User talk:Brigantian

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 16:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the common sense and wisdom you've brought to wikipedia, and specifically the articles on David Horrobin.

When I began to edit orthomolecular topics I was unaware that there was at least a loose network of posters suffering under severe "allergies" to orthomolecular medicine, who have at least cooperated with people who long have been "allergic" to alternative medicine on a professional basis. They were kind enough to introduce me to the arcana of wikipedia's procedures, and bit by bit we have worked together to improve the entries on orthomolecular medicine, hair testing, and Fred Klenner. I have, in fact, come to believe that the presence of an advocatus diaboli, or of advocati diabolorum, in the long-term significantly enhances the quality of the article, one just has to persevere, and take the time to dig up sources to wikipedia's standards. There is, of course, no feeling more gratifying than being proven right, especially when one has done so in the face of strong but apparently not too perspicacious opposition.

You may find it expedient to add orthomolecular pages that have caught your attention to your watch list, so as to remain abreast of changes especially of those with which you may disagree, such e.g. that David Horrobin wasn't noteworthy.--Alterrabe 21:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Hi Brigantian, welcome to Wikipedia.

Just a quick one to recommend a review of our "No Personal Attack" policy which encourages editors to comment on the topic, rather than on other editors [1]. Regardless of Djima2's motives he nominated the articles for deletion per Wikipedia processes.

It should also be noted that new editors that display an indepth understanding of Wikipedia coding (etc) are often looked upon as a sockpuppet of another editor, particular in AfDs, where editors often send out a call for "help" with votestacking. While all editors should turn the other cheek, sadly socks are all too common at AfDs, so I understand the behaviour of editors. All I can suggest is that you just not worry about it and just make your comments as needed. Thanks Shot info 22:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I am certainly no "sockpuppet" as I am not even sure whether this will get to you, or if how exactly to message other editors. However, I wonder if the nominations policy in this regard does not need looking at again, to guard against apparently blatant attacks upon interest groups. My own comments questioning his motives were not "Ad Hominem" but rather sincere concerns, sincerely expressed and with very sound reasons. However, I will follow your advice, and "not worry about it". I am simply very concerned that the article on David Horrobin should not be unfairly and, as it might appear, for malicious motives, deleted.Brigantian 23:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page. Shot info 23:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordonofcartoon

is that from the Robert Girardi novel Madeleine's Ghost? I remember it being used as a joke in a mugging scene.

No: Gordon is my middle name, and I started out editing visual arts articles such as Reg Smythe. But that actually that proves pretty well you're genuinely a new user: in this territory of editing, it's near-unknown for anyone to show any sign of breadth of interest. If Horrobin comes up, by the way, I can't see any problem about him being kept. He's way more notable than most of them. Gordonofcartoon 12:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some starting links for newbies

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Enjoy Shot info 23:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hangon tag removed

I have removed the {{hangon}} tag from the article David Horrobin. In your edit summary, you stated in caps: "AS PER WIKIPEDIA REGULATIONS STATED ON THE TAG ITSELF PLEASE DO NOT UNDO THE HANGON WHILE THE TAG IT REFERST TO PERSISTS!" The {{hangon}} tag is used to contest a nomination for speedy deletion. This article is not up for speedy deletion. If you disagree with the other tags on top of the article, {{newsrelease}} and {{peacock}}, you can argue your case on the article's talk page. But the {{hangon}} tag shouldn't be used for that. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breivenbus- perhaps I am missing something? The "news release" tag specifies- "Mark blatant spam for speedy deletion". Well? Brigantian (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that text is poorly worded, and I see how it could be confusing. What it means to say is that articles that are blatant spam should be marked for speedy deletion, under speedy deletion criterion G11. It is an advice, but it doesn't nominate the article itself for speedy deletion. If it did, the article would have been added to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and Category:Spam pages for speedy deletion. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breivenbus - Thanks.Brigantian (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you noticed, but Edgar181 (talk · contribs) has reworded {{Newsrelease}}. The final sentence now says "Where appropriate, blatant advertising may be marked for speedy deletion with {{db-spam}}." The discussions about the tagging of David Horrobin have made us aware that the previous wording could cause for confusion. Thanks for pointing that out, even if it wasn't your intention ;) I hope the current wording avoids any future confusion about this matter. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. My username is Aecis. "Brievenbus", which is Dutch for "letter box", simply links to my user talk page.

Glad that some positive has come out of it, AecisBrigantian 12:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dec 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:David_Horrobin. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. Please discuss the article not the contributor. Shot info (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, I did not attack you anymore than you attacked me. Your constant resort to mudslinging and tagging rather than constructive editing was all I pointed out. It was you who accused me of Trolling and various other crimes. As I stated in Talk:David_Horrobin this amounted to an attack, or rather repeated attacks on me, rather than constructive editing, which is what you should have been doing. Take your own advice. Brigantian (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]