Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:24, 29 June 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Your recent edits

You removed tons of information (which is possibly vandalism), and your edit summary was not clear. Please enter in a better edit summary. Thank you. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot external report site offline.Undid revision 257929121 by ClueBot is not good enough for an edit summary. You did not say you moved it until after my revert. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Information was moved from an article to another. Reasoning was explicit in those articles contents . Numbers of lines on a single article is not everything, watch out before making false accusations based on shallow guesses.Nutriveg (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

But you said that after my edit. Your edit summary before my revert was not clear. Because of that, I thought it was vandalism (by a very large removal of content). After all it says: "If you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary.", which did not happen by the time of my revert. I will continue to watch my edits, and hopefully you can enter in a better edit summary. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Again, please do not remove large sections of articles without an edit summary and/or note on the talk page. Providing such will ensure that your edits are not perceived as accidents or vandalism. Also, when creating any article, including spin offs, it is important to follow the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style. In this case Misplaced Pages:Layout and Misplaced Pages:Footnotes are of particular importance. I've fixed the most obvious migration errors, but I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the above pages. --DO11.10 (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Zineb

I see you added the latest banning orders fron EU. Looking at the refs you supplied it does not mention Zineb but does mention maneb and mancozeb, which seems strange to me as the active ingredient is generally agreed to be the dithiocarbamate ligand, which is present in all three. Am I missing something here or have the legislators? --Axiosaurus (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Zineb is not listed in list of the examined substances, I think they missed it.--Nutriveg (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps Zineb was banned previously- if it hasn't been it should be examined - must try to find anything about it. I must get round to adding something on dithiocarbamate health issues- compounds containing them have been used in large quantities worldwide.--Axiosaurus (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship suggestion

I've been informed of your WP:WQA thread, and I have added some points there. I'll only repeat here that I think you have made some very good contributions and citation additions, but have some concerns for other poorer edits. If you would like to discuss this further then I'm happy to do so - would feedback on your edits (without obligation) be helpful/welcomed ? If not, perhaps consider this of another editor whom you respect (or see Misplaced Pages:Mentorship#Voluntary mentorship). Yours David Ruben 04:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No. If some of my edits are poor is because of I don't have enough time to do better ones, go improve them instead.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Alzheimer

I have given the reasons for the elimination in the talk page. I hope you join the disccussion. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverting at will?

I dont understand, Which bot? --Frankie0607 14:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, your edits were so fast and unreasoned that I though you were a crazy bot.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My edits follow policy when reverting. I only revert clear evidence of vandalism. Please feel free to continue this on my talk page. --Frankie0607 14:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please explain which policy was followed here? And how you can judge "vandalism" so fast?--Nutriveg (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a console which displays differences in red, I apologise for reverting your edit, as it was good faith. Sometimes the software jumps or collides with other articles. I was veiwing another peice of vandalism before I edited yours, which may of still been displayed when I was looking at your changes.It is easy to identify vandalism quite quickly. Which is majorily helped by the software. Sorry again :) --Frankie0607 15:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table. Thank you.

You made a major change to the table - adding another column - without anything in the edit summary. It is very important for other users to see what you are doing, especially when making large changes. Thanks |→ Spaully† 12:27, 29 April 2009 (GMT)

Swine Flu tables

Hello,

I see you have a tendency to try and add new information (columns) to these tables. While I appreciate your desire to get "as much info as possible" into the tables, this kind of stuff is better handled in the text of the articles. The tables are not meant to be a substitutes for the article and should stick to only the # of cases. Lest they become unwieldy and also make the text beside them difficult to read. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Also please try to use edit summaries - especially when making major changes to an article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks / roundup

I just saw your restructuring of the Roundup article. That looked like a lot of work...but I think the article is a lot clearer now. Thanks much! Cazort (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

You just removed some information from this article and failed to provide an edit summary. As you have been instrcuted before, please be sure to provide an edit summary as it help other editors establish what you have done to an article. Faethon Ghost (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism doesn't require justification. "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary." Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from using words like 'duh' in an edit summary. Please remember WP:Civil. Faethon Ghost (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's so good we have people like you around to take care of us, it feels like kindergarten all again.--Nutriveg (talk)

