User talk:FireWeed

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. JoeSmack ^Talk 18:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. JoeSmack ^Talk 18:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for caring about the quality of Wikipedia, as I do. I'm simply reverting damage from an edit war. Wikipedia encourages all of us to act bold, and that's what I'm doing - restoring content that was removed from articles.

Vandalism?

You reverted an edit of mine, characterizing it as "vandalism". How on earth was my adding {{commonscat}} and removing a link to a deleted article vandalism? If you have a problem with my edits, fine, I don't own the article, but I resent being characterized as a vandal. - Jmabel | Talk 19:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry - it was an edit war prior to yours I was trying to revert, in which a photograph illustrating the community and its place in the city was removed along with text content. I made my reversion to bring back the content that was removed. Deleting your tag was purely an accident, and I'm sorry. Moreso, the vandalism I was referring to was the earlier content being removed - not you adding helpful templates to improve the article. Please accept my appologies. FireWeed 19:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Your rv vandalism reversions to Seattle neighborhood articles are interesting.. I don't know if you can really call it "vandalism" when someone removes a photo of yours--it depends--but I think they might have been removing your external links because they're all to your home page. Perhaps you should change that...? --Lukobe 20:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

See JoeSmack's comments above. --Lukobe 20:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

They're not my photos, but a few of them are of the neighborhood I live in, so I've taken an interest. After looking at the history, it seems a lot of relevant links were taken down out of annoyance ( specifically Benaroyal Hall ). I believe that these articles are better off with the photo and link, than without the photo, so I've restored them to that state. Wikipedia encourages us to "be bold," so that's what I've done - restoring the articles to what I believe is a better state for their readers. FireWeed 20:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Realized I might not have explained myself very well - maybe instead of rv vandalism I should have wrote "restoring content." I think that whenever content is removed from an article this is a bad thing, unless it's something patently untrue like "Saddam was a good guy." Even though the photographer removed his own photos ( seemingly in response to his links being removed ) I've put them back, because in many cases they were the only photo in the article, and when there are others, they still contribute to the article. I've also restored the links with them, putting everything to a pre edit-war state, and am planning to leave a note with both people asking them to come into agreement. I'm simply restoring the lost content, and hoping that cooler heads will prevail. FireWeed 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to take a look, in particular, at WP:EL. - Jmabel | Talk 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I put back your comments, i had to put mine back first. should be ok, just read history.

I simply do not want kids to watch and ask questions, that ugly video is on google video, anybody can find it, no problemo... that's all. I do not say we should say warning, simply add word grisly and I am right.

Pope was not directly involved... Only Vatican as a whole was against the execution and of course most of the muslim nations. http://www.eastandard.net/hm_news/news.php?articleid=1143963119

Clarification required

So are you ForrestCroce but with a second username, or are you his personal-website promoter? I'm confused. See here for a refresher. - Dudesleeper 03:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm neither. I live in Seattle, find useful info here, and object to illustrative photos being taken down, so I reverted this harm against certain articles. You don't need to tell me you're confused - that much is obvious. In your delusionsal world, do you work for the CIA or the KGB? FireWeed 18:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please begin to obey the Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy. It looks like several people have had problems with you deleting valid content from articles, most recently having to do with flags. What your doing sits on the borderline between Wikipedia:Vandalism and just simple POV pushing. For a refresher, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dudesleeper#Flag.

Weasel words

Thank you for your respectful comment on my talk page. Wikipedia:Weasel words should tell you everything you need to know about fixing weasel words, and I agree that there is much in Anti-Christian prejudice that needs improvement. Ecto 00:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The respect is well earned; anybody who would give up their time to make a positive contribution to public knowledge deserves probably more than just respect. People don't always agree on how to improve things, but the point is that all of us are trying to help ... so thanks. FireWeed 05:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Orthorexia nervosa

Hello Fireweed. If you don't think this article is encyclopedic, you could always take it to AfD! The long and twisted history of the article does not (in fact) seem to reflect much progress. And even hoaxes require notability to deserve an article. (They have to fool a lot of people, see WP:HOAX). I don't agree that Orthorexia nervosa should be a 'See also' on Junk science. Perhaps it should simply be deleted. EdJohnston 06:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm loathe to delete another user's hard work here, even if I do believe it's misguided. But I'll give this some thought. Although I think the article may have already gone through a delete vote - I'm not really sure? FireWeed 06:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As for adding it to the pseudoscience page, that is fine if you can provide some WP:RS and WP:V source which supports it being classified as a pseudoscientific condtion. Levine2112 17:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing external links

You appear to be keen on removing external links from the pages of football players, including Tony Rodwell, Danny Coid, Jackie Mudie and numerous others. You may not realise that these links are added in good faith as references to help verify and establish notability of the players- if you follow the links you will see that they are to resources which give statistical information and player histories. They are therefore useful additions, and in no way placed there as advertisements, any more than to link to, say, an article in The Times would be an advertisement. I don't know how much you know about football (I'm assuming its not an area in which you are expert, given the baffling nature of the Harry Evans nomination for speedy delete), however, please reconsider undermining the work of many wikipedia editors who are attempting to improve the quality of football articles. Robotforaday 09:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing other's comments

