User talk:Raeky/Archives/2013/January

Please comment on Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/RfC

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/RfC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

• From the editor: Wikipedia, our Colosseum

• In the media: Is the Wikimedia movement too 'cash rich'?

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser a success; Czech parliament releases photographs to chapter

• Technology report: Looking back on a year of incremental changes

• Discussion report: Image policy and guidelines; resysopping policy

• Interview: Interview with Brion Vibber, the WMF's first employee

• Featured content: Whoa Nelly! Featured content in review

• WikiProject report: New Year, New York

• Recent research: Wikipedia and Sandy Hook; SOPA blackout reexamined

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James Earl Jones

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:James Earl Jones. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

• Op-ed: Meta, where innovative ideas die

• WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Episode IV: A New Year

• News and notes: 2012—the big year

• Featured content: Featured content in review

• Technology report: Looking ahead to 2013

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Editing

Hi Raeky and thanks for being courteous at my page. I am an involved editor there and I did discuss me edit at the talk page. It's under the heading "discussion". There are several other editors there who would be more than happy to comment on my edit and revert me themselves. I'm asking that you please revert your last edit at chiropractic because I'd rather not revert you because your intentions were well placed. Thanks for writing and I hope we can arrive at a mutually beneficial solution. DVMt (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Done, but re-reverted it as a WP:BRD revert, seems like A LOT of deletions, plus some wording changes in criticism, making it seem less WP:FRINGE quackery than it really is. Per WP:CRIT criticism should be incorporated within the article's sections and you should avoid a criticism section. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT it should be treated as the mainstream medical establishment treats it, and as far as I know it has almost no efficacy for most of what it claims to treat, and it's not highly looked upon by mainstream medicine. So I think your edits are a bit WP:POV. — raekyt 23:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work (mature, reasoned, logical, rational editing and civil discussions)! I appreciate your timely reply and revert. The deletions were duplications stated many times in the article which as the page indicates is too long and bloated. The criticism section was actually beefed up by incorporating all the criticisms that we spread through the article into a concise paragraph. Your concern of FRINGE is logical, and indeed the fringe practices of chiropractors are being exposed as quackery and fraudulent. The issue is the mainstream medical establishments viewpoint of chiropractors has changed insofar as as to what is legitimate chiropractic practice. The mainstream med establishment and other health professions agree that its appropriate for chiropractors to be treating musculoskeletal issues like back and neck pain. The article itself shows the research for what conditions have scientific evidence showing effectiveness. Not so for diseases and other problems not related to muscles and joints. The majority of chiropractors within the US and globally are not quacks and frauds just people who are essentially body mechanics treating muscle and joint pain. Even the article itself states that the so called "straight" chiropractors are typically the ones who engage in what the mainstream medical establishment and the public would regard as quackery and yet they now represent roughly 20% of current US chiropractors. Outside the US that number is even lower, with chiropractors earning degrees in universities and not private institutions like the US where there is less oversight from educators. Also regarding FRINGE is weight and undue weight on negative criticism. The argument that is being made is that if 4/5 of chiropractors practice what is considered legitimate manual therapy then why is the 1/5 viewpoint dominate the article? WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to whole professions but rather what practices are fringe. The argument could easily be made that a minority of medical physicians have "quackery" practice behaviors but I wouldn't have that theme running through the medical physician page at every turn and not acknowledge what their legitimate practices are. DVMt (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the edit reversed on Neil deGrasse Tyson's page.

