helpful nor well received. Please drop this line of attack. I, and I'm sure the other admins also, will monitor each others actions and let one another know if we have concerns. Additional noise from those who clearly are disputing parties is not helpful, and sometimes counterproductive. | |||
| :And as to that diff, why don't you go do what is thereby encouraged - i.e. go find clearly reliable sources for the claim that the site has been recognized and received awards? It is indeed bad practice to cite the recipient for receipt of awards (think of all the various scandals involving falsified resumes) but with all the various things on that page it should be trivial to cite some of them from the givers of the awards. Your time would be better spent on improving the article than on attacking Elonka. ] 17:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:58, 14 July 2008
| This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Minderbinder/Archive/Archive 1. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
 |
|---|
| 24 December 2024 |
|
Please add messages below, I recommend using the + tab above if you're creating a new subject. Also, I'd appreciate if you could sign and date messages, that way they should be archived automatically. Thanks - MM
COI
Let me first of all make clear that I derive no benefit from promoting homeopathy. I have received no consideration nor offers of consideration from anyone. I do not understand how you say that Dana Ullman has some inherent COI by virtue of being a recognized expert who has published books in the field. We do not prohibit chemists from editing chemistry-related topics, and indeed we encourage those with relevant academic knowledge to help us build a better encyclopedia. Just because homeopathy is a controversial area of study does not mean we treat experts in that field as less deserving of respect. —Whig (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say he has inherent COI, I'd say he has the potential for COI. I'm sure nobody would have objections to him making corrections to articles on the subject, just edits that slant the article toward a sympathetic point of view. And looking at the article history shows an edit that does just that. --Minderbinder (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think everyone has the potential for COI, so that's not really relevant. Your position that he is unable to make contributions to articles other than corrections is simply untenable. —Whig (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I would appreciate it if you would supply the diff that you think was objectionable. —Whig (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not really my position, it's what WP:COI says, partiularly WP:COIC. This is all a moot point now anyway since the arb enforcement section has been closed, to be honest I'm not that interested in debating this with you. Cheers. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- This will be my last reply, then. As an editor in the opposing camp put it so well, "WP:COIN is for obvious conflicts of interest: Editors adding information about themselves or their specific interests. Specific interests include employers, friends, family members, etc. It does not apply to professions, areas of expertise, personal beliefs, etc. If DanaUllman has edited Dana Ullman, that would be an obvious coi. Homeopaths editing Homeopathy without editing about themselves or their specific interests is expected and welcome." (in fact, Dana did at one time edit his own article and was blocked for it, but has learned the rules and complied with them since.) —Whig (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd agree that he can edit the article in a manner that isn't COI. Unfortunately, looking at the edit history, it appears he hasn't done so. --Minderbinder (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I did not wish to reply further. I only note that I asked you to supply a diff, because the edit history doesn't prove anything. That's all, and I'm done here. —Whig (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd agree that he can edit the article in a manner that isn't COI. Unfortunately, looking at the edit history, it appears he hasn't done so. --Minderbinder (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- This will be my last reply, then. As an editor in the opposing camp put it so well, "WP:COIN is for obvious conflicts of interest: Editors adding information about themselves or their specific interests. Specific interests include employers, friends, family members, etc. It does not apply to professions, areas of expertise, personal beliefs, etc. If DanaUllman has edited Dana Ullman, that would be an obvious coi. Homeopaths editing Homeopathy without editing about themselves or their specific interests is expected and welcome." (in fact, Dana did at one time edit his own article and was blocked for it, but has learned the rules and complied with them since.) —Whig (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not really my position, it's what WP:COI says, partiularly WP:COIC. This is all a moot point now anyway since the arb enforcement section has been closed, to be honest I'm not that interested in debating this with you. Cheers. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Minderbinder, under your logic then, conventional medical doctors could not critique homeopathy because of COI due to the potential benefit that they might get from people who seek their care instead of homeopathic care. Let's not get too crazy here. If I refer to my own website on the article pages, please cry out COI (though this won't happen). In the meantime, perhaps be pleased that some experts (and not just armchair philosophers with axes to grind) are still editing here. DanaUllman 15:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back
Welcome back to the asylum :) MastCell 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Lost episodes
Regarding your revert here: Take a look at the ref section in the main episodes list. The ref is displayed with a red error message there. --- Oh, hold on. I've figured it out: The problem is that only the table is being transcluded into the main list article. Ugh. This means all refs that are being used both in the table and in the rest of the article should be formatted so that the full ref instance is in the table. I'll go ahead and do that then. Dorftrottel (canvass) 22:09, April 15, 2008
- There, that should do the trick. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 22:15, April 15, 2008
- Thanks for figuring that out. I was just looking at the Season 4 article, where it didn't have an error, didn't realize it had an error when transcluded elsewhere. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose there's no easy, technical way to permanently resolve this. Maybe an according hidden notice (added to the existing one in the section) might be a good idea? Dorftrottel (troll) 23:02, April 15, 2008
- Thanks for figuring that out. I was just looking at the Season 4 article, where it didn't have an error, didn't realize it had an error when transcluded elsewhere. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe something along the lines of
* Also, please note that the table is being transcluded onto the main episode list article (]). This means that references that are used both within the table and also in the rest of this page must be formatted so that the full instance of the reference appears within the table. Otherwise the empty ref will result in an error message in the main episode list article.
