User:Valjean/Stuff

Quackwatch

 * RS/N: Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery


 * Nothing_controversial_about_Quackwatch.org

I removed the "controversial" designation preceding the reference to Quackwatch. There is nothing controversial about Quackwatch except in the minds of those who are proponents of "alternative medicine". In fact, The Quackwatch article shows that Quackwatch is highly respected as a source of real and valid scientific information regarding health related frauds and misconduct. If you have an issue with the Quackwatch article hash it out over there. Dr. Morbius (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Without a respectable source for "controversial", it's inappropriate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I too agree, but there needs to be a guideline for how to describe such situations. Obviously any mainstream source is going to be disputed by fringe sources, but when editors label that dispute in a manner that deprecates the mainstream source, they are leaving the impression in the minds of readers that the mainstream source is somehow unreliable. How can we get this formulated properly and incorporated into our guidelines and policies? What do we have about "describing sources"? I'm trying to find something and have found these statements (emphasis added):


 * "In Wikipedia, one of the most common forms of violating the NPOV policy is to selectively cite some information that supports one view whilst suppressing or trivializing other information that opposes it, and describing sources in a way that gives an undue positive or negative impression of their value. In this manner, one can completely misrepresent the range of views on a subject whilst still complying with Verifiability." -- Note that this is NOT policy, but still interesting.


 * "A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups." -- From NPOV policy


 * "Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view." -- NPOV:Undue weight


 * "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." -- NPOV:Balance


 * Note that these statements aren't only about describing "sources", but about attribution. If any qualifier is added to Quackwatch, it must be framed in a manner that describes the dispute (only "from" fringe sources, not "between" mainstream sources), and that those which dispute and criticize Quackwatch are non-mainstream/fringe sources, and individuals who are known quacks, scammers, felons (Kevin Trudeau), frauds, and/or individuals who are ignorant of science and medicine, or of all sides of the underlying issues. No mainstream sources offer any serious criticisms, only minor quibbles. Quackwatch is consistently recognized and recommended as a mainstream source. One may not agree with the approach, but the POV is always consistent with the mainstream.


 * How can we get this formulated properly and incorporated into our guidelines and policies? Until then, the simplest way to deal with this is to simply remove such qualifiers that subtly push a fringe POV. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It isn't POV if its consistent with the mainstream view in whatever field you're dealing with. Especially when we're talking about science. In any field where opinion and conjecture play a more dominant role such as in history, archeology etc. you can weight viewpoints based on the credibility of the source and how widely accepted that viewpoint is. Neither of these things apply in this case. In fact Abram Hoffer commits a classic crank/crackpot error by claiming that there is a conspiracy to suppress his views thereby earning himself 40 points on the Baez crackpot index. Dr. Morbius (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I went through all mentions of QW, which is quite a few, to see if there were any non-NPOV qualifiers attached. I didn't find anything significant, but I did add the following in several places: "...the alternative medicine watchdog website Quackwatch,..." That's NPOV, undeniable, and descriptive. That's one way to describe it that shouldn't raise too many hackles. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * From a discussion about Quackwatch:


 * How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"?


 * "The principle on which organizations such as Quackwatch operate is the Scientific Method, and all of its umbrella principles (falsifiability, testability, the Peer Review Process, predictability, etc.) which is the method utilized to evaluate the empirical validity of scientific claims. Organizations like Quackwatch do not "bash" or have a "bias" against alternative medicine; They simply evaluate them based on whether they follow proper empirical methodologies. Personal belief systems aside, so-called alternative and complementary medicines do not have any scientific validity. Those that do aren't called "alternative" or "complementary" medicine; they just called medicine. This is a point that is not only unknown by the general public, it is also unknown by many who work in these fields, which is why they are advocated even by people with PhD's after their name. But whether someone of repute advocates an idea does not mean it has empirical validity. To argue it does is a logical fallacy called Argument by Authority.


 * As for unbiased, Wikipedia's policies on Reliable Sources do not, and cannot, gauge such a thing, because all sources, even reliable ones, from the New York Times to the Village Voice to FOX News, have biases. Reliability is predicated on criteria such as whether the organization in question has proper editorial controls for its content, whether its staff has the pertinent expertise, etc. Complete lack of bias cannot be a criterion, because no source exists (nor any writer working for one) that lacks some type of bias. Nightscream (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Source: (Note edit summary in this diff.)


