Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:31, 22 August 2008

☺

Welcome to my talk page. Messages that are welcome here:

• politely-worded criticisms of my behaviour (but please see procedure below if you're thinking of posting criticisms of other users)
• calmly-expressed differences of opinion
• questions about how to edit Misplaced Pages
• just saying hello or whatever
• etc.; I like getting that "you have new messages" banner.

Re criticism of users other than myself: If you're having problems with another editor, I'll probably be happy to look into the situation, but please follow this procedure.

• consider not posting any criticism of another editor. It's possible to ask for help without criticizing anybody.
• Please don't post any criticisms of other editors on this talk page, (because I don't want to be indirectly responsible for such), but instead post them on your own talk page or the talk page of the other user (assuming it isn't inappropriate to do so); I suggest being as diplomatic as possible.
• you're then welcome to put a link from this talk page to such comment. (See Links or Simplest diff guide, or just tell me the name of the section on which page)
• when giving the link, please avoid posting any words of criticism on this page. It's fine to say "see comment critical of user X at (link)" but please don't say things like "see comment describing disruptive behaviour of user X at (link)".
• You might also consider emailing me.

One way to leave a message here is to click on the "new section" tab at the top of this page. Sometimes I reply here, sometimes on your talk page, etc.; feel free to let me know which you'd prefer.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Your kind note

Thank you, your kind words are much appreciated. Jayjg 02:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Coppertwig. Thank you for your kind note. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Brock notes section

Hi CT. Yes, if you want to wikilink the notes section, that would be a big improvement! The FA review has been extended on the grounds that work is still being done on the article, so now I have to finish all my planned improvements that were on the back burner.. They must do this just to get more work out of us :-). EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I will. I had a disappointment: I was writing a program so I could add the links using semi-automated editing. I can preserve the special characters and everything while copying the wikitext onto a computer and running it through a Perl script, but I haven't found a way to copy it back onto Misplaced Pages without messing it up. I may have to wait until I have a private Linux account working again in order to do semi-automated edits fully-automated edits using pywikipedia. Meanwhile, I'll add them by hand. Not difficult for the one article, but if I can do it automatically or semi-automatically I may be able to do a lot of articles. Thanks for the reminder. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, done, at least for the Tupper refs. I'm not sure if any others need to be done, unless maybe they're re-arranged to have only a short note in the footnote. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That was fast! Article looks good now. Since I have a Mac which runs Unix and Python, maybe I could do pywikipedia from here. Consider offering your Perl script for others to look at; you could put it on a user subpage. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing much yet. It will need lots of tweaking to work well on a variety of articles. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru

Good luck with your communication attempts, and thanks for the help. --Elonka 16:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You're welcome! Thanks for your message! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

There is this IP adress, 81.109.11.33, which makes a series of edits on Dharma that I revert. A user by name user:Langdell reverts my edits to the IP address's version, and then the series of edits from the IP address continue. I think that Langdell may be masquerading here justo show that more than 1 people agree with his version of the article. This has been happening in the Revision history of Dharma since 19 July 2008. Can you just check it out ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The total number of edits by the IP and by Langdell is small, so I don't think it's a problem at this point in time. Even if it's the same person, maybe Langdell simply forgot to log in. Forgetting to log in is allowed as long as it's not used to gain advantage. Even the IP and Langdell combined are nowhere near 3RR.

I notice that you haven't explained on the talk page the reason for your edits. I suggest doing that. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That I have done, in the section right above Langdell's created one. But the pattern that I talked about has occured twice :- An IP address makes a series of edits. Then I revert them, only to be reverted back by Langdell. After this, the IP's edits continue. If this repeats, I'll let you know. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where you explained your edits. Are you talking about Talk:Dharma? Could you give me a quote of a few of your words so I can find the section you're talking about?

You said "Hence, this direct upfront attack by questioning or demanding my identity in this manner, is a crass attempt at a personal attack. This desperation..." I suggest avoiding words that are likely to evoke negative emotions. If you think there's a personal attack, you can ignore it or you can say "personal attack", but there is no need to say any more: no need to say "direct" or "upfront" or "attack" (repeating the word which also appears in the phrase "personal attack"; saying it once is enough) or "crass" or "desperation". I think it's also better to discuss personal attacks in a friendly way on the user's talk page, not on the article talk page. ☺ 10:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've discussed the article here, which is now archived (I did not realise this earlier).

