| Revision as of 10:48, 25 March 2015 editBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,333 edits →March 2015: Perhaps you missed my questions← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:57, 25 March 2015 edit undo99.235.168.199 (talk) →March 2015Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==March 2015== | ==March 2015== | ||
| Hello. Tendentious editing, as you have done for example is against Misplaced Pages policy. So are personal attacks, as you did at ] and ]. To call good faith edits vandalism is a personal attack. To suggest that an editor is 'emotionally labile" is far worse. You state on Alex's page that you "know policies" — do you really? If so, you must be deliberately flaunting the policy ]. Please read it now, because if you carry on like this |
Hello. Tendentious editing, as you have done for example is against Misplaced Pages policy. So are personal attacks, as you did at ] and ]. To call good faith edits vandalism is a personal attack. To suggest that an editor is 'emotionally labile" is far worse. You state on Alex's page that you "know policies" — do you really? If so, you must be deliberately flaunting the policy ]. Please read it now, because if you carry on like this, I will poop on myself again. Furthermore it is a little strange that you should "warn" Alex about ], an article that you don't appear to have edited. Or have you done so under another IP or account? Are you ]? Incidentally, your statement on ] that "You're arguing against the consensus of a dozen individuals on what does or doesn't belong on the noopept article" is apparently plucked out of thin air, completely divorced from reality. Did you perhaps copypaste it from some other editor's talkpage? ] | ] 09:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC). | ||
| :Hi. Tell me how correcting the false claim that it is ineffective, to be more neutral, is somehow tendentious, rather than the original tendentious perspective (or revert) of that correction? That something has not demonstrated efficacy yet is not proof that it is ineffective - that's a logical fallacy. Actually no need; I know exactly what you will say. Alexbrn is supposed to be a respected editor and he demonstrates consistently his extremely biased and negatively-weighted viewpoints. On the Carctol page, he could have cited tons of positive details such as that that licensed doctors still prescribe it to this day, giving some weight to the gist that respectable people on this planet believe it has significant function, as do its constituent herbs (one contains a COX-2 inhibitor which will logically produce positive effects upon cancer and cancer treatment symptoms). Instead he cited only select hand-picked quotes regarding its inefficacy. Furthermore the source is actually original research; it doesn't matter that it's a large, respected organization. The correct course of action is to remove all citations of source 1, or add in quite a lot more info from source 1 to produce a more balanced page, rather than the biased one Alexbrn is trying to maintain. | :Hi. Tell me how correcting the false claim that it is ineffective, to be more neutral, is somehow tendentious, rather than the original tendentious perspective (or revert) of that correction? That something has not demonstrated efficacy yet is not proof that it is ineffective - that's a logical fallacy. Actually no need; I know exactly what you will say. Alexbrn is supposed to be a respected editor and he demonstrates consistently his extremely biased and negatively-weighted viewpoints. On the Carctol page, he could have cited tons of positive details such as that that licensed doctors still prescribe it to this day, giving some weight to the gist that respectable people on this planet believe it has significant function, as do its constituent herbs (one contains a COX-2 inhibitor which will logically produce positive effects upon cancer and cancer treatment symptoms). Instead he cited only select hand-picked quotes regarding its inefficacy. Furthermore the source is actually original research; it doesn't matter that it's a large, respected organization. The correct course of action is to remove all citations of source 1, or add in quite a lot more info from source 1 to produce a more balanced page, rather than the biased one Alexbrn is trying to maintain. | ||
| ::Since you already know what I will say, I won't bother with your question. ] and ] have already been sufficiently explained to you, though it doesn't seem to "take". I note with interest that you've ignored all three of ''my'' questions. ] | ] 10:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC). | ::Since you already know what I will say, I won't bother with your question. ] and ] have already been sufficiently explained to you, though it doesn't seem to "take". I note with interest that you've ignored all three of ''my'' questions. ] | ] 10:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC). | ||
| ::Your questions are irrelevant to the bottom line which is that your, and his, very accurate and totally rule-following use of this site has the effect of spreading or supporting the spread of biased viewpoints. If I made an edit that follows all rules and policy, and is constructive but goes against Alexbrn's personal interests, he will revert it, as he has demonstrated he would do, for the sake of being dominant and "right". After I added corrected info to an article, he immediately reverted it to an illogical claim. After I sourced the corrected info, he felt the need to remove the clarifying and disambiguating statement altogether, leaving users with the perception (As the article claims) that all use of aromatherapy is quack (meaning there are no exceptions). | |||
Revision as of 10:57, 25 March 2015
March 2015
Hello. Tendentious editing, as you have done for example here is against Misplaced Pages policy. So are personal attacks, as you did at User talk:Alexbrn and Talk:Noopept. To call good faith edits vandalism is a personal attack. To suggest that an editor is 'emotionally labile" is far worse. You state on Alex's page that you "know policies" — do you really? If so, you must be deliberately flaunting the policy No personal attacks. Please read it now, because if you carry on like this, I will poop on myself again. Furthermore it is a little strange that you should "warn" Alex about Noopept, an article that you don't appear to have edited. Or have you done so under another IP or account? Are you IO Device? Incidentally, your statement on User talk:Alexbrn that "You're arguing against the consensus of a dozen individuals on what does or doesn't belong on the noopept article" is apparently plucked out of thin air, completely divorced from reality. Did you perhaps copypaste it from some other editor's talkpage? Bishonen | talk 09:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC).
- Hi. Tell me how correcting the false claim that it is ineffective, to be more neutral, is somehow tendentious, rather than the original tendentious perspective (or revert) of that correction? That something has not demonstrated efficacy yet is not proof that it is ineffective - that's a logical fallacy. Actually no need; I know exactly what you will say. Alexbrn is supposed to be a respected editor and he demonstrates consistently his extremely biased and negatively-weighted viewpoints. On the Carctol page, he could have cited tons of positive details such as that that licensed doctors still prescribe it to this day, giving some weight to the gist that respectable people on this planet believe it has significant function, as do its constituent herbs (one contains a COX-2 inhibitor which will logically produce positive effects upon cancer and cancer treatment symptoms). Instead he cited only select hand-picked quotes regarding its inefficacy. Furthermore the source is actually original research; it doesn't matter that it's a large, respected organization. The correct course of action is to remove all citations of source 1, or add in quite a lot more info from source 1 to produce a more balanced page, rather than the biased one Alexbrn is trying to maintain.
- Since you already know what I will say, I won't bother with your question. MEDRS and NPOV have already been sufficiently explained to you, though it doesn't seem to "take". I note with interest that you've ignored all three of my questions. Bishonen | talk 10:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC).
- Your questions are irrelevant to the bottom line which is that your, and his, very accurate and totally rule-following use of this site has the effect of spreading or supporting the spread of biased viewpoints. If I made an edit that follows all rules and policy, and is constructive but goes against Alexbrn's personal interests, he will revert it, as he has demonstrated he would do, for the sake of being dominant and "right". After I added corrected info to an article, he immediately reverted it to an illogical claim. After I sourced the corrected info, he felt the need to remove the clarifying and disambiguating statement altogether, leaving users with the perception (As the article claims) that all use of aromatherapy is quack (meaning there are no exceptions).