Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:09, 31 January 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Hello, Poupon, I'm Kafziel. I saw from the note on your userpage that a vandal got to you before any good editors could. If it's any consolation, I've blocked him indefinitely. Anyway, since nobody has officially welcomed you yet, I may as well be the first to say hello, give you some tips, and share a few useful links.

Here are some links you might find helpful:

• User tutorial
• Help desk
• Policy on maintaining a neutral point of view
• Policy for content when editing articles and creating new ones
• Notability guidelines for people
• Tips for settling disputes
• Guidelines for properly writing and formatting articles

I know they're a little boring (okay... a lot boring) but they may come in handy someday.

I give every newcomer two tips for adding content: cite references whenever possible, and try to set aside any personal points of view. Aside from that, just be patient and receptive, ask questions whenever you need to, and have a good time. If you want to experiment with coding or see how articles will look before you post them, you can use your own private sandbox at User:PouponOnToast/sandbox for any tests you want to do. (The link will turn blue after you start the page.)

Now that you have your own user name, you can sign your comments on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically stamp your user name, the time, and the date. That will help other users reply to your posts. You may also want to fill out your user page to tell others a bit about yourself.

I hope this information is useful to you, and I'm looking forward to seeing your contributions. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me for help. Good luck, and happy editing! Kafziel 20:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that other vandal account is blocked, too. Wow, man, what did you do to get somebody so pissed at you on your first day?? :) Kafziel 21:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, and . Then we played a little in Japaneese - I thought telling him "seven falls and eight standings up" would make him stand up a better person. Not so much. PouponOnToast 21:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Geez, pretty minor stuff. Well, I'll keep an eye on your page for a little while. I blocked his whole IP range, so he might not be back. Kafziel 21:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The article on Gnommish

I would like to thank you for your constant work on reverting vandalism on the page for Gnommish. I was also wondering if you were interested in joining the Artemis Fowl WikiProject so you can help out across the board on Artemis Fowl articles. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 23:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous

Hi there, I put up a link to the More Revealed book catalogue on the AA site. This was after a lengthy discussion on the talk page. You then removed it, stating that it was not in line with "external link" wiki policy. Actually, this is not true. I cant see a single breach of that policy on the more revealed book site. I will be putting the link back up. I would be grateful if you could discuss it on the talk page before removing it again. Thank you. 82.19.66.37 14:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just like to clarify, it was NOT agreed to put the More Revealed conspiracy link to the AA article, the 'lengthy discussion' involved anonymous user: 82.19.66.37, ignoring points made and adding the link anyway. Thank you for recognising it was an invalid link. Mr Miles 20:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I looked over the talk page for AA, and it's very difficult to follow, and I still see no discussion of the More Revealed publisher, so I just looked at the web page for the bookstore and the forum. Both seemed to be under the standard of quality an encyclopedia would want to link to - external links are not added to promote things, but rather when they go into a level of detail that would be excessive for the article. I don't see that either of those links add substantially to the article, so I removed them. I think you should take a brief look at This essay and consider if this is the best place to fight over if AA is effective or not. PouponOnToast 12:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr Miles, you said "do what you want", which I took as am acceptance that I will put the link up. You did not seem happy about this, but did not mention any real reason to not put it up. Kind of seems you didnt have a good reason?

I'm not trying to fight over whether AA is effective or not. I am trying to get a link to the alternative viewpoint (the viewpoint that has got AA listed as a "controversial" subject). I think that the level of detail in those books is far too excessive. I am certainly not trying to promote the subject, but give readers of this article access to fair and balanced links. I'm not sure the importance of See Sharp Press. What did you want to discuss about it? I think that, as WP:EL explains, when an article is controversial, then it is important to have a external link that offers the counter view. This link does not violate any specific part of WP:EL, so until you find a better one, it should stay.

As for your last comment (a thinly veiled threat to get me banned), I would be interested to hear how you plan to do this. It is clear that you are very passionate, where as I am trying to encourage a more balanced article. It doesn't actually need much changing, and could be so much better....