Your suggestion about "avoiding words that evoke neg emotions" is noted. But Langdell has used such language too like, "disruptive interventions of IAF" and later going on to question/demand my identity - a discussion that's nothing to do with the article's topic. Even if devoid of some adjectives, this was equally if not more evocative of "negative emotions".

Earlier too I have very politely requested this user on his talk:page here sometime in December last, urging him to discuss the article instead of posting 'warnings' and threats on my talk page. Even at that time he was simply reverting my edits without a word of explanation on the talk page. So his behavior is all the more un-wikipedia like. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Noted. (However, please see the request at the top of this talk page about how to post comments critical of other users.)☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Your comment avoided answering the question.

Did you comment on Dematt's talk page to deflect attention away from my question?

Here is a reply to your question. It would be inmpossible to suggest a wording that everyone agrees upon. There is no need for attribution which would water down the sources.

Here is the question below.

This edit by Levine2112 was inaccurate because it was more than Keating. What do you think about the misleading edit. QuackGuru 18:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"What do you think about the misleading edit" is a leading question, therefore I won't answer it directly. There is no need to answer this question directly. If the text in the article is misleading, it can be changed to different text. There's also no need for me to comment on the current text in the article, as I've already commented on it and as there are currently negotiations going on to change it to something else. Gleng's suggestion, which I mentioned, takes care of the complaint that there is more than one source, not just Keating. I answered at Dematt's talk page for several reasons: because you had posted something there which I felt required a response in the same place; and because I thought you would be likely to see a reply there; and because I thought you might not know what part of Talk:Chiropractic the edit I was referring to had been suggested in; and because I thought you might not see a comment if I posted it in that section of Talk:Chiropractic since many people have trouble keeping up with all the discussions there and I didn't think you had been posting recently in that section. By replying to your post on the same page as your post I certainly didn't intend to deflect attention from your question; in fact, I've been trying to get you to post about these things at Talk:Chiropractic so we can all discuss all sides.

When I say a version everyone will accept, I don't mean necessarily a version everyone will be happy with, but at least a version that everyone can accept as a compromise and not keep reverting. I think that's quite possible; and that WP:CONSENSUS urges us to try with good faith to reach that type of solution. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: If the text in the article is misleading, it can be changed to different text. There's also no need for me to comment on the current text in the article, as I've already commented on it and as there are currently negotiations going on to change it to something else.

The discussion on the talk will water down the text even more. It might help this matter if it was reported to the neutrality noticeboard for outside commentary.

There is a need to comment on the current text when it is misleading and a violation of one of Misplaced Pages's core policy, NPOV.

When NPOV violations continue there is a need to continue to discuss it per WP:DR.

Changing it to something else as suggested on talk will water down the source even more.

The current text is an NPOV violation and can be discussed. Do you agree it is misleading to state that it was just Keating when it was not. QuackGuru 19:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of commenting on the disputed wording, I've suggested another alternate wording here. (And my later correction.) Please help to find the wording which will evoke the smallest amount of objection from Wikipedian editors considering policy etc. Please comment there and suggest other alternate wordings. I see no need to report anything to a noticeboard at this time (other than the SYN question we've been working on) because discussion is proceeding and seems to me to be getting somewhere, but if you wish to report to a noticeboard I have no objection to your doing so. Please make your concerns about watering-down part of the discussion if you haven't already, and please suggest some alternate wordings that you don't consider to be watered down, trying to accomodate the other objections at the same time if you can. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The word researchers does not imply all researchers. If we are going to use attribution then researchers is the most accurate and neutral. Removing the attribution would also resolve this too. QuackGuru 01:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

First we need to figure out which sources support the statement. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was an NPOV violation to claim it was only Keating. QuackGuru 16:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

We have a 3RR noticeboard. Maybe a new noticeboard called something like 3RR NPOV violation noticeboard would resolve issues like this quickly. If there are 3 NPOV violation edits to the same specific content then it would be reviewed when editors consider it an easy to identify NPOV violation. This is clearly an NPOV violation. We can start a draft for a new noticeboard and admins can take action against NPOV violations. In the beginning the focus would be on the edit and not the editor. QuackGuru 18:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think NPOV is best enforced as it is now, by consensus of editors at the page and with occasional RfC (article content) and questions at noticeboards etc. I think we need to be wary of any system that would allow admins to make rulings on article content. Nothing wrong with admins, but the number of them is smaller and I think NPOV is better served by consensus among a larger number of people. See User talk:Ronz#Discussion. Anyway, it's good that you're thinking about how the system could be better designed.