Bisphenol A

Regarding this edit: I'm curious why you think it's better to summarize there, and I'm also a bit concerned about the disappearance of several citations referencing journal articles. Would you explain your reasoning, please? Rivertorch (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It was confuse, the first phrase of that introduction was a reference to a study and that study wasn't representative. Feel free to rewrite it.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard

When you ask for comment in a place like this (and I want to point that it was you who asked for it), it is to have open ears to what people has to say. Right now 5 different editors have stated that Kheiffets can be used... You can say that I was heavily involved in the discussion; fine; that is four and only you against using it; but then; no one more than you has been more heavily involved; so you should neither count. That's four people against nobody denying its use and it's called CONSENSUS, you can accept it or put your hands over your eyes/ears and deny it.--Garrondo (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

SA also said his opinion wad biased, WhatamIdoing didn't evaluated my arguments so far, and the other two just now joined the discussion and didn't say she was an "expert in Alzheimer", after you campaigned asking for a different question "if she was an expert". So you're making early conclusions at best. Please use to noticeboard or article page for any further comments.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I bothered you: I posted it here because it was related to how I see your behavior, and not to the sources themselves. Regarding WhatamIdoing: there is no need for him to evaluate your reasoning: he can reach his own valid conclusions by himself.--Garrondo (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your comment

thank for your comment on my talk page. I did originally add to some of the articles edited, but then read the article that Beland (talk · contribs) directed me to (Strand AD, Baquet ZC, Aragaki AK; et al. (2007). "Expression profiling of Huntington's disease models suggests that brain-derived neurotrophic factor depletion plays a major role in striatal degeneration". J Neurosci. 27 (43): 11758–68. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2461-07.2007. PMID 17959817. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)) and found no reference to all the conditions listed. Given that this was completing misleading, it was better to removed it. Thanks for now adding other references, although there are still some concerns about some of these (see discussion on schizophrenia and WikiProject Medicine talk pages). Regards Earlypsychosis (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Glutathione supplements

Please see this discussion here.Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#New_article.2C_may_need_the_old_once-over--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Expanding on my response at WQA

These are just ideas: to expand a bit on that, this edit] does many different things. Should an editor object, the editor is faced with choosing to either make changes by hand or simply click revert and move along. I think it is clear that in a content dispute, the latter may win out, although it is unkind. I tend to the other extreme, annoying people by making an edit to apply each change. The problem with that is that it tempts editors to abuse roll-back and kill all the edits at once.

Another idea: if you make an edit that simply applies all the {{fact}} (and {{CN}} may be less confrontational), there is very little excuse for an editor to revert, and you are at risk of losing less work.

Hope that helps. - Sinneed (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

Hi Nutriveg,

I'm disappointed that you did a mass revert of several of my edits. Apparently, all that mattered to you was making sure that your previous version was in the safe sex article, without making any effort to figure out whether any of the last 20 edits were improvements. From the looks of things, you have done this repeatedly. It's not a friendly, collaborative, or helpful behavior.

I'd like to suggest that you stop edit warring and work section by section on the talk page to put together a consensus version of each section. Sure: It's slow and sometimes tedious, but it actually gets the job done.

It might be helpful if you remembered that WP:There is no deadline. If the "Right" version isn't on the page for a day, or a week, then who cares? There's no deadline. Stop reverting and starting talking, so that ultimately nobody will be reverting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not 20 edits, the article has been edited and reverted for long time. The article was already reverted to an earlier version, and I started from there, but suddenly Simon deleted all those edits and restored a later version, arguing vandalism.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop reverting multiple edits without explanation. You have been asked several times to discuss rather than reverting. You keep saying that others should discuss on talk page, but do not do so yourself or indicate any reason for the removals and rearrangements that you are making. See also WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Revert only when necessary Zodon (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Safe sex. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand and I'm sorry for that inconvenience since I was unaware I couldn't edit a poll proposal, since polls usually have a previous time for discussing options and changes. But in the way you deleted my proposed change, I hope you understand that proposal and do it yourself, for the sake of clarity instead of using ambiguous words as options.--Nutriveg (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I won't incorporate your changes because I don't want "just" a poll. I don't wanted editors to vote on "this" or "that". I want them to tell me "Sure, I have the same idea as most people" or "No, I have a different idea, and here's what my idea is." Your changes don't permit that: Your changes told editors that they were required to choose either one "side" or another, and too bad if they had other ideas.