82.19.66.37 17:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I don't see a threat by me to get you banned. Rather, I question if a list of "books" like this is an acceptable external link, and I wonder if you're letting your passion for a subject get in the way of your objectivity. PouponOnToast 18:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any reason why these books (some of which were written by such luminaries as Stanton Peele and Rebecca Fransway, and all of which have been published in hard copy) shouldn't be an external link. They certainly do give some balance, as per WP:EL, to the section, contain way more information than could reasonably be contained on the page and are written by various authorities in their respective fields. I am not sure that I see the problem.

As for my interpretation of the link, well please forgive me. No, I am not too passionate about this subject, to answer your question. I am not sure that I am erasing all points in that article that do not conform with my own view, or overburdening it with irrelevant or false information. 82.19.66.37 17:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that your edits to the encyclopedia are only on this subject, and only on one side of the issue. I fear that your insertion of this link is either a conflict of interest or just not a notable bookstore. I note that if you had linked to Stanton Peele's website, witch does not look like someone coded it out of their parents basement, I would be far more comfortable. PouponOnToast 17:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I originally did link to the peele site, but was informed that it was overly commercial. I have also edited several other articles since first discovering wiki, though am going to concentrate on this one, as it is a matter that interests me and is also an article which clearly needs quite a bit of work. As it is something that I know at least a little about, it seems a good place to start my wiki "training".

But I will take your point on board and try to be extra vigilant about what edits I do make. I have made one edit which could be described as "overly enthusiastic", though it was quickly reverted. I shall endeavour to be more balanced in the future. 82.19.66.37 10:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you actually edit the article as opposed to repeatedly inserting links to your web page on it. PouponOnToast 12:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, as a contributing editor to the AA article, I wondered if you would give your opinion on this reoccurring issue. Thanks Mr Miles 23:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

wikisource

Do you think the text would be better on wikisource? PouponOnToast 14:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If it would be on Wikisource, it would have to be in English. I guess It might be better suited to German Wikisource. What do you think?--Drboisclair 14:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance in this. This material is desired to help with the main article in question On the Jews and Their Lies. Do I need to be an admin or something to transwiki? And, doesn't a text on Wikisource need to be an html one generated through a sandbox? This, as you can see is a series of images.--Drboisclair 14:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No clue. I'll get cracking and get back to you. PouponOnToast 14:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Image-only sources are fine. PouponOnToast 14:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Meh, there's no magic way to do it. I'll see if I can't find a bot. PouponOnToast 14:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with this!--Drboisclair 14:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan

Thanks for the compliment - does that mean I can do it again? :-) Rambutan (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Conflict with User:Dahn

PouponOnToast, your attitude makes sense but you are not experienced with User:Dahn. I personally tried to compromise and explained to him my arguments again and again. He just acts as if only his opinion counted. Just check the older history of those articles, as well as the discussion pages, they are full of explanations. In fact, ALL editors with competence on those articles disagree with User:Dahn, but he manages to summon help from outside editors (with no knowledge of the issue) to push his POV. I continue to expose my arguments, see the recent discussion on User_talk:Francis Tyers. It is actually quite simple: when a person is best known by a pseudonym, the real name should appear in the lead. Please check Lenin, Stalin, Che Guevara, Yasser Arafat and then my recent changes to see what I am talking about: Vasile Luca, Alexandru Nicolschi, Emil Bodnaras and many others. Icar 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I will replace "Vandalism" with "POV pushing" when refering to the reason of the revert, is it ok? Icar 12:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSBIO#Pseudonyms.2C_stage_names_and_common_names allows for both forms of the article. Why do you care so much which name is first? PouponOnToast 12:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your link clearly states: "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the real name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym". The second form is given as a secondary option. Now the persons we are talking about were not actors or writers, but foreign agents in Romania. It is hugely relevant to have their true name in the lead. Compare with Lenin, Stalin and Che Guevara. These are not ordinary cases! They Romanianized their names to make them less odious to the Romanian people.