I'm working on posting a list of quotes from the references, on which we can perhaps base a re-written version of that sentence.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

When edits like this stick in mainspace there is clearly a problem with the system. If it is not broken don't fix it. But the system is broken at this point. We are not going to get agreement on the text that is NPOV. NPOV is not enforced. Something needs to change. Misleading information on Misplaced Pages is allowed to remain in the chiropractic article. QuackGuru 19:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

See my reply above. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So far the NPOV violation continues to remain in the article. The chiropractic article is broken. It should be fixed. Attribution waters down the text. QuackGuru 01:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See if you can think of a good wording that won't be considered to require attribution. I'm just going to try to think of a new suggested wording now. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There is already a good wording. Attribution is unnecessary and is currently misleading. We can't attribute text just because some editors don't like what the reliable sources say. How long will the misleading information remain in the article. The longer it remains in the article the more broken Misplaced Pages has become. QuackGuru 01:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think is the good wording? Do you understand what others object to about it? Can you explain their/our POV about that? Can you find wording causing the minimum amount of objection from all Wikipedian editors? I'm just trying to think of some wording now. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing the misleading attribution is good wording. Others object because they don't like what the source says. We are here to write an encyclopedia and not a promotional ad. How many days will the misleading text remain. This does not look good for the editors who added the misleading information against NPOV. QuackGuru 01:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How is attribution "misleading"? If someone said something, it's true to say that they said it. We've been discussing on the talk page wording that acknowledges that more than one person said stuff. And I'm trying to think of other suggestions. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The current attribution claims it was only Keating. It is more than one researcher. QuackGuru 02:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on my new suggested wording, which I just posted at Talk:Chiropractic#Antiscientific: suggested wording of sentence. Please help tweak it. Please comment there. (Here too if you like.) This suggested wording doesn't imply only one researcher. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You asked how long the information would remain in the article. One answer is: until we get a consensus or rough consensus on new wording, at least as strong as the rough consensus that supported the current wording. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your new suggested wording is difficult to understand and flows poorly. I disagree with a rewrite.

We don't need a new wording and you don't have consensus for the current wording. Dematt claimed he has not decided yet and you claimed there is more than one researcher to verify the text. I can provide the evidence if needed. QuackGuru 02:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest we do? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are going to do what you want despite me explaining you don't have consensus or you are watering down the text or adding hard to understand text. QuackGuru 17:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If you make specific suggestions for improvements, especially in the appropriate section of the article talk page, they can be considered along with everybody else' in forming a compromise or consensus version. I don't know how to translate "watering down" or "hard to understand" into specific different words for the article; it would be better if you would suggest alternative versions of the sentence.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What you added to the article was very poor writing. I don't understand the text. It would be better if you reverted your edit and removed or fixed the misleading text saying it was only Keating. I strongly object to your edit. It was not an improvement. You written over quality text and now it is much worse. The text was fine except for the Keating part. I did not see any reason for a rewrite and the rewrite makes no sense. QuackGuru 01:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Your new proposal is understandable. I made my suggestions at chiro talk. Do you have any specific suggestions for the middle of the spectrum. QuackGuru 18:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we can take this edit to the NPOV noticeboard unless we can come up with a compromise. Outside editors can review both versions and decide which is closer to NPOV. QuackGuru 23:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Logicus

Coppertwig, as someone who has tried to convince User:Logicus to avoid personal attacks in the past, would you be willing to explain to Logicus why edits like this (see the end, especially) constitute personal attacks? I've asked him to be civil and avoid personal attacks (see User_talk:Logicus#Please_be_civil), and rather than let it go, he demands that that I provide the same details I've already provided to him about what constitutes a personal attack or "withdraw" the claim that he has made personal attacks. Cheers--ragesoss (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--ragesoss (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Analog hole