Please refrain from editing my comments. It's rude and considered a type of vandalism. ~ UBeR 23:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fair. I was trying to highlight what I saw as a cause for difference of opinion - to add emphasis without changing content. But I can see how that could lead to abuse, or be seen as impolite. Still, please assume good faith - there are so many guides here that it's easy to get lost in them. FireWeed 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and Notability tags

Wikipedia policies suggest that a discussion be held on an article page before adding NPOV or notability tags on an article. Now not only have you done it once on The Lavoisier Group, but you've repeated it after these tags were removed for lack of any reason given. Such discussions are encouraged because nobody possesses the undisputable truth about what is NPOV and what is not. Please adopt a more civil behavior in your future contributions of this kind. --Childhood's End 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Orthorexia

I urge you to discuss your changes on the talk page before implementing them. Please be aware of WP:3RR, WP:NPOV, and WP:MEAT while editing. I think you can make some positive contributions to the article, but you really need to provide outside sources for your claims. I located the abstracts for the peer-reviewed papers on orthorexia, and will be posting them to the talk page shortly. Cheers, Skinwalker 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a joke, no? Before you ask somebody to list their reasoning on the talk page, you may want to (1) read the talk page and (2) follow your own advice, to keep your foot out of your mouth. FireWeed 23:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, well, I posted the article abstracts and verified that the Journal of Eating and Weight Disorders is peer-reviewed and published in english. I really think you should reconsider your approach; your talk page is full of comments asking you politely to modify your editing behavior. Please discuss the abstracts I posted before making further changes. Thanks, Skinwalker 23:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

People have called me arguementative before; I don't mind being called that again. To be perfectly honest, I think it's better to stand up for the truth than to quietly lie down. The trouble is we each see truth differently, and while there most certainly is absolute truth beyond our own opinions, they muddy our view. I fully assume you're acting in good faith to enlighten people to what you believe to be true; I'm not sure if you extend me the same courtesy.

However, I've explained every action I've taken wrt Orthorexia on the article's talk page. I haven't taken action until my reasoning has sat, uncontested, for several days. Further, my opinion is based on an unending canon of scientific reading I've done, on discussing the matter with my wife ( a practicing MD ), with my doctor ( it would be a conflict of interest to be treated by my wife ), and so on. If need be, I'll explain this yet again on the talk page. This doesn't seem the appropriate place.

I had no idea what WP:MEAT was, as I avoid red meat, but on clicking the link, it's a denounciation of "sock puppets," or pretend editors that people use to cheat a vote. I agree with that essay, and it should probably be a firm policy. I assume you mean "Seattle Chronic" and following his edits, it seems "Chronic" means marijuanna. I'm not sure what drew his attention; I gather marijuanna smokers like to eat. But you must understand that two or more editors can share an opinion without actually being the same person?

Have you bought Dr Bratman's book? Inventing a hoax eating disorder is a really good way to drum up publicity and sell more copies. FireWeed 00:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Christianophobia

I hate like heck when someone comes to a new article I have been working and starts dogging it on the talk page without ever having chatted with the fellow editors and whatnot. I hope I don't seem like I am doing what I loath :-) I recognize and appreciate your efforts to improve that article. I'm making comments on the talk page to justify/explain my own edits. I can't believe I am even editing that article. Anyhow, I hope my efforts to lend a hand do not seem like I am dogging your efforts to do the same. Cheers Mr Christopher 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And I followed you to Orthorexia nervosa. I see you pick all the easy, non-controversial subjects too :-) Mr Christopher 00:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny you said "I can't believe I am even editing that article." - I felt exactly the same way. When I first saw the article I thought it must have been lifted from Bill O'Reilly's talking points. I removed the text behind the ACLU section, which was just a repeating of all the claims Rush Limbaugh and his friends make, and got slapped on the wrist for doing so. After some though, I can understand why. So I've been doing my part to make smaller changes, to allow these wild claims to be made, and then offer a response to refute them. Example: It isn't teaching ID in school that the ACLU objects to, it's teaching it in biology class. Allowing students to pray isn't a problem - forcing them to pray to one specific concept of god is. + :And I followed you to Orthorexia nervosa. I see you pick all the easy, non-controversial subjects too :-) Mr Christopher 00:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the help you're providing. FireWeed 00:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen Persecution of Christians? It's another humdinger to be sure. I'm not convinced the Anti-Christian Prejudice article is not a lost cause, at least for me that is. I have a real hard time with groups claiming to be victims of persecution, especially when they have such a long and rich history of persecuting others. Think modern Turkey, who persecuted who first? And it all depends on yoru POV. For an Iraqi, chances are you currently think Islam is being persecuted by Christianity (Geo Bush being the current "spokesman" for Christiandom). If you're an (unwelcomed) ebvangelical missionary in Iraq, you probably see signs of what you would think are persecution of christians on a daily basis.

And the folks at Persecution of Christians don't want to add anything about Christians persecuting Christians. Go figure. Mr Christopher 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)