I would like you to read WP:TIGERS, and when you are finished, come back and rewrite the above paragraph for me. Thanks. PouponOnToast 13:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

All right, second try: your link states: "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the real name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym". My comment: compare also with Lenin, Stalin and Che Guevara. Icar 13:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does this make any difference at all? It seems to me that he's best known by the name that he changed his name to, as opposed to his birth name. Why, exactly, do you care? PouponOnToast 13:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Dahn has provided you with sources here. Dahn also explains why he cares so much. - Francis Tyers · 13:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Dahn has an advocate... without any competence on the article in question, except for some reverts mandated by User:Dahn. I do care because the version pushed by User:Dahn is POV, contradicts MoS:BIO and the Stalin, Lenin etc. examples. You did not tell me if you understood the Stalin example. It is not clear that "the name that he changed his name to" refers to a legal change of name. Icar 13:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you confirm that you understood that I was correctly applying the MoS:BIO guidelines in the Vasile Luca article? Stating this in the article's talk page would only be fair. After all, we all make mistakes. Your statement would be quite helpful. Thank you. Icar

Edit warring is not correctly applying anything. PouponOnToast 12:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

So why is edit warring allowed from the other party then? Or have I missed your comment on User:Dahn's (and User:Francis Tyers's) talk page. Now you do not dispute my version anymore with questions like "Why does this make any difference at all?" but claim that edit war is no good. Fine, then why allow User:Dahn to go ahead with it? Icar 13:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not. I didn't comment about your edit warring on your talk page, I commented on your consistant accusations of vandalism. If you'd like me to state for the record that edit warring is bad and that someone should stop it somewhere else, I'm happy to jump through that hoop. In fact, feel free to copy this statement to any talk page you want -> "Edit warring is wrong. If you are consistantly reverting a page to the version you prefer, you should stop doing that and instead seek a third opinion or submit a request for comments. If you cannot stand an article being in the version that you do not support, request that the article be protected instead of constantly reverting. PouponOnToast 13:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)" PouponOnToast 13:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I don't think I described the second one as vandalism; the first was adding stupid unsourced speculatory material again, and if I clicked the wrong button using WP:TW then I'm sorry.--Rambutan (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Well, adding NO without a signature is certainly not constructive! Also, see here, more relevant than it looks. By the way, I only installed Twinkle on Monday, and followed the instructions exactly. It gives me three revert options, "good faith", "normal" and "vandalism". I must have clicked "vandalism" by mistake. Anyway, if you'd rather I didn't deal with keeping Doctor Who pages clean - a hard job which has to be done, and which I do efficiently and well - then just say so and I'll respect your authority.--Rambutan (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

An apology

It's civilty. I think the polite action would be an apology. Isn't civility another Misplaced Pages guideline?--MrClaxson 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wrongly accused of being a sockpuppet of many disruptive accounts. I found this offensive. It's not hard to say 'Sorry'. I will drop it now but I'll bare in mind in future on how impolite Rambutan is.--MrClaxson 16:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

On edits

If you check the talk page, you will note that most participants in what Icar calls "an RfC" do not endorse his version, and that a compromise was reached over the other version (which also makes his edits misleading). The issues involved were not only related to names, but had to do with multiple issues that several users have stressed are incorrect in Icar's version.

If you check Icar's last posts on the matter, on the article's talk page, you will see that he continues to make speculations and allegations for which he was already warned, and that he deleted my posts there (together with some comments he made, which he knew were supposed to raise the attention of admins). Dahn 13:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I already commented on Icar's talk page. Edit warring is never acceptable, regardless of how right you are. PouponOnToast 13:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand. It is just that I would expect an editor to be sanctioned after doing what he did in the past hour, with or without the fact that he was on his last warning for precisely this type of behavior. Dahn 13:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It is far more likley for someone to be sanctioned if they are the only bad actor. PouponOnToast 13:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the discussion page, I withdraw from this discussion (which tends to become a quasi-monologue) for some time. Thanks again for your intervention. Icar 17:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi PouponOnToast. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance. Jreferee 08:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock-auto|Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Defcon edit". The reason given for Defcon edit's block is: "Vandalism-only account".|Nakon|749712}}

I edit from a corporate proxy. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently your autoblock has already expired. Mangojuice 17:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recall request