When deciding on the subject of an article, Misplaced Pages is not required to follow the definition put forward by any authority. WP:N is not bound by either WP:V or WP:NOR; those two policies apply only to the statements made within the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability requires verifiable evidence--Nutriveg (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

In the end, yes. But the verifiable evidence does not determine what you get to write about; it determines whether you get to write about it. See WP:NNC for the relevant section, or just think it through logically: How would you determine whether any verifiable evidence exists, if you don't know what the verifiable evidence is supposed to be about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't see the point of this discussion, but to make clear: I won't change the way you run your poll.--Nutriveg (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop personal attacks in article talk pages

Please comment on content not on people

You have repeatedly used article talk pages to make disparaging comments about other users.

• "Making general statements, just to object, ..."
• "You are just changing excuses to remove content you don't like."
• "You're interested in hear Zodon's opinion because you likely share his POV, ... "

Please stop. Please comment on content not on usersWP:NPA, and WP:assume good faith. Allegations of bad faith do not belong in article talk pages and do not facilitate discussion and editing. Please see also WP:Civil. Zodon (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of you pointing old comments, where your name was involved, out of context, I don't see no ongoing problem in that sense to justify this warning.--Nutriveg (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice: The three revert rule and editwarring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Safe sex. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Verbal chat 11:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I reverted that edit twice restoring the previous stable version, where you reverted it twice as well but to readd unreferenced newly added disputed content, I'm thinking you're are the one having problems to understand Misplaced Pages policies.--Nutriveg (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nutriveg, WP:3RR does not give you permission to revert two times or three times; it merely says that if you go past three in 24 hours, you'll be blocked no matter what. You are edit warring when you insist on reverting to your preferred version, and you must stop. Labeling your preferred version "the last stable version" does not change the situation: you are deleting the efforts other people have made to improve the article simply to impose your own preference. If you keep doing this, I'll file the request to have your account blocked at WP:AN/EW myself.

Am I perfectly clear? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't see the connection of this warning with any ongoing problem. I don't similar warning in Verbal talk page neither.

The "last stable version" is the older version I could find all editors agreed (before the edit warring started), if you think that's a still earlier version, please inform which that is.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

By warning you I warn myself too, and you made more reverts than me, and your reverts are not supported by other editors, etc. Verbal chat 20:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether your preferred page is m:The Wrong Version or the right one: Repeatedly forcing the page back to your preferred page, over the objection of other editors, is edit warring. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's usual Misplaced Pages procedure to revert to the previous version before the problematic edit. Unusual were the "Verbal" actions.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edits were disputed by more than one editor, and yet your reverted to your preferred version. Verbal chat 21:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You, even twice, is still a single editor. You're in no position to give advice here beyond to yourself. --Nutriveg (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly Verbal is a single editor, but I make two on that point, Mish makes three, and Simon makes four, and there are still more editors that are concerned about various aspects of your proposals. Your edits are being opposed: It's beyond silly to claim that the opposition to your proposals and your reversions and your edit warring is from a single editor.

You have misunderstood STATUSQUO (which is only a non-binding essay, anyway). I have explained at the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Where any of those other editors expressed approval for this new intro before I've reverted it?

You're just raising old issues to find a justification to this warning made by someone who started himself the edit warring and another who couldn't even read the edit summary of that edit or evaluate the change, and assumed I was reverting (all) instead of restoring the previous intro.

That issue of what should be the earlier version to make a baseline to restart was discussed here and no one disagreed.

You had enough space on my talk page to express your misunderstands and I see no ongoing problem to justify this warning. So this issue ends here.--Nutriveg (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Your reverting

Besides from our discussion in bisphenol A, I'd like you to know that it's best to revert only when necessary. After all, every good faith edit has a point, with the contributor thinking that it's better afterward, although that improvement may not always be clear at a first glance. Cite: Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like, add to and enhance them while following the principle of preserving information and viewpoints. And thanks for contributing. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, I generally didn't like those modifications.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Medicinal mushrooms

Lets try to work constructively on this article, please. Also if you add a study about a particular mushroom please place it in the appropriate section. Big thanks... Jatlas (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

What is wrong with the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology? It is on PubMed and ScienceDirect, and the journal description does not throw any particular redflags. I would not expect to see cutting edge medical research reported there, but I am not sure it needs to be expunged from the encyclopedia. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

See this discussion. Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that looks pretty damning - thanks. There are probably some instances where papers can be used appropriately, but carry on. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of content

I very much understand and support removing unreferenced and unverifiable content as you did with Early-onset Alzheimer's disease. But this should at the very least be explained in the edit summary so others know why the content is removed. Tatterfly (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Please email me if you have questions.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For keeping an eye on Metformin. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Why so much vandalism?

