User talk:Daisy Blue
Barnstar
[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation. |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Google Books
[edit]Hi Rose, you were saying you couldn't access certain Google Books links, perhaps because of where you're based. Firefox has an addon called Zenmate. [1] It does several things, including changing IPs so if you look at a US site, you have a US IP. I only used it briefly when I was doing some research for Wikipedia that meant I had to bypass company redirects to country-specific sites. I found it slowed things down, so I disabled it and haven't explored its effect on Google Books, but I thought you might like to try it. SarahSV (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'll see if there's a way around it for me, although as I said on the talk page for veganism, the subtitle on the cover of the book you pointed at was more than enough for me to agree with FourViolas' interpretation of how you've come to the wording that ended up being in the article. --Daisy Blue (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Tia Blanco
[edit]Hi ! Daisy Blue show me the rule (wiki.): "don't add people who aren't notable enough to have been the subject of a wikipedia aritcle)" - [2]
Thanks, --Siekański (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Siekański: I just used common sense when making that comment but our guidelines do say "Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever.". Daisy Blue (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Daisy Blue:: Good advice (and wiki. source), very good. Thanks, --Siekański (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
[edit]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the DRN regarding the use of Harriet Hall's blog post in the Michael Greger article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Michael Greger. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've had enough trying to deal with Alexbrn who seems to think that because he is convinced that someone in the field of medicine has an unpopular view, he has to find a single article with criticism and put it in the lead, wording it like it's more than just one opinion; and I saw how Jytdog refuses to adjust their position as well, such as when they were given a quote from Greger's own book where he says he doesn't advocate for veganism and doesn't mind people eating animal products very rarely, yet Jytdog kept pushing the idea that Greger promotes veganism. --Daisy Blue (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Daisy Blue. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
As a general point: There's nothing wrong with including "brand names"; that was just one user's idiosyncratic understanding of the NPOV guidelines. It's true that we shouldn't mention particular organisations in an attempt to make them appear more significant, or make veganism seem better by association, but of mentioning particular organisations/brands provides necessary context, then we shouldn't be opposed to it. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- @J Milburn: it was band names, not brand names. I mentioned the issue and explained the way I see it a while ago here in the first paragraph. --Daisy Blue (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
August 2017
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Neal D. Barnard. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your talk page is filled with warnings like this, and in my case it's a baseless threat from your side. Your reverting of my edit was disruptive at best, so it had to be reverted, as you had absolutely no reason to remove my additions in their entirety. Part of what I did was moving the information that was already there (his job, age), and two of the five books added to the new section were already mentioned in the article, so was one of the three films. The article on What the Health also said Neal Barnard is in it, but even if it didn't, you have a long history of pushing your anti-vegan POV across many articles over the past months if not years, and it takes reading through the information, so you had enough knowledge to at least assume that it's plausible Barnard might have been in those films. Barnard being vegan can be questionable indeed, and I'll add a source to support it, but you went far beyond removing this part alone. As I said in the summary for one of my edits, read WP:ROWN and don't try to make this article another battlefield as you did with veganism when you tried (and failed) to have it say that the diet doesn't protect from cancer, and as you did with Michael Greger (and failed) when your point basically was "we have to have the lede say he's a quack because his book title tells people how to be immortal and he has an article somewhere saying that turmeric helps treat cancer". --Daisy Blue (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- The Veganism and Greger article are now in good shape; let's stop the Barnard one becoming bad eh? Alexbrn (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- One doesn't improve an article by fully reverting an edit that contains improvements upon existing information (standard sections and a template added in this case) and some new information that's hardly questionable. Point at the things you think need to be sourced in the article.--Daisy Blue (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- The Veganism and Greger article are now in good shape; let's stop the Barnard one becoming bad eh? Alexbrn (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your talk page is filled with warnings like this, and in my case it's a baseless threat from your side. Your reverting of my edit was disruptive at best, so it had to be reverted, as you had absolutely no reason to remove my additions in their entirety. Part of what I did was moving the information that was already there (his job, age), and two of the five books added to the new section were already mentioned in the article, so was one of the three films. The article on What the Health also said Neal Barnard is in it, but even if it didn't, you have a long history of pushing your anti-vegan POV across many articles over the past months if not years, and it takes reading through the information, so you had enough knowledge to at least assume that it's plausible Barnard might have been in those films. Barnard being vegan can be questionable indeed, and I'll add a source to support it, but you went far beyond removing this part alone. As I said in the summary for one of my edits, read WP:ROWN and don't try to make this article another battlefield as you did with veganism when you tried (and failed) to have it say that the diet doesn't protect from cancer, and as you did with Michael Greger (and failed) when your point basically was "we have to have the lede say he's a quack because his book title tells people how to be immortal and he has an article somewhere saying that turmeric helps treat cancer". --Daisy Blue (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Greetings
[edit]First, thank you for editing and adding to Wikipedia. I saw the discussion on the Notice-board-whatever its-name-is and since you have really begun to get involved with adding content I thought I would leave you a message to encourage you. What has happened to you via the discussion is quite common and has also happened to me, more or less. First of all, you have noticed something I have noticed and it is that some editors monitor each other's editing history and then they are able to participate in the activities of each other. This is a surprising thing to some, but it happens and it has happened to me. You described your case very well on the page where you registered your concerns. Perhaps this is good or it is bad, but it is what it is. I have begun to look at this in a different way - those that may not be pleased with your editing actually will turn you into a better editor with fewer and fewer reversions. I will watch your talk page so that I can help you with your editing if you would like. Please know that you are doing a good thing and that there are others who appreciate what you do and want to help.
- The Very Best of Regards,
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Daisy Blue. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Daisy Blue. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)