 * History about deletion attempts against Quackwatch

For the benefit of our anon IP, a little history might be of interest. There have been various spurious attempts to delete this article, including this archived AfD. Those making such attempts have used claims that Quackwatch wasn't notable enough, or that it was fringe and not accepted by mainstream medicine, or any number of other weird attempts by enemies to delete the article. This forced editors to (very easily) find even more reliable sources that deal with the matter. The numerous RS easily document its notability and that it is overwhelmingly positively received by mainstream medicine, consumer protection agencies, law enforcement, insurance firms, universities, government, etc.. It's nearly impossible to find any criticism from such sources, and we've really tried!

There are a few minor criticisms which were found. Really, using such sources as criticism is scraping the bottom of the barrel in desperation to find negativity. Otherwise criticism comes from quacks, scammers, convicted criminals, and other alternative medicine cranks who have been criticized. In several of the most notable cases the critics hadn't even been mentioned or criticized by Quackwatch or Barrett at all, but launched their own vicious attacks, thus drawing responses from Barrett, the NCAHF, and/or members of the medical and scientific communities. The continued and ongoing attacks by the former publicist of Hulda Clark (now deceased from cancer) is a notable example. Likewise attacks by IR. There had been no mention of them before they launched their own attacks. Because they carried their attacks to Wikipedia and used it as a battleground and causing much disruption, they are both banned from Wikipedia. Their websites also happen to be of such deceptive quality that they are actually blacklisted!

Since you are obviously getting your information from such sources (they originated those wordings), I suggest you read this article and all of its sources to get the other side of the properly-documented story. That's "real" information, in contrast to the spin and deception put out by your sources. Quite a few of the things you mention in your now-deleted libelous BLP violation are total lies or gross distortions of fact. There are a couple items that have a very distant relationship with something true, but again they are very distorted so as to give a misleading impression. Keep in mind that your sources are promoters of very dubious ideas and in some cases stand to profit by making criticisms against their detractors.

Nearly all criticisms are published in self-published sources of poor quality without fact checking, and thus aren't considered reliable sources for use here. That leaves an overwhelmingly positive impression, and that's because RS leave that impression in the real world. That cranks and scam artists leave a negative impression in the real world and many people are fooled by them is simply proof that lies are being used in the battle waged against mainstream medicine by alternative medicine. Wikipedia doesn't get involved in that battle and it doesn't use poor sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience ArbCom ruling

 * Explanatory comments:


 * I proposed the language in the arbitration decision. The main problem was characterization of ideas as "pseudoscience" when no scientist had in fact commented on them, or even investigated them. "Obvious pseudoscience" not commanding enough attention by the scientific community for comment to have occurred, thus no source. The decision means you don't have to have a source from a scientist to describe something as pseudoscience or categorize it as pseudo science if it is obvious. Subjects generally considered pseudoscience such as astrology suffer somewhat from the same problem, as they are seldom examined or considered seriously by scientists, thus there is little or no research by scientists of the propositions advanced. Nevertheless, despite the paucity of reliable sources, they may be categorized as pseudoscience, or it may be noted that the findings and discoveries of the practice are not seriously considered by scientists. Obviously some statements by scientists have been found, but they are not, in fact, based on scientific research, but on opinion. Such opinions would not ordinarily be considered reliable sources as they are not based on actual research, but the arbitration opinion makes an exception.


 * The other two possibilities, questionable science and alternative theoretical formulations, are within the broad umbrella of science but lack general acceptance. The scientific discipline of parapsychology, in so far as it was carried on as serious scientific research is an example of questionable science. There was serious doubt that many of the investigated phenomena were worth studying. Nevertheless, as the research was carried on with scientific vigor it should not be characterized as pseudoscience. Even less so innovative theoretical innovations that have not yet met universal acceptance such as Einstein's theories once were. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Caleb Murdock vandalism