The modifications have been aprooved! There is no need of your vandalism! Where is the improper use?--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:MEDRS as was requested in the edit summary "edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source". Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And indeed my edits were aproved from the community, indeed the sources sunstain completely the edits.--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not approving them and many neither, I don't see how those are outside of "the community". Your use of sources doesn't follow WP:MEDRS as already described.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

They follow it...you do not follow the[REDACTED] pillars, you should learn more instead than making vandalism...--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

After the rather large discussion and multiple warnings after accusing me of vandalism, bad-faith, censorship, and being a part of some conspiracy involving the pharmaceutical industry, I thought you would have learned your lesson vis-a-vis flinging accusations. Apparently, that is not correct. Your continued assumption of bad-faith and accusations of vandalism are no longer going to be tolerated. Wperdue (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Vitamin D

Thanks for catching and re-correcting the error at vitamin D. I misread it before reverting the anonymous edit. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it again, I'm not sure it should be "low". The sentence make more sense when referring to those with high sun exposure. Any thoughts? -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks more reasonable for me, but you can remove all that unreferenced text.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Pain in dementia

Thank you Nutriveg for pointing out the synthesis in the article I merged into Dementia. Fortunately, I found an extremely authoritative review covering most of the elements not covered by the other two reviews in the reference list. As for the size of the article, I don't know enough about WP guidelines to have an opinion on that. Again, thank you for your vigilance. Anthony (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for all the really good work you've been doing around WP lately. Keep it up! – ClockworkSoul 21:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Pubococcygeus muscle

Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:Minutae reported by User:Nutriveg (Result: Protected). The warring in this case was quite blatant; please don't make a habit of it. See WP:Dispute resolution for some better ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Your evaluation, asking for a WP:Third opinion, doesn't reflect reality. There were a number of people involved, Freikorp, 2010 Duncan, NickPenguin, all opposing Minutae, which, against consensus and ignoring the warnings, kept adding his original research to the article. I ask you to reevaluate that.--Nutriveg (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of content: Accelerated Hydrogen Peroxide

I very much understand and support removing unreferenced and unverifiable content. However your removal of verifiable and referenced information was unwarranted. Accelerated Hydrogen Peroxide is globally patented as unique and novel. Its effectiveness as a germicide differs significatly enough from Hydrogen Peroxide (w/ water) that it is referenced seperately by such leading authorities as the CDC in their most recent Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization. Regarding your comment made about it being an advertisement, at no time were brand or product names mentioned in the AHP addition. Virkon is clearly referenced below. It is simply the brand name of the identified oxidizing chemistry. (talk) 5:00, 8 February 2010(UTC)

WP:3RR

I've explained why your edits are invalid and I believe you're in breach of a policy you may or may not know. I suggest you read it after WP:OWN. Regards, Jack Merridew 19:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You're the one instigating a 3RR, either by reverting the page directly or running your automated tools again. Don't act just to provoke a reaction--Nutriveg (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I see at least two others who've reverted you. And note that I don't run the citation bot. Jack Merridew 19:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

But you're the one edit warring, redoing bot edits, that's your problem.--Nutriveg (talk)

• WP:AN3 Jack Merridew 20:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's expected behavior from you, being provocative again, you did those 3RR because it doesn't resume just to reverting but to readding contentious content, my reverts wouldn't exist if you hadn't insist in those automated edits.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You're not listening; read Misplaced Pages:Template limits. The route you prefer is not viable. Jack Merridew 20:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

