User talk:Stuarta

Welcome!

Hello Stuarta, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Fawcett5 12:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming Good Faith

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Gillian McKeith. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it mystifying that you would extend a welcome to someone who has been editing Wikipedia for as long as me. I suggest you investigate the "User contributions" mechanism in order to examine how little your advice bears on my situation. What you do is click on the link labelled "User contributions".

Happy to help.

Stuarta 23:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the link above is template text of an AGF warning level 1. I felt level 1 was appropriate in this matter, even though you are a seasoned editor (a fact which I noted by the date of the original welcome message on this page). It would have been bad form to start at AGF template level 2. I have placed those before, but only after I have placed the more congenial level 1 and the lack of AGF continues. Remember, this is just friendly reminder to keep it friendly. I know how frustrating WP:NOR and WP:BLP and all of the other rules can be. You have an opinion about something and you just want to express it. But every argument has at least two sides, and you will be thankful that the there are these rules in place when a side at odds with yours tries to abuse the system. Again, I have no opinion of Gillian McKeith; in fact I never heard of her before two or three days ago. I saw that there was some issues preventing this article from flowering. I thought I could step in and lend a hand. I bow to SLimBirgin's expertise at abitrating now though. Please believe that I was not pushing any agenda and I am sorry that you and I had this rocky start. I hope we can both move on and edit collaboratively, Happy editting! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out, it was not appropriate. I would also point out that you have invented various insults I am supposed to have thrown at you. Which warning would be appropriate for such inventions?

Stuarta 08:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you are not ready to move on. Look me up when you are. Take care. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by "move on". I am saying, in response to your inappropriate intervention on this page, that you have yet to withdraw patently false allegations. I note that you have once again failed to withdraw those allegations, or even address the issue. Until you do so, I reserve the right to mention this fact.

As for your welcome message, I have already pointed out its irrelevance to my position. Whether or not you used a template, it was inappropriate. I therefore questioned why you placed it here. You have not supplied a satisfactory answer.

I shall now return to more productive matters — in particular, reinserting the various pieces of non-controversial information that various editors, including you, elected to remove from McKeith's page.

Stuarta 12:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have some moral support over Gillian McKeith. Have you seen this: Uncyclopedia? Since it is not the Super, Sizzling Sun, perhaps you can use it as a source. Man with two legs 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. At times it seems the alternative medicine whitewashers' main strategy is to make their opponents bang their heads against a wall. As for Uncylopedia — most entertaining! Stuarta 15:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a point where I felt that the article was sticking the knife into her too gently, especially the introduction. After a colossal number of recent edits, it now looks to me to be in reasonable shape. Or have I missed something? Man with two legs 19:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the article has improved with the recent edits. However, there is still some information to be added back in, and some information that people are trying to have removed that I think should stay.

Stuarta 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy worship

I can see you are still upset that people keep referring to policy instead of responding intellectually to your arguments. I want to make sure you understand that I fully agree with your view about this woman and I have no intentions of whitewashing her. While the constant patronizing calls to read policy are tedious, I want to point out that Jayjg has not just been dismissing the issue. I think his response on how to deal with pseudo-science, such as Mucoid plaque, really shows that he has given the issue a thought and even spent time searching for sources:

"To begin with, the current article about Mucoid plaque is pretty bad, filled with lots of original research used in a desperate attempt to debunk the notion. There is already enough material in there to debunk it, the addition original research actually makes the debunking seem less reliable. Second, if you need more sources, you could always quote from Daniel Harris's interesting essay on pages 190-191 in Cute, Quaint, Hungry and Romantic: The Aesthetics of Consumerism, or simply note that Medinfo 2004 describes mucoid plaque as a "non-credible concept" (page 932). That's really all you need; you're not going to convince people by inserting all sorts of WP:BLP violating original research insisting that "Richard Anderson is in the business of selling books promoting this view and products to fix or remedy it", or even the Pub-med original research there, which someone should remove or slap a "fact" tag on. The non-policy violating material there already makes it clear enough that Anderson made up the idea, and there's nothing really backing it. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)"

I've added the emphasis, because I've argued something similar myself about McKeith :) There is honestly no call to whitewash, only to diversify the sources and attribute the criticism to people who are putting their names under it. --Merzul 15:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I understand there is a serious issue over science and original research. It isn't an easy one to resolve, and I appreciate your efforts. I agree that Jayjg has not just been dismissing the issue, although I would appreciate slightly more specific engagement than I have generally seen. The general debate should perhaps move elsewhere, although I've probably said my piece on it.

Stuarta 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McKeith

Please see talk:Gillian McKeith - regarding a block on myself and Pighsonthewing. Thank you. 13:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)