User talk:Pacula

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also see User talk:Pacula/Archives

Contents

[edit] Med-stubs and category links

Glad to see there's someone keen to re-sort that particular 1500 article monster. Incidentally, you may find it useful to note that you can link to categories like this: Category:Medicine stubs, or indeed using the {{cl}} template, like this: Cat:Medicine stubs. Alai 03:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] doctor shopping reword

I appreciate the attempt to fix the article, but I'll be honest it hasn't really done much to improve it. The phrases are still expressing unsourced opinion. Whether that opinion is "many" or "most" or "some" its still opinion or written so vaguely its meaningless. "Some" could be 1, but that 1 may not really be encyclopedic enough to mention.--Crossmr 00:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tension myositis syndrome

[Removed blatant spam left by Ralphyde 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC) ]

The message you left on my talk page makes no sense. We are not talking about any uncollaborated self published works here. We are talking about a serious topic that you have blatantly vandalized for your own POV reasons. Also, you didn't bother to sign your post on my talk page. Don't you know how? Ralphyde 19:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep your spam OUT of my userspace, 'Doc'. - Pacula 19:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backing off from edit war with User:Ralphyde, pending external review

Just wanted to make a note that I do realize that I am coming perilously close to getting into a full-blow edit war with User:Ralphyde, and have decided to back off pending an external review of the matter. This incident is over my attempted removal of the large number of subtle and non-subtle links and references to the uncollaborated claims of John E. Sarno that have been inserted into articles in an apparent attempt to promote his books. I also would like to point out that this user is becoming dangerously close to abusive, to others as well as myself, with frequent claims of 'POV' or 'vandalism' when reverting edits that were made to clean up biased point-of-views. Removing a NPOV template from an article, claiming NPOV reasons, must require an amazing amount of chutzpah. - Pacula 20:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about a RFC on users? There is a process if you think it's worthwhile. In the mean time, keeping cool will help you in the long run. Getting into a revert war over a talk page looks lame for one thing, and reflects badly on both (as opposed to just looking badly on the addee. Just my opinion, but you can take it or leave it. WLU 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Further comment - personally I'd wait until after the page was deleted to remove wikilinks to the TMS page. It'll probably happen anyway given the current state of the debate, and while it exists it's valid to have the links on a DAB page like TMS. Though the links on other medical pages are probably valid. Another one of my opinions. WLU 21:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice - it never really crossed my mind that my trying to keep an offensive-to-me comment off my userspace could be seen as a revert war in of itself. If the original comment reappears, I'll let it stay - for now. - Pacula 22:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Dude (dudette?), I strongly urge you to cease edit warring with Ralphyde on John E. Sarno. Wait for the AFD to resolve itself, then start discussing it on the talk page. Use WP:3O, WP:RFC and if needed, WP:MED or other types of conflict resolution. I'm currently looking over the article and doing some re-writes, but you edit warring isn't helping you or either page. However, your choices are your own so feel free to ignore it. If you do choose to continue, I would recommend editing one section at a time and referring/justifying your edits on the talk page. Saves on the mass-revertin. WLU 21:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of Vandalism

I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop referring to the edits that I have been making on 'your' articles as 'vandalism'. Disagreeing with you does not make me a vandal, nor does it make attempts at cleaning up the bias in said articles 'non-NPOV', as you also seem to have a habit of claiming. May I politely suggest that you attempt to work with those editors who are attempting to find some kind of balance, rather than simply repeatedly undoing every attempt at cleanup, and stop with the accusations and insinuations. Making personal attacks is not going to get you anywhere - but trying to compromise will. - Pacula 11:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What would you call it when a person with no knowledge about a subject, marks that article for rapid deletion when the article has been around since January, 2004, with numerous citations and constantly improved, then on the same day, he goes through the numerous references and links to that subject and proceeds to delete them all with no discussion? I would call that vandalism. Then, when attempts are made to restore the broken links between related subjects that have virtually destroyed the topic, he calls it "Spamming". I will try to refrain from calling you actions vandalism, but only as long as you stop calling my attempts to repair your damage, spamming, which it is certainly not, but is simply connecting related topics. Ralphyde 17:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Threats to Block Me

I have never used Wikipedia for advertising. I have a strong interest in Tension Myositis Syndrome, have read nine books by various authors about it, and I have simply attempted to repair damage you have done to that article by first marking it for deletion, even though it has been an article since January, 2004, with many cited updates by many people also interested in this well established topic, then on the very same day, you went through all the references and links to the article and deleted them, and created a huge mess. This is vandalism on a well cited subject about which you obviously know nothing. To call my attempts to repair the damage you have done "spamming" is not only absurd, but outrageous and arrogant. Tension myositis syndrome is a well established psychosomatic cause of chronic back and other pain, and has been well proven in clinical practice for more than thirty years by licensed physicians. For you to attempt to censor it is outrageous. People who come to Wikipedia because of their chronic back or other pain need to be able to find out about this very successful diagnosis and treatment. In addition, this topic has nothing to do with any "uncollaborated self-published work." Ralphyde 19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputes

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators.

An exception is made when dealing with unsourced or poorly sourced contentious biographical material about living persons. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. (See the BLP policy.)

Ralphyde 20:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions on Fibromyalgia

Hi Pacula,

I recently reverted an edit of yours on Fibromyalgia, not necessarily b/c I disagree with the edit (I haven't had time to check the citation), but b/c I was trying to prevent an edit war. If you can please leave a rationale for the deletion within the talk section, maybe we can resolve this?

Regards, Djma12 (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The apology

No need for an apology mate, it never occurred to me that one was even warranted. I'd rather editors like yourself stick your nose over the parapet and draw attention to articles like these. You deserve thanks rather than having to make apologies :) --WebHamster 00:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I'm not always quick at getting tongue in cheek stuff, especially in text form. It's an AS thing. He's gonna have a thromb when he sees what I've done to the external link to the treatment page. But yes, I had noticed the big sell. It's starting to become patently clear that this amount of effort to get something not deleted has to have something other than interest associated with it. It's looking more and more like the missing part of the equation is $$$.--WebHamster 01:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well it is said that there is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that's not being talked about :). A copule of thoughts came to mind about that forum post. 1) If they are so disgusted with WP and think so little of it then why are they fighting so hard to get an article on it? 2) For someone to attempt rubbish someone's words from a venue they have so little respect for demonstrates to me that those words must be hitting somewhere where it hurts, most likely in the pocket, why else would they go to the trouble of rubbishing them and attempting to denigrate the person saying them? Personally I think they are concerned that an injection of logic may shatter the fragile belief system of the people it is alleged to have worked on, after all if they weren't weak minded and easily manipulated then they wouldn't believe they were cured. As you said though, so very sad :) It's perked me up no end heheheh --WebHamster 17:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for the barnstar!

Hi - thanks for the Rescue from Deletion Barnstar! I appreciate the award, and even more,... I appreciate that you approached the debate as a collaboration and not a fight. Too often, people just dig in to keep their position no matter what, even if there are good reasons to change. I saw your Wikiproject spam userbox, so I'm sure you've seen plenty of that kind of arguing. It was good to have a debate where people worked together in the end (after we got past that nonsense with the sockpuppets or whatever they were). Well, thanks again for the barnstar and your comments, happy editing! --Parsifal Hello 06:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Mote In God's Eye - original hardcover edition.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Mote In God's Eye - original hardcover edition.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)