3RR complaint about your edits at Vitamin D: please respond

Hello Nutriveg. I have been investigating the report at WP:AN3#User:Nutriveg reported by User:Jack Merridew (Result: ). It seems that, by the book, you have broken 3RR. You seem to be warring against a bunch of editors. If you are willing to accept a 1RR restriction on this article (maximum of one revert per day for 30 days) I believe that the 3RR complaint could be closed with no sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This issue was resolved long ago as discussed in the article talk page. Thanks for your attention.--Nutriveg (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're now happy with how the bot does things, and will not continue to revert it? EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the solution but I concede to it. I can not continue to do something I've already stopped long ago.--Nutriveg (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

BPA

Hi there. Your April 12 edit to revert my edit... The wording does not seem to be very well-worded to me. Your thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You can't change the reference text, there's no such thing like two years.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the reference?

While other agencies and governmental bodies are moving to restrict BPA's use because of concerns about its links to health problems, including cancer, the EPA now says it won't develop a tougher regulatory plan for the chemical for at least two years. Gandydancer (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but the issue here is that EPA didn't include BPA in the action plan in December, with the other chemicals that were also announced to be evaluated in September 2009, because of industry's lobby. That's the issue discussed there, not what EPA will do, since that's outdated. BPA was later included in the action plan in March.--Nutriveg (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I tend to not agree with you and still find the wording odd. However, I respect the work you do on this article and your apparent knowledge re the subject and will assume you to be the expert here... BTW, I did wonder about this latest entry re the EPA funded study--actually I had no idea that the EPA even funded studies! So I was happy to see your additions. This country (and others) is so fucked when the agencies that are supposed to protect us are actually protecting the interests of corporations... Gandydancer (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about that study but I can't say it's that bad, its critics look biased for me so I can't rely on their opinion so far.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Help please

I am asking you for help because it seems that you edit some controversial articles and are more familiar with acceptable references than I. I began editing several years ago when the Helen Caldicott article was badly in need of editing and I continue to watch that article closely. That interest led to an interest in the Three Mile Island Accident, and I continue to watch that article, though to a lesser degree. It seems that I am headed to an editing war in that article and am looking for help to avoid it. Do you have time (or interest) to look at that article and the heading "Radioactive material released", paragraph III and the 3 "unreliable source?" tags? I feel that tags can be a way to "legally" cast doubt on perfectly acceptable references, and if that is the case in this article, I would like to remove them. You can read the discussion on the talk page. Thanks, and any suggestions would be appreciated. Gandydancer (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Institute for Southern Studies is not a reliable source for a fact, but you may include their POV if you're clearly attributing that POV to them, like Nigelj said. But they're supporting two facts on the same phrase, you need to address them individually.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

POV

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

Why do you think Al Jazeera is not neutral and biased when its used across wikipedia? Furthermore, if jpost has any credibility to be posted here then Press TV and Al Manar certainly do, they may have their perspectives just as the likes of jpost and fox.Lihaas (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

They are not a reliable source for supporting that text if you have any problem with that ask in the RS noticeboard. Please use the article talk page to discuss these article issues any other commentary on my talk page will be deleted with no answer.--Nutriveg (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I'm just asking other people opinion, I do think they are unreliable sources for that purpose.

Questionable content added by a recent edit should be removed until consensus is reached about it.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I've reported your edit warring to the EW noticeboard, as promised. Everyone but you as made attempts at working toward a better version, except for you and you have unilaterally reverted a whopping 10 times! --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Make that 11, based on the revert you just did. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue with previous editors was already resolved, those other edits are due to you insisting in redoing that change without addressing the problems discussed in the article talk page.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Saying "I give up, it isn't worth dealing with you" doesn't mean they supported your version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are the only one currently redoing that, that's why at least of 5 of those reverts where made. That's the point, you are the problem!--Nutriveg (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You chase away 3 good faith editors through aggressive behavior and I'm the problem. That's a good one. Also, you may notice a difference between my editing and yours - I have attempted to reach a mutually acceptable version by altering the text several times. You, however, have just insisted you are right and no other version will do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I won't discuss article issues here, you initially removed a couple phrases keeping the same reported problems and stuck to that version reverting to it several times. You avoided the article talk page and kept reverting the article to be able to escalate this problem. You're the one adding new content to the article, you're the one that need to get consensus for that change.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue with other editors was certainly NOT resolved.Lihaas (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