Hi Coppertwig. It seems that the user you interacted with a few month ago - 71.100.x.x - is back at analog hole, and this time, inserting links to his wikibooks:analog hole article, which contains some of the exact links that were removed previously. The editor has some personal issues with me () due to an AfD (), so I'd like your opinion on the WikiBooks issue before this turn into an edit war. Thanks! --Jiuguang (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I read parts of the discussions at the links you give. I'm not sure if I want to give an opinion on the content dispute. May I suggest WP:3O? Or WP:Dispute resolution. Note that the editor has a right to edit the article and I'm not aware of any reason why the user shouldn't insert links. Please state your case very clearly on the article talk page, and maybe give me a link to where you do that. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful than that right now. However, feel free to ask again if the situation gets worse. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - see bottom of Talk:Analog hole. I'm try not to have a repeat of User_talk:Coppertwig/Archive_7#Message_to_71.100.x.x. --Jiuguang (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dharma

Hello coppertwig. Thankyou for your attempts to harmonise the edit on the subject of the article dharma. It may be true that editors choose anonymity but please be kind enough to take time to look at User:IAF's talk page. If you do not do this I am afraid that we cannot get anywhere. Please also note that I am the principal editor of Ajahn Munindo's last book 'Unexpected Freedom'. Ajahn Munindo is a senior representative of the Theravada Buddhist religion in the West. He is the abbot of Aruna Ratanagiri Buddhist Monastery. I can assure you that a teacher of Ajahn Munindo's eminence would not invite and then request assistance in putting a book together from someone who did not know what he was talking about. I hope (and assume) that since you have intervened you have some knowledge of this subject yourself. In order to improve the article I need the assistance of someone who actually knows something about this subject. I am very sorry but I shall be unable to enter into any dispute with the user in question. He has more than adequately demonstrated his true colours in the past. My only desire is to further knowledge of this subject because it is one in which I just happen to have a better than average understanding. The User:IAF has a long history of anti-social behaviour. You can only know this by seeing how many times he has been blocked. If you would like to help me improve the article dharma, you are most welcome. Best wishes.Glenn Langdell (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, Glenn. It's good to have an editor knowledgeable of the subject. Actually, I know nothing of the subject. I think the page came to my attention at the 3RR noticeboard and I've been acting sort-of like a neutral referee, not making judgements about which version is better. I might or might not continue to do that.

Please treat IAF in a respectful manner. If the other user doesn't reciprocate, that will be obvious. Also, please see my request at the top of this talk page about how to post criticism of other users.

According to the verifiability policy, material should be supported by reliable sources. I hope you'll be able to add more references to improve the article.

Feel free to contact me again. I'll try to remember to keep an eye on the article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, from personal experience, most editors who have a "gudge" against my edits bring up the issue of past warnings and "past behaviour" to further their view-point. I don't think that that is applicable while editing articles because an article's discussion must contain content solely about the articles improvement or furtherment. A User's identity, his User:page being blank, past block-log etc. are totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

So I request you that whatever decision you make further about the article involving me and Langdel/anyone, it should ONLY involve my (and the other user's) recourses to action that are taken for that article only. Any other aspect/attribute should not be entertained or taken as a mesure of forming opinion or enforcing something. In my case, I have previously invited Langdel quite respectfully to enter the negotiation round, and have put forth a detailed reason for my edits (now in the archives). Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have no special authority to make decisions: decisions are made by consensus. However, I agree that a discussion about article content should be only about article content (and about what the references say, how reliable they are etc.) and not about user conduct, and that if user conduct is to be discussed (usually on that user's talk page and other venues, not the article talk page in my opinion) that past behaviour or behaviour at some other article are generally not relevant to decisions about that article. Editors should work together and try to reach consensus. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

thank you

Actually, they weren't rhetorical questions at all and I appreciate your help. Those were the kind of questions that stymied the article in question. ChrisO, being an administrator and knowing the ropes, was able to search for more individuals to lend weight to his view, and when there was no consensus proceeded to tie the article up with these complaints. This is not a good way to proceed. I did not know one could do an RfC on article content. Perhaps that would be the way to proceed with this article. Thanks again for your guidance. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, without knowing much at all about the article, but from the RfC and stuff, I have the impression that RfC (article content) and questions at reliable sources noticeboard would be an excellent way to proceed. I'm not sure if I've ever done one of those, actually, but I'm willing to help you figure out how if you like. There are probably straightforward instructions. Part of the key is writing a clear, concise question; if the question is too long or convoluted you might not get anyone answering. Sometimes (usually?) people work together on the article talk page beforehand to agree on the wording of the question to be asked. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replied