This is ridiculous, SirFozzie has good sense and wouldn't hand out deleted revisions to trolls. He's smarter than that. What do you plan to do next, POT, recall One of our best admins/checkusers because you don't like where she discusses Misplaced Pages? I request that you (PouponOnToast) withdraw your recall request. Keilana| 22:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning

If you are going to continue to make accusations like this, please use or at least disclose your primary account. Using alternate accounts to evade detection while stirring up controversy is prohibited, as emphasized in the recent Privatemusings RfAR. krimpet✽ 22:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is my only active account, and is my primary account as discussed on Alison's page. I will not disclose my old account. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How long ago did you stop using your old account? --A. B. 22:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Summer 2007. PouponOnToast (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You were using this account and the other account simultaneously between February and Summer 2007. --A. B.

No, I really wasn't. Please block me indef if you think I'm a bad-hand account, but be aware that if you do so, I'll just make a new account as my only-hand account. I like this username, however. PouponOnToast (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you're a bad-hand, a good-hand, an only-hand, or a big-foot. It had not occurred to me to block you either. You have said that you only have this account and I have taken you at your word. But I am still confused by the February to Summer 2007 period. You had two active accounts then, but you just now said that you "really" weren't using both. Can you elaborate on that for the rest of us? Thanks, --A. B. 23:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

For my part, I don't see how it matters at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. As I wrote elsewhere - "I scrambled the password on my old account to resist temptation to re-use it to add weight to my statements but re-disclose my identity." I fell victim to such temptation twice in 2007 - once in the summer, once in the spring. After realizing such, I ditched the account. In the interests of full disclosure, which I think is obvious, I was involved in issues surrounding MONGO on the old account, though I suspect most have forgotten it's existence. If I was asked to return to the old account, it would both be A. impossible without password recovery (obviously I changed the email) and B. tantamount to a ban as I will not reveal the level of personal information attached to that account. PouponOnToast (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Recall

For the record I have an WR account (same userid as this one) and I'm open to recall. You'll want to review User:Lar/Accountability before you start a recall though. Hope that information is useful. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not find your conduct on WR to be beyond correcting misinformation. While I feel your time there is completely and utterly wasted, it's yours - the time, that is. As long as you are not participating in the WR driven harassment, do what you want. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, I really don't think SirFozzie, Alison, are participating in harassment either, so maybe I was missing what your criteria were. ++Lar: t/c 22:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and another thing, I nominated a few pics for deletion over on Commons today because of something I saw on WR... ones that in my view ought not to be around as they are pics of minors and poorly licensed with no indication that there was permission granted for the children to be in them. That itself made up for at least part of the time I waste over there, I think. (although I see where you're coming from) They are all on this page Commons:Deletion_requests/2008/01/20 ... Hope that is useful info to you. Best. ++Lar: t/c 23:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to go over them with you. I massively disaprove of participation in the "MONGO" forum on Misplaced Pages Review as a mechanism of criticizing MONGO. Alison did that here. That is not acceptable behavior from a member in good standing here. If Alison is disappointed in MONGO's actions, or in his motives, or any of that, she can engage in on-wiki dispute resolution. Going to a sympathetic group of people who have unclean hands is not behavior becoming an unblocked user, let alone a checkuser and admin. I hope this behavior stops, immediately. I expect Alison will no longer go to Misplaced Pages Review to talk about other users.

In the immediately following post here, SirFozzy states that "I wouldn't call it harassment paranoia Kool-Aid, considering she was harassed by a (now-banned) user." This implicitly validates that he believes MONGO is "drinking the harassment paranoia Kool-Aid." Misplaced Pages Review, specifically the MONGO forum, is not an appropriate location for discussion of Misplaced Pages users. Like I said above, Dispute Resolution, yadda yadda yadda. He continues this behavior here. We have an obligation to DefendEachOther. This followup post was not acceptable behavior, period. MONGO is the victim of both harassment, stalking and generalize abuse from Cplot and Rootology. SirFozzy can dislike/disagree all he wants, but MONGO is a user in good standing, and must be defended.

