Repeated untrue statement about me |
Courtesy notice |
||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
"the npov vaccination critics page, which morphed into the pov ridden anti-vaccinationists" |
"the npov vaccination critics page, which morphed into the pov ridden anti-vaccinationists" |
||
You have previously been made aware that John's vaccine critics page was deleted in an afd. [[Anti-vaccinationist]] was started de novo, later. There is no connection between them. You appear to be accusing (everyone of everything) me of some sort of plagiarism, expropriation or whatever, and you have no reasonable excuse for not knowing this to be false. Please apply a retraction to the AFD in which you made that comment. [[User:Midgley|Midgley]] 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC) |
You have previously been made aware that John's vaccine critics page was deleted in an afd. [[Anti-vaccinationist]] was started de novo, later. There is no connection between them. You appear to be accusing (everyone of everything) me of some sort of plagiarism, expropriation or whatever, and you have no reasonable excuse for not knowing this to be false. Please apply a retraction to the AFD in which you made that comment. [[User:Midgley|Midgley]] 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Courtesy notice == |
|||
As you are on probation for tendentious editing on medically related articles and I believe your behavior at the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frequency of autism|frequency of autism AfD]] violates the terms of this probation, I have asked for a review [[WP:AE|here]]. [[User:MastCell|MastCell]] 01:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:54, 14 March 2007
Previous discussions: February 26 to December 31, 2005, January 1 to June 30, 2006, July 1 to December 30, 2006
Poor Breggin article!
Hi Ombudsman!
I hope everything is going on well with you since our last communication.
I’ve just written in Peter Breggin’s edit summary: “Scuro’s copyedits are extreme POV! Article badly requires a tag (BTW, Barlett’s web cite is NOT a reliable source)”.
Perhaps you may want to take a look at the incredibly POV insertions of a new editor in that article. (I just wrote a similar letter to Anarchist42.) I no longer have Breggin in my Watchlist (I’m overwhelmed in real-life work). Do you have an idea which editor could be willing to watch that article?
--Cesar Tort 03:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
List of Articles Related to Quackery
Care to weigh in here? Always interested in your side of things... [1] Levine2112 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- This vote has changed locations and the page title has changed. Care to weigh in here? Levine2112 21:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
AfD Nomination: Pilots for 9/11 Truth
An editor has nominated the article Pilots for 9/11 Truth for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Pilots for 9/11 Truth during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 17:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Rating the ToK
Hi. I'm trying to get members of the Psychology Project to get together and rate the both the quality and importance of the Tree of Knowledge System, along with discussing ways to improve the article. Hope you're interested. Have a great day! EPM 14:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Psychiatric Survivors Movement
You recently reverted a merge of this page into Consumer/Survivor/Ex-patient Movement, with no discussion and only an edit comment to explain. The merge suggestion tag had been on the page since December (with a brief interlude when it was replaced with an outright deletion tag) and the rationale for the merge had been clarified on the talk page, with other suggestions or objections requested, several times since then, before anything was done. No objections or alternative suggestions were raised, by you or anyone else. Therefore, your reversion of this careful work feels quite offensive, and against Wikipedia guidelines. I would like to discuss and establish a consensus - please would you engage in discussion on the article's talk page? I'm going to clarify further the rationale for the merge there. EverSince 10:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Psychiatric survivors movement
If you look in the history of the page you reverted you will see there was a merge discussion, so your rv may not have been exactly proper. Vees 19:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, that is by no means a minor edit. Vees 19:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
David Ayoub
Before we get deeper into what could quickly turn into an edit war, let's discuss the section that you find problematic on the talk page of the article. Maybe we can make it better, so it doesn't appear like a personal attack to you. Oh, and please don't make the section headlines haliographic. They are descriptive as they are, and NPOV. --Kristjan Wager 08:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 21:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Request for peer review
The article Clinical psychology has just been listed for peer review. You are invited to lend your editing eyes to see if it needs any modifications, great or small, before it is submitted to the Featured Article review. Then head on over to the peer review page and add your comments, if you are so inspired. Thank you!! Psykhosis 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
NHS
At http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Refrigerator_mother&diff=prev&oldid=91074757 and various other places you present the NHS - the health service of four nations - with the implication that anything coming from it is suspect. This is unjustified - at least by you. Justify it or cease presenting this point of view in WP. Midgley 00:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Repeated untrue statement about me
"the npov vaccination critics page, which morphed into the pov ridden anti-vaccinationists" You have previously been made aware that John's vaccine critics page was deleted in an afd. Anti-vaccinationist was started de novo, later. There is no connection between them. You appear to be accusing (everyone of everything) me of some sort of plagiarism, expropriation or whatever, and you have no reasonable excuse for not knowing this to be false. Please apply a retraction to the AFD in which you made that comment. Midgley 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Courtesy notice
As you are on probation for tendentious editing on medically related articles and I believe your behavior at the frequency of autism AfD violates the terms of this probation, I have asked for a review here. MastCell 01:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)