My best advice to you is to give it up, it isn't worth it. You can't win when arguing with someone who is "respected by the community." For some reason some users on here are given a gold star and therefore allowed to do what they want, and they usually have admins that they regularly go to when they have problems. Kinda like a pimp :) You can argue until you are blue in the face and whether you are right or wrong you are gonna be the one who gets disciplined. I know cause it happened to me. Personally I find it highly disturbing that a user can remove your edits simply by saying, "it doesn't meet with the consensus opinion", when usually that opinion is only that of said user, but apparently there is no way to get an impartial judgement. Basically he will be allowed to threaten you with all sorts of actions like, claiming your sources are not reliable, watching and editing every article you touch(which is incidently happening to me now), reporting you, blocking you, and if you respond in any way that he considers insulting you will be blocked. It's not fair I know, but welcome to wikipedia. LIGHT DINAMITE 17:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbrad2001 (talk • contribs)

Misplaced Pages:Third opinion

Hi. Just so you know, TransporterMan's edit on Misplaced Pages:Third opinion was appropriate. 3O requests are supposed to be unsigned and neutral, and your edit was neither. Please don't undo the change again. — HelloAnnyong 19:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My problem was with the link to the diff, as reported in the edit summary.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point"

Judging by a quick scan through your Talk page, it seems like you are quite fond of removing references based on a strict interpretation of what constitutes a reliable source, and that your attitude to other editors cen be quite combative when questioned. At the time of writing you are in the process of removing a good deal of references in Abortion based on them not meeting WP:MEDRS. I notice too that this course of action follows your involvement in a discussion on Talk:Abortion where other editors stated that we should rely upon MEDRS sources when discussing how to present information - and this sequence is to say the least in curious juxtaposition to your edit immediately preceding it - adding material sourced to the Daily Telegraph newspaper.

If you have not done so, I urge you to read WP:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You should be aware that you are involved in that article discussion so use that place for discussion of article content. I didn't further used that source and I'm removing similar WP:MEDRS non-compliant sources from the article.--Nutriveg (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

With respect this is not a question of article content but of your conduct. Regarding MEDRS, a quick and limited scan of the referenced cited in Abortion includes the following low-hanging fruit:-

• Quarterly Journal of Economics
• Ohio Roundtable Online Library. The Pro-Life Infonet.
• St. Anthony Messenger. (http://www.americancatholic.org)
• BBC News.
• Resources for Religious Views on Abortion on Patheos
• Garrison, Fielding. An Introduction to the History of Medicine
• Blackstone, William (1979) . "Amendment IX, Document 1". Commentaries on the Laws of England.
• On the Laws and Customs of England. 2. p. 341. OCLC 1872.
• The Abortion Law Homepage.
• United Nations Population Division. (2002). Abortion Policies: A Global Review.
• Interactive maps comparing U.S. abortion restrictions by state.
• http://www.ipas.org
• http://insidecostarica.com
• The Christian Science Monitor
• The Washington Post
• National Abortion Federation
• http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/
• The Kaiser Family Foundation.
• Spencer, James. Sheep Husbandry in Canada

I am sure you can see that many of these sources are not exactly WP:MEDRS compliant. Is it your intent to remove them all? At present you seem to be focussed solely on publications by the Guttmacher Institute. I hope you can see why this conduct might cause concern. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a content issue as this is a discussion about sources used in a specific article which we both have recently edited. I don't have an intent of fixing all of this article problems but I wouldn't object to the removal of any of those sources if they are questionable. The sources of Guttmacher Institute were a no brainer to remove since that's an advocate group supporting abortion, so a questionable source in the article context. I also removed or replaced other sources that weren't used as defined in WP:MEDRS, you are free to replace those removed sources with WP:MEDRS compliant ones. Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

One-sentence paragraphs

Hi. When writing a Misplaced Pages article, please try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs. If consecutive sentences are very closely related, why not put them together in a paragraph? The article will look much better, and I think readers will like it better. It will look more professional, and so you're probably less likely to get other criticism. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are some words of wisdom about it:

Used sparingly, one-sentence paragraphs can be very effective for pointing out critical ideas or keeping the reader mentally focused on the content. On the other hand, a document with too many one-sentence paragraphs loses this effect. The writer who uses too many, or uses them too close together, is telling the reader that many of the ideas are very important. As a result, he or she loses the ability to point out specific ideas as being the most important. This is similar to always shouting. If you shout everything you say, no single shouted idea has more emphasis than any other.

Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I see from this revert that you don't like my advice. Suit yourself. By the way, MastCell is correct that omitting edit summaries is unwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I did read what you wrote, but I usually prefer to do copyedit in the end.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, but if English isn't your first language, then other editors may want to help.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated reverts

Your repeated reverts / removal of references without consensus makes editing difficult. I have unfortunately had to report things here . Hopefully thing will improve going forwards.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well you can't expect people will agree with your edits, unfortunately you ignored my comments about the problems I saw with that particular edit and decided to discuss the issue elsewhere. --Nutriveg (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you cannot WP:OWN the article. Let the reference sit for a while and give people time to comment on it. Removing most of my references a couple minutes after I have added them is tiresome. I hope we can work together in improving this article. The referencing problem in this article is not WRT this sentence as mentioned above.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like to have your changes reverted you should discuss them first instead of editing and waiting to see if someone will revert. Despite of how good you think your edits are some people may not agree with you.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Remember and remind

. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Abortion further proposals

As you have commented before further proposals were made, and if you're still interested in the outcome of that discussion, I would ask you to express your opinion on those as well. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the dispute at Talk:Abortion. The thread is Disruptive editing by Nutriveg. Thank you. --RexxS (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring others comments on Talk pages.

Do not refactor, edit, or move comments made by other editors on Talk pages, as you did here and here. This is disruptive editing and may result in you being blocked. Further, you should review our policy on ownership and avoid conducting yourself as if you own any article or Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't refactor, edit or moved any comment. I reverted such action done by RexxS, that moved a discussion section to the end of a new section he created, as earlier, while he moved that section at the same time he included a new comment to the article, which I then separably added that new comment to the same section it was made.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours

I have blocked your account from editing for a period of 48 hours, for edit warring on Abortion. Diffs follow:

"That's a tertiary source and it cites two references, you can add other opinion if you will. Undid revision 368258226 by MastCell (talk)"

"Both views are now presented, don't mask a revert. Undid revision 368266064 by MastCell (talk)"

"Grimes (2004, secondary source) uses an old sources (1990) for his review, while the tertiary one (2007), cites a 2003)"

(sequential with last edit) "→Physical health: moving to Dilation and curettage"

"It already was discussed and you were not there. Undid revision 368390001 by SheffieldSteel (talk)"

This is four reverts. The edit summary on the last diff is particularly worrisome, because it indicates that you are not interested in reaching consensus with your fellow editors through discussion. Your reaction to SheffieldSteel's warning indicates the same thing. When you return from your block, consider abstaining from editing the article and limiting yourself to dicussion on the talk page, because you seem unable to avoid edit warring at this point in time. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

First diff was a technical revert, I only reverted to restore deleted content and add the new content included by the last edit, the result was this

The second diff was indeed a revert. The third and fourth diff were actually a single edit, I can say that was a revert because I was changing content, but you can count as a revert. The fifth diff was a revert

So three reverts in total, MastCell (talk · contribs) also did three changes in that same problematic text and I don't see him being blocked or warned. SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs) also knew there was an edit warring occurring, and a discussion section about that text, but reverted further, causing my last revert and I don't see him being warned or blocked neither. SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs) didn't warned my of anything he is involved in several disputes with me and he's last actions (revert, reporting, warning) were merely fortuitous actions to cause me a block.

So if I deserve a block those two other users also deserve so. You can't have an edit warring with only one person playing and those others are at least equally responsible and should be threated as such.--Nutriveg (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR isn't a right. You were recently blocked for edit warring. And even if we allow you only reverted 3 times, reverting up to your 3RR limit is still disruptive: Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. I also don't find your explanation of your first revert convincing as an exception to the rule. You "only reverted to restore deleted content". A revert is any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Finally, if you want to post diffs of 3RR violations by other users, I'd be glad to look into that and/or pass it along to an uninvolved admin. Just glancing, it apepars SheffieldSteel only edited once today, and it seems like your complaint against MastCell isn't reverting, but adding new content? -Andrew c  15:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks: WP:NOTTHEM. -Andrew c  15:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Andrew c, I don't see your point in commenting here when you're an involved part and you didn't put a disclaimer as so, like yourself reverted my move of such content to another article.