 * Context: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Caleb Murdock

Can you let me know if you see any more of those Providence IPs around? Some of them are close enough for a range block, but that might just be coincidence in the dynamic assignment. Email me if you are not sure what this is about. Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 06:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll keep my eyes open. I wish there was a tool or template warning system, so that it wasn't necessary to go to the vandalism reporting board. Then the warning template would automatically notify the bot. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Twinkle adds a button when you are viewing the contributions page. I am not sure that I have ever used that particular function, but the rest of the tool is pretty user friendly. IE is not supported, but it works fine in FireFox and I have not noticed any problems in Chrome or Opera. It should also be fairly simple to create a bot to monitor Category:Users in need of a good blocking and generate reports to AIV based on that. Putting a user in the category could be done by adding a template parameter - say, or something. Then again, I have never actually bothered to check how the current vandalism-reporting bots function. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't use Twinkle, and my HTML and programming skills are very limited. Someone needs to create this. Then a vandal4 tag would trigger the bot. BTW, take a look here. This shows what type of attitude I'm up against, or just look above near the end of this section. There a refusal to provide a claimed source reveals a pseudoskeptical attitude that would rather crucify than help, IOW create more disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Another one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.161.239.242 -- Brangifer (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Edgar181 nabbed that one, and I tried a rangeblock. And so it goes. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I may as well document the attacks:




 * I have semi-protected this page for a month; it might need to be extended, but I generally prefer to start with a shortish period. You should also create and monitor a subpage where legitimate non-autoconfirmed can contact you. I added the rest of the IPs I have seen to your list, including some from the beginning of the month around the time his topic ban was being placed; I also found but did not list some older IPs that appear to be CM engaged in legitimate editing while inadvertently logged out. Up to you which ones you feel like tracking. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's probably best to ban User:Caleb Murdock indefinitely for evasion and harassment, and probably semi-protect the Seth material and Jane Roberts articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The relevant articles:


 * Seth Material
 * Jane Roberts


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-12-01_Seth_Material


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/39#Seth_Material

A warning I gave him.

He doesn't hide his ability to use socks.

Caleb Murdock watchlist
Changes related to "Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Caleb Murdock"



Murdock has previously stated (before he was blocked) that he can edit from anywhere, but so far most of his edits have been from Providence, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and a few other places. He's a 60ish man who has the Seth Material as his religion and who therefore also has edited at Jane Roberts:


 * http://www.calebmurdock.com/


 * http://www.calebmurdock.com/2009/11/hello.html


 * http://www.calebmurdock.com/2010/02/introduction-to-seth-material.html

The behavioral evidence is also interesting. Rather than focus exclusively on the articles, one needs to notice whose edits and comments he's targeting. He targets the users with whom he's been in conflict and the admins who have blocked him:


 * Brangifer (myself)
 * User:Verbal
 * User:Guyonthesubway
 * User:Scientizzle
 * User:Vsmith
 * User:EdJohnston

This one is especially interesting:


 * "Wikipedia creates enemies every time it blocks an editor for the slightest reason. All I have to do to get a new IP address is to turn off my modem and turn it back on."

Brangifer (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have imposed a couple of rangeblocks. Perhaps that will slow him down for ten minutes or so. Anyway, I see the logic of your suggestion at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Fraberj that Caleb Murdock could be the same editor as User:Fraberj. If not, it's hard to explain the editing pattern of such IPs as 71.161.231.108. Review this set of IP edits and you'll not see much in the month of April that doesn't look like either Caleb or Fraberj. Unless he is just following around people like yourself and Guyonthesubway. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what he's been doing. The articles aren't the subject, WE are! That explains his vandalism. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Newer Seth Material and Jane Roberts edits and socking

 * Seth Material history


 * Torontosethian talk history


 * CM
 * CM
 * CM
 * CM
 * CM
 * CM
 * CM

Santilli / Orrerysky / Plasma cosmology

 * Ruggero Santilli
 * Ruggero Santilli revision history
 * Talk:Ruggero Santilli revision history

The above have been reported at Sockpuppet_investigations/Zkurko.

Revised list
Revised per this request: "Could you please list the non-stale, non-blocked accounts and explain why you think they're sockpuppets of Zkurko? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)"

These are all related to Plasma cosmology, Ruggero Santilli, and the activities and interests of User:Orrerysky (new account) and User:Wavyinfinity (much older account). There is uncertainty as to who is the real sockmaster behind this activity, but Orrerysky and Wavyinfinity are the most active right now. We are dealing with multiple real socks of one unbalanced person, and probably several meats who are various fans.