Those are my concerns. When individuals cross the line from "worthlessly cavorting with trolls" (which you do by posting there) to "Harassing Misplaced Pages users in concert with trolls," they need to be corrected. I myself "read what the trolls write to see if it's worth dealing with" and I support you doing so on a continued basis. PouponOnToast (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe it is a matter of interpretation. I read Alison's post and Sir Fozzie's reply, and I don't see them as quite the same way as you do. I don't like a lot of what I see in WR, especially in the sections that are editor specific, but I don't see A and F as harassing MONGO. He does get harassed, and unfairly, to be sure. But then I would also point you to this post I made, which is a "discussion of (a) Misplaced Pages user", broadly construed, per your definition. I strongly believe in Meatball:DefendEachOther and yet I did not think that post out of line. ++Lar: t/c 23:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Individuals should avoid comments which are open to interpretation. Doing so leads to problems. A & F's comments in that thread were not acceptable - it is hard to interpret "I'll leave it alone, Alison.. was just frustrated you were being lumped in with.. well. I'll leave it there. Sorry." as anything more than throwing MONGO under the bus. It's hard to read "It's patently obvious to all that his motive was" as anything but 'less than the level of empathy we expect our admins to have.' If said comments needed to be made, they should have been made here. They obviously didn't need to be made - they were venting in times of stress. If users vent to WR in times of stress as opposed to doing something else, there is a problem. PouponOnToast (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

ANY comment about anything at all is open to interpretation, that's the nature of we humans, none of us are perfect and nothing we say is 100% concretely black or white. But I do see where you're coming from. Still, I'm not sure I'd recall someone over it, perhaps just some feedback would suffice? The self righteously perfect suit is a hard one to wear well. ++Lar: t/c 00:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Though I am dashing in suits of all types, I leave something to be desired in the "restraint" department. I am comfortable with Alison's responses to date, though it has been made clear to me that it was inappropriate for me to approach Sir Fozzy further. PouponOnToast (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea you were still around. I think it is important to note that I completely agree with you about WR, but I have examined Alison's work here and a few comments she has made there and I don't see anything alarming. I was disappointed she participated in a thread about the disagreement she and I were having, mainly because the thread was started by Rootology...no doubt she was upset at me about my questioning her involvement there and was just venting a bit.--MONGO 06:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Could I also get you to reconsider your post made here? I fondly remember the defense you provided me during the entire ED affair but this situation is absolutely no big deal and in no way comparable. The only reason I could see that it would be necessary to ask either Alison or SirFozzie to recall is if they posted personally reveiling info on these websites about our contributors...an event that is not going to happen.--MONGO 09:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Said venting was unacceptable, but it is my understanding such behavior will not continue. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job

You saved my fingers time to revert the POV edits of User:Travisthurston. I think he might need a bit of a reprimand. OrangeMarlin 23:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Your seeming attempts to remove well-sourced information on plants used in homeopathy from a number of articles is tantamount to vandalism, please stop.Number48 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

THuja

Sorry! Anthon01 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Almost verbatum. Get a copy of the article. Anthon01 (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a copy? Could you send it to me if you do? PouponOnToast (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Martin Tajmar has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Snowolf 20:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No comment. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies, while reverting vandalism, everyone makes mistakes. I do read the edit summaries, unlike you suggested, but something always slip thru. Happy editing, Snowolf 20:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Apocynum constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. · AndonicO 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

Sorry. · AndonicO 20:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear. · AndonicO 20:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thuja

Thuja. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Coming close

As a demonstration of the level of damage caused by fringe viewpoint pushers, on February 1, I will no longer engage, correct, revert or discuss any article impacted by fringe science. I will additionally urge others to allow such disruption to go unimpaired.

The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources.

If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on. (discuss this here)

None intended

I commented on the editors edits claiming all sources who speak of homeopathy in anything but negative terms are considered fringe. Anthon01 (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Economics Articles

I share the concerns you described on Raymond's talk page about the state of the finance and economics articles. Even though the majority of my expertise is in economics, I won't touch those articles with a ten foot pool because of types of editors who inhabit the pages. Btw, it's nice to see another editor who is well grounded in reality and willing to take a stand. Cheers, mate!!! Baegis (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

While I can maintain composure on issues that I don't professionally care about, I don't edit economics articles because I would lose my cool. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman

IMO, constructive editing entails improving an article, not removing sourced bio info from a bio article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My friend

I appreciate many of your edits, because, frankly, they're right on the spot. However, KillerChihuahua, aka the Puppy, is an admin who supports the NPOV when it matches the Scientific POV. Don't be fighting with the puppy, because that's not going to help your edits. IMHO. OrangeMarlin 19:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

...