I've replied at my talk (with another question, of course!). Thanks for your message. Antelan 02:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Block duration

Hi. Just wondering, did you at this comment for the benefit of the IP because it wasn't explicit in my note? No problem, just interested if there was another reason. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was primarily to assist the blocked user, since no duration was specified in the block template. I believe there have been one or two times when users didn't know their blocks had expired until I told them; they may have been expecting a notice to be posted when the block expired and assumed they still couldn't edit. It could also be informative to anyone else who looked at that talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. TigerShark (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

Hi, Coppertwig. Are you currently mentoring for QuackGuru? -- Levine2112 19:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you left a comment on QuackGuru's user page. I'm generally happy to look into situations when asked, for just about any Wikipedian, insh spare time. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review this discussion when you have the time. You'll see a general consensus to includes the text at Atropa belladonna. The dispute is mainly between myself and ScienceApologist, but several other editors have been involved in the months-long discussion. QuackGuru has never participated in the discussion. However, he has three-times reverted me with less-that-accurate edit summaries. -- Levine2112 18:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I read that discussion. I see that there seems to be consensus to include one neutral sentence on homeopathy in the article. However, your edit was changing from one sentence about homeopathy to a different sentence about homeopathy, or even (I forget; you could put a link here to your edit for convenience) to more than one sentence about homeopathy. I see no evidence that there was consensus for your change. I consider that a normal way of doing things at Misplaced Pages is bold, revert, discuss, and it seems to me that that's what QuackGuru is following: you've been bold and made a change, QuackGuru has reverted it, and now it's up to you to begin discussing and justifying that specific change; since as far as I've seen you haven't done that yet, then QuackGuru is justified, in my opinion, in reverting it again if you put it in. The discussions I saw were about whether homeopathy is mentioned at all, not about the difference between one version mentioning homeopathy and another version mentioning homeopathy. After you provide justification on the talk page for your edit, then in my opinion QuackGuru should not do any more reverts unless either QuackGuru or others have refuted your arguments on the talk page; preferably, in my opinion in this situation, there would be a discussion leading to a mutually acceptable or compromise version.

Perhaps there's a misunderstanding: perhaps each party sees their version as being NPOV and therefore supported by the discussion asking for a "neutral" sentence, and doesn't understand that the other doesn't see it that way. This would need to be made explicit in talk page discussion.

The three reverts you linked to were spread over a period of many weeks.

Re "vendetta": Please follow the request at the top of this talk page when posting here; and please assume good faith.

I hope the discussion will go well; and I hope you'll feel free to ask me to look into the situation again if things deteriorate. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

First, thanks for the long, well thought out reply. Second, let me assure you that conversation about the context of the included text has been ongoing for nearly six months now. The most recent conversations can be found here. QuackGuru has never participate in any of these conversations. My issue here is that QG has a tendency to follow me around to random articles just to revert my edits without participating in discussion. He did it again today . I don't think this is about who's version is more correct and I don't think QG is practically interested in this. His goal seems to be one of annoyance. But that's just my opinion. I really respect you as an editor, Coppertwig. I hope you can at least see where I am coming from here, even if you don't agree with me and let your mentee know how his tactics are being perceived. Anyhow, I appreciate your time and input always and if there is something in this matter which you think I can improve on, please don't hesitate to tell me. -- Levine2112 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Levine2112, for taking my post in a positive spirit. However, in the section you link to there, I don't see any mention of the specific edit in question. I suggest that you quote, on the talk page, the entire previous version of the sentence and the entire new version, and in the same post state reasons for changing one to the other. I think it's a good idea to try to put a complete, well-organized argument into one post; then later you can link back to that post if you need to.

I'm under the impression that you didn't read the part of my post that's in small font, which directed you to the request at the top of my talk page. I've just edited the top of my talk page to make the request clearer: it now says "Please don't post any criticisms of other editors on this talk page." You may post such criticisms on your own talk page and provide a link to them here.