User:Wavyinfinity is obviously grossly misusing his userpage. He's using it to coordinate attacks on mainstream science and scientists.

Many IPs geolocate to Santilli's locality, and others are so ducklike (same arguments, added links, poor grammar, personal attacks, legal threats, anti-semitism, etc.) that they should be investigated.


 * Relevant links and histories to check


 * Ruggero Santilli - revision history
 * Talk:Ruggero Santilli - revision history
 * Plasma cosmology - revision history
 * Talk:Plasma cosmology - revision history
 * Plasma-Redshift Cosmology - revision history
 * Talk:Plasma-Redshift Cosmology - revision history
 * &action=history
 * &action=history


 * Not stale


 * - Was blocked by Daniel Case
 * - Was blocked by Qwyrxian
 * - Was blocked by Qwyrxian
 * - Was blocked by Qwyrxian
 * - Was blocked by Qwyrxian
 * - Was blocked by Qwyrxian
 * - Was blocked by Qwyrxian


 * Stale, but can establish a pattern and geolocation evidence


 * - Was blocked by Alexf
 * - Was blocked by Alexf
 * - Was blocked by Alexf


 * Currently blocked




 * Still unblocked


 * - Was blocked, but now very active


 * Stale



The above have been [ reported] at Sockpuppet_investigations/Zkurko.


 * {{iplinks|
 * {{iplinks|
 * {{iplinks|
 * {{iplinks|
 * {{userlinks|
 * {{userlinks|
 * {{userlinks|
 * {{userlinks|
 * {{userlinks|
 * {{userlinks|
 * {{userlinks|

Misc.

 * User:BullRangifer/Ownership and talk pages
 * Regarding removing "clearly biased language"
 * "As for removing "clearly biased language", if sources are biased, then we are required to preserve that bias in our edits. The content is not required to be "neutral", only the editors, who are required to edit in an NPOV manner. That means that fringe subjects will cite mainstream opinions which describe them with very biased language, and we are not allowed to censor those words, whether they be quackery, pseudoscience, fringe, or other pejorative words. NPOV requires we preserve the spirit of the sources."


 * Relevant parts of a comment explaining RS
 * When it comes to determining whether a source is a RS, it all depends on how it's used. No single source (even the New York Times) is considered reliable in every situation, and there is practically no single source that isn't considered a RS for some very limited purpose (such as the nonsensical insane Twitter speculations of a weirdo, used in an article about that weirdo, for the purpose of documenting their POV).


 * If you will check the two places where the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is being used in this article, it is used appropriately for the use intended in that context. Context is everything when determining whether a source is being used appropriately. If so, then it is a RS for that purpose. Source


 * Message for IPs (old message which might be needed again, so saving here)
 * If you are an IP and need to contact me, you can leave comments on this subpage. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My comment
 * about better RS backing a mainstream POV, versus poor sources used to back fringe POV. We don't have a level playing field here. (A response.)


 * Project disruption tracking
 * Brilliant:

No, you're really not. You're arguing for the most sympathetic interpretation possible of the most supportive sources you can find. You are exploiting the difference between the measured tones of science and the promotional tones of quacks, to assert that the balance point lies on the quacks' side of neutral. You'll fail for one simple reason: we've seen it all before. Many times. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC) source


 * IP86.132.108.101 = Brian Josephson


 * 162.194.46.130 /


 * Great discussion about registration vs IP editing


 * Contribution Surveyor


 * Sharebox


 * 24.23.83.159 / ......Blocked.


 * User:BullRangifer/Tutorials


 * For BRD violations:
 * Did you realize that you violated the BRD cycle with [DIFF here this edit?] I have reverted and would like to see your reasoning for the change explained on the talk page. Thanks.


 * Observations on Wikipedia behavior. Excellent essay!
 * Profound prose from User:Hoary:
 * "Neither humility nor perfection is required. But a combination of confidence and error will not persuade."