I didn't "simple revert" all those times! I only did so twice, first in response to MastCell later to SheffieldSteel. Both did the same "simple revert" actions, first MastCell which masked his revert as a regular edit and later MastCell, in other occasions I just edit the problematic content, making minor changes, the same way you say MastCell did. SheffieldSteel in his turn reverted me in a clear provocative action when a revert war was already established and he was having other content disputes with me, just to later call for a block which I didn't even had time to answer such call and he continues to do accusations there while I can't defend myself since I was blocked!--Nutriveg (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't find your response a reason to unblock you nor warn other users. If you'd like to appeal your block, please follow the instructions below (and my apologies for not posting this template earlier):

Template:Z9

Nutriveg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Requesting same treatment as the other two editors involved in that edit warring as by the reasoning above

Decline reason:

This request does not address the reason for your block; you are not blocked for anyone's edits but your own. I can't tell, by reading this, that you understand how disruptive reverting others' edits is, or that you have a plan for editing differently in the future. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nutriveg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm asking again because when FisherQueen evaluated this I hadn't answered Andrew c misrepresentations above, made by a user that's now reverting my edits, in the same disputed context, as I'm blocked and can't comment those changes. I reverted, by the simple universal meaning of that word, only twice, the first in answer to a MastCell revert, the second in answer for SheffieldSteel revert that ultimately caused and requested this block. And that SheffieldSteel revert happened when I just followed MastCell concerns and removed an issue "placenta previa" myself had added to the article and MastCell called a problem (stuck on linking) and controversial. SheffieldSteel intentions with that revert were clear since he was having long unrelated disputes with me at that same moment and he took no time to ask for my block after his own revert in a context that there was no reason to happen since I had already abide from my point about the inclusion of such issue "placenta previa". That was a clear provocative action I was put in by SheffieldSteel revert. About my other edits I only edited improving content, the same way MastCell, currently unblocked, did, and later removing content about an issue "placenta previa" myself included in that article and later agreed with the other part (MastCell) for being inappropriate to the article. I just didn't count that the so far uninvolved others on the "placenta previa" issue, (SheffieldSteel), and now (Andrew c), but both long involved in other content disputes with me, would take that as an opportunity to forge this block against me.

Decline reason:

Nothing indicates that you understand that you are blocked solely for edit warring, and that your justifications for it are irrelevant. We assume you are editing in good faith, for the benefit of Misplaced Pages; however, your approach is inappropriate. --jpgordon 18:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please understand consensus

You need to read and understand Misplaced Pages:Consensus before you make any more reversions based on claims of consensus (or lack of it), as you did here. I'm somewhat surprised to see you repeating a revert that got you blocked. I would hope that you had learned something by now about what sort of conduct is acceptable here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You made a second revert (while I was blocked because of your earlier revert) to a text with a recent history of edit war, saying there was consensus about it, while there wasn't. There's no consensus if MastCell change reflected the (most updated) sources, or by your two consecutive reverts, reinserting that problematic content, if this issue (placenta previa) is relevant for this article (which me and MastCell disagree). You were warned about that. I'm surprised you ignored those warnings and didn't self revert, so I had to do so myself.--Nutriveg (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this straight, looking at the discussion you just cited (Talk:Abortion#Placenta previa). You disagree with MastCell, you disagree with LeadSongDog, you disagree with RexxS, you disagree with Hordaland, and you disagree with me, so although no one agrees with your preferred version of the text, you had to revert to it. Also, you think that you were blocked because of my actions. Which part of Misplaced Pages:Edit war and Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy are you not understanding? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree about what, this discussion is not about what I disagree but you assuming consensus where there wasn't just to perform a rever. You assumed consensus and reverted few minutes before the end of my blocking, the other part involved the discussion, where yourself request that block after you restarted that edit war. MastCell said "I am OK with not mentioning previa at all,", supporting the position of removing the text. New sources presented by Schrandit and specially Lead Song Dong were being discussed. But you reverted that second time jutifying to have reached consensus, which was not true. Please don't use my talk page to spread your lies.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on ANI

Is very very silly. Please don't do it again. See the discussion on WP:AN. Verbal chat 21:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)