I suggest re-reading WP:DR and discussing the matter diplomatically, and in a manner which shows that you are assuming good faith, with QuackGuru on QuackGuru's talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sound advice once again. Thanks. Please note that I have removed some text above per the top of your talk page. -- Levine2112 00:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry, I forgot: you've already posted a message on QG's talk page. No need for more such messages unless problems continue. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is another example of QuackGuru reverting one of my edits on an article in which he has never participated in discussion. -- Levine2112 05:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think what QuackGuru did was OK: QG posted to the talk page shortly afterwards, and anyway QG had referred to talk page discussion (by others) in the edit summary; although the discussion didn't particularly support QG's position, in my opinion. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Note also there is currently a RfC and a WP:FTN for the article. --Ronz (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, take a look at some of the refs. There are some refs that are unreliable and extremely old which is a violation of WP:MEDRS. This reminds me of chiro talk. The older refs have been removed. Higher quality refs are available. This is unduly self-serving to use primary sources that are an opinion in a controversial topic. The text needs a rewrite. For now it should be deleted or moved to the talk page. At chiropractic we don't use chiropractic studies to explain the effectiveness of chiropractic. We use various higher quality studies. It starts with the higher quality studies first. Self-pub sources are being used in an unduly self-serving way. QuackGuru 17:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Db-blankcsd/new

Seems misplaced.... --MZMcBride (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Db-blanktalk/new too. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many templates "db .../new". They are listed at Template talk:Db-blankcsd/new. Only two have been deleted, and their talk pages still exist. Please don't delete Template talk:Db-blankcsd/new because it contains a list of all the other templates, which will assist in deleting them; but the other talk page can be deleted because its associated template has been deleted. I see I made a mistake with all the links to the talk pages, though. (fixed.) Soon I may put in a TfD to discuss deleting all the /new templates, though maybe not if one of the major contributors to those versions of the templates prefers to keep them. See Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 30#Deleting "new" templates, which are no longer needed. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinions

There's no such thing as a "non-admin opinion". The opinions of all editors count. Comments that are insightful and backed by evidence may count more, but who makes the comments is not relevant (unless it's a single purpose account, a sock puppet or a banned user). Jehochman 01:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. However, when I was helping on the 3RR noticeboard I found it very helpful to let people know I was not an admin; otherwise they assumed I was, and it made a difference because admins could do things I couldn't. I had a feeling a similar situation might arise with the particular comment I made on Elonka's talk page. I prefer to try to proactively avoid receiving comments like this. I don't usually append those words to my comments, though, even on admin noticeboards. Logically, a "non-admin opinion" is simply the opinion of someone who is not an admin. However, I appreciate your comment. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally, when people start saying "I thought you were an admin" or "Why aren't you an admin," that's when you should stand for RFA. At some point the admins will think you're a bother going to them for service and say, "Here, do your own mopping up." Being a non-admin is a luxury. Jehochman 02:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Stopping by

Moonriddengirl has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hadn't crossed your wikipath in a while, so thought I'd stop in and say hi. :) And also comment how strange I find it that the drawing board has practically dried up! For a while there, I didn't feel like I could go on wikibreak without asking somebody to babysit the board (as you know, since you kindly pitched in). We used to get multi-questioners a week. Now we're down to multi-questioners a month. Wonder why?

Hope you're well. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Must be a link somewhere that's been changed. Can the Drawing Board be found somehow from the Main Page? I don't know if you want it more easily found or not.

Speaking of Drawing Board, though, I'm working on three draft articles at the bottom of my sandbox. (I-message, Federation of Women Teachers' Association of Ontario, and Caroline Andrew.) Well, I'm not sure if I need any specific help, but if you feel inspired feel free to comment or contribute. The main thing I'm wondering is whether I have sufficiently reliable sources for I-message, but I'm just doing the best I can do there. (Haven't really started writing the text yet for that one, except the first sentence.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello and greetings; replying to the message you left on my talk page. A twig that will grow into a shrubbery will make an adequate replacement for a shrubbery. BTW, from a brief perusal of your pages, I'm guessing we live in the same country; can't narrow down our proximity further. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC

Because my participation as a Misplaced Pages editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)