 * Thoughts about a learning curve


 * I am not disputing the right of productive and collaborative editors to delete certain types of material from their own userspace (note that no one "owns" their own userspace completely), but this situation is different and battlefield behavior should not be rewarded. We can come back to this in the future, but for now it's best for the page to not be edited by this blocked editor. Also, any future edits to this page (that reveal more battlefield and recalcitrant behavior) should be met with further blocks.


 * We're dealing with an editor who reveals a very negative learning curve.


 * Let's start with a quote from Dave Mason, a great musician and entertainer:


 * "As for me, if I'd have known better, I'd have done better. It's all been lessons, and everybody's got their lessons to learn. I'm trying my best, and I'm certainly trying to learn from my mistakes. But I'd like to thank all the people that fucked me, because it's been quite an education."


 * At Wikipedia it's all about one's learning curve. None of us is perfect or fully understands Wikipedia. We've got to learn from our mistakes and improve. An editor's collaborative potential and redeemability should be judged by their Wikipedian learning curve, not by exceptional and occasional displays of human frailty, that are then blown out of proportion and even distorted by their antagonists. Do they occasionally "cross the line" when under fire, which is quite human, or do they operate on the other side of the line most of the time, finding incivility and the personal attack mode to be their natural element? A look at the totality of an editor's contributions is essential before making judgments. A positive learning curve is what it's all about.


 * The following profound prose from User:Hoary is worth repeating here:


 * "Neither humility nor perfection is required. But a combination of confidence and error will not persuade."


 * That last sentence describes this editor quite well, and none of us have been impressed or persuaded. Source


 * The Missing Manual
 * Typical warnings for edit warring

Your recent editing history at  ARTICLE NAME     shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block. If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.


 * I suggest you read about the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Your edits have been reverted because other editors disagree with them. YOU are now obligated to start a discussion on the article's talk page and justify the reasons for your edits. Your arguments will have to be based on Wikipedia policies and very reliable sources, not your own or some fringe opinion. If you can come to an agreeable solution with the other editors, then a consensus version can be added. Under no condition are you allowed to restore your edits without first attempting to get the approval of the editors who object. That would be edit warring and will only get you blocked. Good luck!


 * LMAO! How a troll attack leads to interesting discoveries


 * This false charge against two respected editors led me to learn of excellent guidelines for editing Wikipedia, and to learn about a man named Anthony Fauci. What a crazy world Wikipedia is, and what a boundless source of information and learning. Love it!


 * Mindjuicer's battleground mentality.


 * WLU's explanation of how Wikipedia reflects current opinion rather than true opinion]. Brilliant! How policy interacts with reliable sources over time.


 * A few common misunderstandings explained by Ocaasi.


 * Ongoing disruptive activities


 * User:BullRangifer/Martin J. Walker


 * ZP5's climate change COI


 * V & IAR by Ludwigs2 and a response.


 * User:Brangifer has been registered for me.


 * An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of


 * Why did Medical acupuncture get redirected? Was there any merge?


 * Betty Martini (Aspartame controversy)


 * 72.187.199.192 = TheThomas


 * Weird


 * These need to be merged - Non-surgical spinal decompression into Spinal decompression


 * User:Ludwigs2's block, unblock and promise to not edit Ghost article. Expressed desire to "dispose of the word pseudoscience entirely".


 * Very interesting and useful Community sanctions imposed on a user.


 * User:BullRangifer/Woo-woo


 * Vandal


 * Merkey's socks


 * Serious threats against Barrett.


 * Follow the instructions here to file a sock puppet report.


 * QuackGuru topic banned from chiropractic (broadly interpreted, including Quackwatch) for six months, and Levine2112 topic banned from chiropractic subjects (broadly interpreted) for six months, starting on Aug. 8, 2009. TheDoctorIsIn also warned to exercise caution and edit under only one account.


 * Sockpuppet investigations/BullRangifer Repeated by Stmrlbs and also declined.


 * Sockpuppet investigations/BullRangifer/Archive by Shannon Rose. A first. Of course it was declined.


 * My block log parsed


 * My short block log has some history that should be connected with it. Unfortunately it isn't possible to edit a block log or attach notes to it, so I'm doing that here.


