User talk:J~enwiki/Archives/2006/March

Image copyright problem with Image:Jan_Kesner.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jan_Kesner.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 06:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic edit war
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.  ◄ ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ  ►  00:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the warning. I was aware.  Justen Deal 00:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I should add... You stated in your edit summary for the revert: "rv. 3RR coming into play next time - mccready attempted dispute resolution/compromise on the talk page, but you choose to ignore it and continue edit warring.)"  I understand you've just familiarised yourself with this article today, but it's important to note that there is no compromising on WP:RS and WP:V.  An "edit war," in my mind, requires that I might take a position on the "edits" that are being disputed...  I don't.  I take issue with those edits being added without being reliably and verifiably sourced.  Certainly User:Mccready has added his thoughts to the Talk:Chiropractic page, but nobody, to date, has found reason for adding content to the article that cannot be verified.  These statements are important to the subject of the article, but Wikipedia requires the statements be verifiable and reliable.  So far, you, nor User:Mccready, nor anybody else (for that matter), have offered a source for the statements you're trying to add into the article.  I have searched, and cannot find any to support the statements myself.  That means the edits need to come out of the article until someone (preferably whoever added the statements) can source it. Justen Deal 00:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm not trying to add any statements to the text. I'm simply resetting a clumsy revert and hoping somebody (you for instance) makes a more surgical edit.  Preferably, although not necessarily, after discussion of the 'offending' material.  To be honest I couldn't care any less about the subject.   If you cannot find the sources for the statements then edit them out manually, seeing as other edits were made in the interim.  Reverting, especially when it includes valid and unrelated edits, just stunts the growth of the article in question.  I'm amazed at the number of editors who don't check what they're editing before they hit the save page button.  That's the very reason I was there on that page in the first place today, because Drdr1989 totally changed the meaning of a sentence by butchering it and not reading the result (or just lacking the faculty to notice the difference when they did).  People are wondering why simple spelling errors they've already corrected are creeping back into the article, and it's because of the kind of ham-fisted reverts you've just pulled.   ◄  ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ  ►  01:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm not trying to add any statements to the text. I'm simply resetting a clumsy revert and hoping somebody (you for instance) makes a more surgical edit.  Preferably, although not necessarily, after discussion of the 'offending' material.  To be honest I couldn't care any less about the subject.   If you cannot find the sources for the statements then edit them out manually, seeing as other edits were made in the interim.  Reverting, especially when it includes valid and unrelated edits, just stunts the growth of the article in question.  I'm amazed at the number of editors who don't check what they're editing before they hit the save page button.  That's the very reason I was there on that page in the first place today, because Drdr1989 totally changed the meaning of a sentence by butchering it and not reading the result (or just lacking the faculty to notice the difference when they did).  People are wondering why simple spelling errors they've already corrected are creeping back into the article, and it's because of the kind of ham-fisted reverts you've just pulled.   ◄  ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ  ►  01:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll respond here: User_talk:Newsmare. Justen Deal 01:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Justen
Thank you Justen for those kind words. I am not sure which statement you were originally talking about, but I think it has been removed. You, too, are doing a great job of editing and have a very good grasp of the guidelines of WP, more than I have. I just remove the anti-chiropractic hate bilge and return things to a more NPOV. For some reason, there are those who have never even been to a chiropractor like Mccready who has it in for chiropractic. Go figure. He was sent to the naughty corner, but doesn't seem to have learned anything from his time-out. For good measure, he even started bad-mouthing an admin. Not the best way to endear onself to the authorities, now was it? LOL So keep up the good work, I think we work together well, eh? Steth 04:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)