Thanks for the helpful advice DJLayton4 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in my RfA!

		Thanks for participating in my RfA!
		Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Moreover you alerted me to your understandable concerns about disruption. I will take heed and carefully address them. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Your ongoing defense of my character and editing is most appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Arsenicum album‎

Hi, I'm not sure if your edits and mine overlap, though there was no conflict warning. You might want to remove the POV tag? Or add something on the talk page (you've probably done this by now) thanks --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmeopathy

What, protected AGAIN?! Adam Cuerden 15:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course. You see, there are so many new accounts edit warring on the article, both sides must be wrong - it's wikipedia. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Thank you very much for taking out the time to respond to the request. I will add a toggle as you suggest that will allow editors to remove aritlces when in "some cases, be impossible to fix." Thanks again for your time.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Better location

It may be better to take this up on user talk. It's not really an AN/I issue anymore, the way I see it. Friday (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. I certainly don't intend to further comment there, as I think the point has been hammered firmly home (the point being that vexatious complaints against AC exist and are done with little regard for fairness.) PouponOnToast (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm concerned about unfounded complaints too. Hmm. Oh well, in this case it looks like pretty much every reasonable editor saw this as a simple mistake rather than some grand conspiracy. Friday (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, Rue, and WP:3RR

My reason for notifying ScienceApologist was that it appeared, based on the 3RR report, that he had indeed violated 3RR, while the opposing editor had not yet. It seems that there is a slight disagreement as to whether one of his edits was a qualifying reversion; I'm not that well versed in 3RR to make a call. Since I am editing while working (a big no-no), I did not catch up to all sides of the issue until the article had been protected as a response to the 3RR report. Note the same issue is happening with the same opposing editor over at Talk:Deadly nightshade. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

TheDoctorIsIn

I don't believe he's a sockpuppet. He's most definitely a meatpuppet, but most likely not so blatant that he could be blocked for it. Read through his talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a puppet. . . Do you have any alternate accounts? Maybe you 2 are the same person?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have edited under other usernames in the past. I do not currently, nor do I intend to, nor do I have the password for my previous usernames. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Two things. If you're suspicious about someone being a meat or sockpuppet, it's best to either email or post to a high-level admins page (JzG comes to mind as an appropriate one). Throwing around charges, even if certain individuals exhibit puppet behavior, can be construed as a personal attack. I tend to be very circumspect. Alternatively, build the evidence, and go straight for a checkuser or sockpuppet request. Furthermore, Poupon, if you have previous accounts, you are going to cause a shitstorm about your editing unless you come clean. You should email an admin like JzG, state what you have done, and make sure he's on board with your decision. Otherwise, one of the amateur admins we have running around the place will read this and block you. The more experienced admins need to be informed so that they can unblock quickly. You work on controversial issues, and the POV-warriors are going to use what you've written here to destroy you. They're so unethical that they make false accusations all the time, so you're giving them ammo to go after you. Fix it fast. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs) 18:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My previous account name has been provided to a number of users whom I trust, and I suspect that 60% of the rest of the world is well aware of it given vandalism to my user page. Said shitstorm came and went. I am not concerned about anyone "coming after me," because I adhere to the highest standards of civility and do not edit war. Finally, I do not email, as information wants to be free. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm on your side here. Please don't bite me, cause I just hate the thought of a rabies vaccination! OrangeMarlin 18:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I know. No worries. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll happily back my accusations of meatpuppetry in ANI, RFC/U, or another appropriate venue. As I said, I don't think it's blatant enough for a block based solely on meatpuppetry though. --Ronz (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch probation

I'd already gotten that one (which prompted some complaints about me from Anthon01 here and here). Lawrence § t/e 18:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! PouponOnToast (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. Lawrence § t/e 20:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Notification

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Your edit here can be construed as uncivil. -- Levine2112 22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)