 * Wikipedia is behind the ball


 * This comment is very insightful. It shows a good understanding of the essence of WP:NOR:


 * "Wikipedia is behind the ball - that is we don't lead, we follow - let relaible sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." User:Benjiboi


 * Frei Hans, one of the most disruptive and dense editors I've ever witnessed, now indef blocked.


 * Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TimBolen


 * Old SPI related to chiropractic editors


 * Reputation


 * OMG! Bully for you, a diff


 * WikiProject User Rehab - project start


 * Whig, the wisest editor ever to exist. This editor knows more than all the scientists that currently exist:


 * "There's no difficulty proving effectiveness, unless you insist on doing it wrong. We don't double blind informational therapies. &mdash;Whig (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)" (speaking of homeopathy)


 * Copyright


 * "In the U.S., prior to the Copyright Act of 1976, published works needed an explicit copyright notice to be covered by copyright law. (Lack of a copyright notice on a print run of Houghton Mifflin's American publication of The Lord of the Rings allowed Ace Books to publish an unauthorized version od the trilogy.) After 1976, all published works were covered, regardless of whether they had a notice or not, and unpublished works were covered as well -- so whether a webiste explicitly claims copyright or not is totally irrelevant. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)"


 * Abd moving straw poll.....


 * Complete block log for all blocks


 * Intersect, tool


 * Prophetic words about User:NootherIDAvailable's demise. He turned out to be a sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey!


 * NootherIDAvailable, this article isn't written for homeopaths, nor their customers, but for everyone. It's not a sales brochure written only from the viewpoint of homeopaths. You really need to understand NPOV better. One indication that NPOV is being met is when neither side of the issue is totally happy with ALL the information the article contains, but if they are good Wikipedia editors who understand the policies here, they will be satisfied only when opposing POV have been presented factually without promotion. To be a good editor here, one has to be willing to write for the enemy. Are you willing to do that? It doesn't sound like it. If you aren't willing to do that, or at least allow it, then you will only be a disruption here and will end up getting blocked or banned. Please make up your mind. This isn't your personal website or blog. This is an encyclopedia like no other. It has its own special set of rules, and no one understands them completely since they are constantly evolving to meet new demands. Some of our policies, like those related to Pseudoscience and Fringe subjects, were developed because of the actions of editors like yourself, IOW they were made to enable the canons of Wikipedia to shoot you and other editors like you. Since you seem to be new here, I suggest that you just lay low and stay out of the sights of those canons by not making too many waves. Give it time and you'll likely get the hang of it. Edit other subjects for awhile and learn the ropes. Good luck. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Source:


 * Community portal


 * Bad websites


 * User:Tom harrison/BADCITES


 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist


 * Related: MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist


 * Dealing with advocates of fringe theories


 * A comment of mine copied from here.


 * You say you are "not an advocate", but your writing says otherwise. That you have a POV on the subject, even an advocate's POV, is itself not a problem. We all have POV. It's when it causes you to perform original research synthesis violations, and without reliable sources, that the problem becomes evident. I have no doubt that you are trying to improve the article, but this isn't the way to do it. This is a fringe subject that is covered by our fringe theories guideline:


 * In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.


 * Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.


 * That's why articles like this are treated differently than articles about proven ideas. In articles like this, mainstream sources (like Quackwatch) are given preeminence over fringe sources, and mainstream POV is also given preeminence over fringe POV. NPOV requires that all significant POV are presented, but fringe POV, being unsupported by scientific evidence, take a backseat to mainstream POV. Proven and unproven ideas are not given equal weight. Promoters of fringe POV should be glad that their ideas are even allowed to be presented here. It happens because Wikipedia's goal is to document the sum total of human knowledge and experience, but it must be done using verifiable and RS. If it isn't documented in such sources, and is only presented in fringe sources, then it gets very little, if any, coverage here. That's the way it works here. If you want to change that, then take your concerns and questions to the Fringe theories Noticeboard. Good luck in your future here. There's alot to learn, and learning to edit here according to our policies and guidelines is an education that will benefit you in many ways. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Homeopathy
 * Conditions Under Which Homeopathic Drugs May be Marketed - FDA
 * Homeowatch, especially the "Legal and Regulatory Matters" section
 * Source


 * A section considered unencyclopedic


 * Block and unblock of a POV pusher:


