Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:47, 4 November 2015

Welcome...

Hello, Realskeptic, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

I've already modified your contribution at Andrew Wakefield, hopefully for the better.

Again, welcome! Novangelis (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield

Hi. I have undone your edit at the above article. As you can imagine, this wording has been discussed at length, and has not been arrived at frivolously. Please feel free to initiate another discussion on the article's "talk" (discussion) page. The earlier discussions are archived here. (You can also access the archive via a link at the top of the current "talk" page.)

Debate at Misplaced Pages can be robust; patience, politeness and persistence are often required. Our editing is also tightly constrained by policies and guidelines. If you want to pursue this, I'll be arguing against removing "fraudulent" from the article, but I have been persuaded to change my mind in the past.

Your point that we shouldn't be basing assertions of fact on opinion is plausible and may be worth expanding on. Another possible avenue is our policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). Once you have familiarised yourself with that policy, if you think the article breaches it, you may consider asking the opinion of other editors at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. If you can elicit enough support there, the present wording may be overturned.

Modesty and politeness, even in the face of rudeness (don't be a wimp, but don't be snarky or hysterical either) is the shortest route to wherever you want to go here. Good luck. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion relies on weasel words and is outdated. I added a new section with reliable sources that dispute at least some of the allegations of fraud made against Wakefield, but you removed those citing what appears to be your own opinion. That is a violation of WP: NPOV. While I appreciate the suggestions, those developments still need to be added.

Realskeptic (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

When an edit you make is removed by another editor, the usual practice is to open a discussion on the talk page about your concerns. Repeatedly restoring the same content more than three times in a day is considered disruptive, and it's unproductive too, because, presently, most of the editors watching the article agree with the current wording. The way forward is to win others over to your point of view with patient, polite and sound reasoning. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MastCell  19:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Not my instigating, user's reverts violated WP:NPOV, WP:Harrassment and WP:AGF. Thanks. Realskeptic (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You're edit-warring. It matters little who "instigated" it, although insofar as the listed policies are concerned, many of your edits violate them. Please stop. MastCell  19:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Putting other users' words in scare quotes, saying edits are "non-reality-based" and making unfounded accusations is WP:Harassment. You should also not involve yourself in edit warring you say should not take place, especially if it doesn't matter who the instigator is as you just said. Realskeptic (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

BLP warning

You're continuing to edit-war to insert material which violates this site's policy on biographical material on living people. Please read the linked policy in detail, because it is taken very seriously here. Note that it applies to any material dealing with living people anywhere on Misplaced Pages, regardless of whether that material appears in a biographical article, an article about The Lancet, a talk page, or anywhere else. Note that it forbids using blogs or personal websites, with very limited exceptions. If you continue to violate this policy, then I will request that another admin block your account from editing or do it myself. MastCell  00:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The material was updated to not include personal websites. Realskeptic (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you're still doing it, and you've also refused to consider the Washington Post or Los Angeles Times as reliable sources because, apparently, they're part of a CDC-led conspiracy. I'm done with this; I've posted to the BLP noticeboard to ask an outside admin to review your edits and your approach, both of which I think are unhelpful. You are welcome to comment there if you like. MastCell  00:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Look at this, LA Times is trained to report on this by CDC - ergo they're not journalists. They are simply fronting a federal agency's agenda. http://healthjournalism.org/about-news-detail.php?id=64#.VjlVIrerTIU And of course the Salon editor who pulled Kennedy's piece showing evidence of CDC and IOM collusion is now a senior editor at WashPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/pr/wp/2014/06/04/kerry-lauerman-joins-the-post-in-senior-editor-role/ I'm sorry, but having a newspaper logo above your name does not make you a journalist - your independence from government agencies make you that.

Realskeptic (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)