I have a very good reason for this edit, but I do not know if this is a private messaging system or not. Can we contact via e-mail? I would not like my reasons to be public if these talk pages are, in fact, public.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.42.134 (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Your reasons are irreverent and must be documented with reliable sources. — raekyt 13:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Threats and innacuracies

I don't appreciate your "drive by" revision and accusing me of 3RR when that's clearly not the case. Each revision of text is different than the others. I recommend you participate fully at TALK and explain your actions otherwise your assertions of me are in violation of WP:AGF. Your reverts could be considered vandalism since you're not even participating in the page. You haven't even proposed any alternative edits or even specifically disputed what you're reverting. I'd kindly ask that you engage constructively in this regard as opposed to using an axe to cut a piece of paper. DVMt (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you should familiarize yourself with the term WP:VANDAL and it's VERY specific criteria and meaning here since it's painfully obvious you haven't yet. If you note, there is no consensus beyond you and a severely WP:COI editor, everyone else watching (evidenced by these "drive by" reverts you refer too) and commenting on the talk page do not agree with your changes. I suggest you propose specific changes on the talk page then discuss them BEFORE implementation. Just ignoring people's objections and continuing to make changes, can still be considered violating WP:3RR. The reverts don't need to be actual reverts, and it doesn't need to be three. Your pattern of behavior and demeanor is suspect. Either your a WP:SOCK of a banned editor from these pages if not that then if you continue the pattern will probably be banned anyway. — raekyt 04:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, right off the bat your discourse and accusations of being a sock is completely lack of good faith. The objections stated are not ever discussed with specifics more so "I don't agree' and come up with no solutions. You continuous attacks on editors ("you will be banned, you are in COI, etc..) leads me to believe that you care more to comment about the editor rather than the edit. For example, when probed of providing a reliable high quality source for the inclusion of "health profession" you did not directly address the source just provided your opinion on chiropractic (slightly above crystal healers). Threatening me again with a potential ban because of our disagreement seems rather heavy handed. You mischaracterize and misrepresent my arguments using red herrings and straw man arguments. Last time I checked there was consensus amongst 3 editors for inclusion of health profession with a variety of sources provided. In the future let's discuss this on the talk page so that it can be more transparent. I don't revert, I revise my previous attempt. These are genuine attempts to improve the article. DVMt (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm allowed more leeway and to be more frank on my own talk page, so I am. As for suggestions, your not asking for any, just pushing through change after change after change. The onus is on you to seek consensus for your changes. That's why it's suggested on pages like this to present a change on the talk page, one at a time, asking for input/revisions BEFORE you actually make the change. The sources you provided I didn't have time to check the reliability on, but others have now and they're not exactly that great of sources. Just like you're reliance on the highly biased, outdated WHO pdf that was written by lobbyist for chiropractic and a leader of a chiropractic trade association, and written in junction with others of similar COI. Taking some of these sources to WP:RSN may be an avenue you could explore if you think we're wrong. — raekyt 12:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

• Investigative report: Ship ahoy! New travel site finally afloat

• News and notes: Launch of annual picture competition, new grant scheme

• WikiProject report: Reach for the Stars: WikiProject Astronomy

• Discussion report: Flag Manual of Style; accessibility and equality

• Special report: Loss of an Internet genius

• Featured content: Featured articles: Quality of reviews, quality of writing in 2012

• Arbitration report: First arbitration case in almost six months

• Technology report: Intermittent outages planned, first Wikidata client deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

• News and notes: Requests for adminship reform moves forward

• WikiProject report: Say What? — WikiProject Linguistics

• Featured content: Wazzup, G? Delegates and featured topics in review

• Arbitration report: Doncram case continues

• Technology report: Data centre switchover a tentative success

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox musical artist

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox musical artist. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Raeky. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pinball.
Message added 00:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sven Manguard Wha? 00:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

• In the media: Hoaxes draw media attention

• Recent research: Lessons from the research literature on open collaboration; clicks on featured articles; credibility heuristics

• WikiProject report: Checkmate! — WikiProject Chess

• Discussion report: Administrator conduct and requests

• News and notes: Khan Academy's Smarthistory and Wikipedia collaborate

• Featured content: Listing off progress from 2012

• Arbitration report: Doncram continues

• Technology report: Developers get ready for FOSDEM amid caching problems

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)