 * "unblock-un reviewed|Ok, so I seem to have been blocked for having an inappropriate name. I apologise profusely for this, I didn't realise at the time of creating this account that it could be taken offensively. So i would like to keep my edits etc, as I have put a lot of effort and time into edits I have made. I suggest the username 'Acromantula'|2=User:Acromantula is taken; please consult Special:Listusers to search for usernames to find one that isn't taken. While we're on it, if you username had been available I would be rather hesitant to unblock you. Yes, your username is (somewhat) offensive... but you were really blocked because you are POV-pushing. Admins are generally hesitant to block for POV pushing, because it's a judgment call. But I'm firm in my judgment, that's what you were doing. No one has been buying your argument that the Cold reading article should say that it is only "claimed" that people use cold reading. Your basis of argument is your own beliefs, rather than external factors like sources. And you continue to hammer the same points regardless of how many people have opposed them. In other words, you lost the argument and you should stop; it's crossing the threshold into disruption. So, if you find an available username I'm willing to unblock, and view this block as only about your username, but this POV-pushing behavior is a serious problem and if you don't address it you'll soon be blocked again. Mango juice talk 16:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Source (Bold emphasis added.)


 * Promises to reform: "unblock-un|Then how is the name 'machomonkey'? And i apologise if you dislike my edits, yet i have felt that they are biased towards the oppposite viewpoint. What I have done is not right, admittedly, although it is no worse than what has been done by others. If that is what is required, I shall change my ways.", but the edit summary says otherwise: "contested block and provided new name"


 * Name changed from Phallicmonkey (monkey dick) to Macromonkey


 * Reappearance while banned.


 * A prof:


 * "As a professionally qualified, licensed homeopathic doctor, it was irritating for me when my patients quoted from wikipedia - and when I read the article, I realised that every statement was criticised, unlike osteopathy, chiropractic etc." User:NootherIDAvailable


 * Editing controversial articles: Feel free to comment. --  Brangifer  /  talk  07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Spinal manipulation research


 * A collection of spinal manipulation research abstracts, news reports and other commentaries, with special emphasis on risks, plus some other interesting sources. Some sources on the related subjects of Chiropractic, Physical Therapy, Osteopathic medicine, and Osteopathy are also included. Some are of purely historical interest and others present the latest evidence. They are kept here as a resource for editing articles. This list is far from exhaustive. It is currently organized by year, for lack of a better system, which has the immediate benefit of helping to avoid duplication.


 * If you have any additional sources, suggestions for improvement or personal comments, please use the talk page. Thanks. --  Brangifer  /  talk 


 * Category:Ilena's early IP addresses


 * Nice navigation bar here


 * How to edit a page: Excellent tips and tricks.


 * Straight version of chiropractic article


 * User:69.127.37.241 made this massive revamp of the existing Chiropractic article, leaving us with a version as only a very typical and truly deluded straight chiropractor could wish it. A very interesting object for study of the straight chiropractic mind. Believe it or not, this is classic chiropractic in 2008! Seeing this type of ignorance might be considered unbelievable to most, but for those who study the chiropractic profession, this is quite a common phenomenon. --  Brangifer  /  talk  04:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Templates:
 * User:BullRangifer/Template_privacy
 * User:BullRangifer/Background


 * Created List of alternative medicine subjects
 * Done. --  Brangifer  /  talk  04:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All subpages
 * Quackery definitions throughout history
 * Alternative medicine critics
 * User:BullRangifer/List of alternative medicine subjects
 * Watchlist: List of alternative medicine subjects
 * User:BullRangifer/Vandalism templates
 * User:BullRangifer/Presidents
 * User:BullRangifer/Pseudoscience stuff


 * Music groups: Supergroup (article), Traffic, Blind Faith, Blood, Sweat & Tears, Dire Straits, The Yardbirds, Cream, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Spencer Davis Group, Rolling Stones, Fleetwood Mac, Aerosmith, Queen, Big Brother and the Holding Company


 * Musicians: Steve Winwood, Dave Mason, Eric Clapton, Mark Knopfler, Jim Capaldi, Ginger Baker, Elton John, Sting, Phil Collins, John Mayall, Jimi Hendrix, Jeff Beck, Jimmy Page