? Dorftrottel (warn) 23:09, April 15, 2008
Reiki
Wow- do you really stand behind that source and content? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Minderbinder
Minderbinder aus Deutschland? :) --Gwynplain (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. US of A. --Minderbinder (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am user Minderbinder from the German Misplaced Pages. I am glad we seem to share a taste for literature. Minderbinder-de (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Quackwatch
Regarding the new conditions for editing at the Quackwatch article, your name was added to the list because you have been participating at the talkpage recently. If you are "done" with the article, meaning that you are not going to participate at the talkpage anymore, it's fine that your name be removed from the list. However, if you continue to participate, your name is going back on, because the list is for the use of the administrators to keep track of current participants. Let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is disruptive. If you continue with these kinds of actions, per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy, you risk further restrictions, from page bans up to potentially having your account access blocked. --Elonka 17:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why is that disruptive, and why would you even have any objection to it? You did edit the article . That list says "Note: Being listed here does not imply that these editors were disruptive. It is simply for reference, a list of those editors who have recently been actively engaged with this article." Since you were actively engaged with the article, per that edit, it seems perfectly appropriate for you to be on that list. In addition, what part of the Homeopathy RFA are you referring to? --Minderbinder (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Me adding one tag, does not count as involvement. See WP:UNINVOLVED. You, however, have been involved in many ways, from editing the article to participation at the talkpage. When your name was originally added to the list of involved editors, you removed it. I said okay, as long as you stayed away from the article. But you didn't stay away from the article, so your name went back on the list. Then when I added your name, you added my name to the list of "involved" editors, which is not accurate. That's the disruptive part. Please don't adjust the list at all, just let the uninvolved admins do it. As for the Homeopathy case, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary sanctions, specifically: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." --Elonka 17:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- So if adding one tag doesn't count as involvement, then why did you add me to the list of involved editors - that is the only thing I have done on the article as well (with the exception of format fixing, or do you consider that editing that would constitute involvement as well?). Please make up your mind how you're defining "involved" in this case, either we should both be on the list or neither. And based on the quote from Homeopathy, I stand by my edits - fixing a list of users and adding a tag are not remotely disruptive, nor have I remotely come close to violating anything mentioned there. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's not "just one tag". You have been heavily involved in the editing of the article, as well as participating at the talkpage. You are clearly "involved" with the article. --Elonka 17:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I do not see any evidence that Minderbinder is heavily involved in the editing of the article or talk page. Elonka, please provide your evidence. QuackGuru 17:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Review the article history back in March 2007 and earlier. He is significantly involved with the article, just not particularly recently. GRBerry 17:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I do not see any evidence that Minderbinder is heavily involved in the editing of the article or talk page. Elonka, please provide your evidence. QuackGuru 17:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's not "just one tag". You have been heavily involved in the editing of the article, as well as participating at the talkpage. You are clearly "involved" with the article. --Elonka 17:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- So if adding one tag doesn't count as involvement, then why did you add me to the list of involved editors - that is the only thing I have done on the article as well (with the exception of format fixing, or do you consider that editing that would constitute involvement as well?). Please make up your mind how you're defining "involved" in this case, either we should both be on the list or neither. And based on the quote from Homeopathy, I stand by my edits - fixing a list of users and adding a tag are not remotely disruptive, nor have I remotely come close to violating anything mentioned there. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Me adding one tag, does not count as involvement. See WP:UNINVOLVED. You, however, have been involved in many ways, from editing the article to participation at the talkpage. When your name was originally added to the list of involved editors, you removed it. I said okay, as long as you stayed away from the article. But you didn't stay away from the article, so your name went back on the list. Then when I added your name, you added my name to the list of "involved" editors, which is not accurate. That's the disruptive part. Please don't adjust the list at all, just let the uninvolved admins do it. As for the Homeopathy case, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary sanctions, specifically: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." --Elonka 17:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why is that disruptive, and why would you even have any objection to it? You did edit the article . That list says "Note: Being listed here does not imply that these editors were disruptive. It is simply for reference, a list of those editors who have recently been actively engaged with this article." Since you were actively engaged with the article, per that edit, it seems perfectly appropriate for you to be on that list. In addition, what part of the Homeopathy RFA are you referring to? --Minderbinder (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Minderbender - Before today, you hadn't recently edited the article much. Indeed, March 2007 was the last time you'd been active on the article page - but back then you were involved in reverting extensive edits. In recent months, your only talk page contributions appears to be claiming that Elonka is an involved admin. If that was all, we would think of you as an involved party for the purpose of managing the dispute, but not as an editor who was actively working on the article. Today, you also resumed editing the article, so now unambiguously belong on the list of recently active editors of the article. That list is a convenience for those of us trying to manage the dispute, and neither praise nor blame attaches to being listed there.
- As to Elonka, an admin does not become involved merely for using their tools to manage a situation. Please read WP:UNINVOLVED, including "one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them". I've looked at the one diff of Elonka's edits to the article; there is no plausibility to extrapolate from that diff to being a signifcant editor of the article. And you were attacking her as involved prior to that diff, so I can't believe that it is the real basis for your actions. Instead, the attack appears intended to drive off an admin that knows the situation so that for at least a bit more the dispute can not be effectively managed. This is a common strategy among those who might face sanctions, but in the long run neither helpful nor well received. Please drop this line of attack. I, and I'm sure the other admins also, will monitor each others actions and let one another know if we have concerns. Additional noise from those who clearly are disputing parties is not helpful, and sometimes counterproductive.
- And as to that diff, why don't you go do what is thereby encouraged - i.e. go find clearly reliable sources for the claim that the site has been recognized and received awards? It is indeed bad practice to cite the recipient for receipt of awards (think of all the various scandals involving falsified resumes) but with all the various things on that page it should be trivial to cite some of them from the givers of the awards. Your time would be better spent on improving the article than on attacking Elonka. GRBerry 17:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)