Jump to content

User talk:COice6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, COice6 and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dougweller (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Removed editions, why/how to prevent?

[edit]

I wish to edit and add information to the Our Lady of Guadalupe page, but that information and those edits keep on being removed. Why? How may I prevent this? Am I doing something wrong? Below are the HTML of the two edits I was attempting to make.

The first edit was: (→Beliefs and miracles: Elaborated on the bomb detonation issue; reworked the structure to establish the tilma's lengthy structural integrity as a fact rather than simply "[one of the claims of Catholics]") As follows: The tilma has maintained its structural integrity over nearly 500 years, while replicas normally last only about 15 years before suffering degradation.[1][2] Catholic sources claim other miraculous and supernatural properties for the tilma such as that it repaired itself with no external help after a 1791 ammonia spill that did considerable damage.[3]

On the morning of Nov. 14, 1921, a bomb was detonated in the Basilica of Guadalupe. Luciano Perez Carpio, an employee of the Private Secretariat of the Presidency, protected by soldiers disguised as civilians, placed the bomb at the foot of the Image of the Virgin of Guadalupe. The explosion was heard a kilometer away, but absolutely nothing happened to the Image of the Virgin of Guadalupe. Bronze candelabras and a crucifix on the altar, though, were bent by the impact.[4][5] Currently, the bronze crucifix is on public display in the basilica.[6]

The second edit was: (→Technical analyses: Added a video reference for PC's assertions.) As follows: Unsolved Mysteries published a video illustrating some of Callahan's infrared photographs and findings. [7]


Is there anything wrong with this? Why are these two edits repeatedly deleted, and how may that be prevented?

COice6 (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this down, because we normally make new additions to talk pages at the bottom of the page.
The way Wikipedia works is described in WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If you see a change you think would improve the encyclopedia, be BOLD and make it; but if it is then reverted, do not simply make it again, which can lead to WP:Edit warring; discuss it on the article talk page and try to reach WP:Consensus with other editors. If you cannot reach consensus, there are WP:Dispute resolution processes available.
In this case, the article's edit history, reached by clicking "View history" at the top of the page, shows that your additions were reverted by editors who did not believe your sources were sufficiently reliable sources to meet the verifiability requirement. Read:
and then, if you think your additions are valid, start a discussion with the other editors on the article talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, COice6. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
Message added 15:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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 (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please Remove Wikitags

[edit]

User:History2007 will not remove the wikitags that he placed on the Our Lady of Soufanieh Wipedia article page. He claims that I am not adhering to Wikipedia policy, although I have extensively illustrated that I indeed am. Please review the Our Lady of Soufanieh article's talk page and grant me your perspective as to whether the Wikitags he has placed are truly justified. He and I appear to be the only persons interested in editing the article and I cannot make any unilateral maneuvers.
COice6 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend a post to WP:3O or WP:DR, they specialize in disputes. I'll leave the help tag in case someone wants to mediate. CTJF83 18:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He/She is right in that it contains too many references to http://www.soufanieh.com/ which doesn't appear to be reliable and not 3rd party sources. CTJF83 18:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reading WP:RS, it states that "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The referenced work is not produced by soufaneih.com, though it is published by that website. The referenced work is produced by roughly two dozen established experts--doctorate professors of their fields of study--whose works have been published by reliable third-party publications (unless he/she wants to make the argument that those universities where they work are unreliable third-party publishers). Thus, the references to the studies and works that they have produced--some of which happen to be found on soufanieh.com--are reliable. Would this rule apply?
COice6 (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide references of the actual doctorate professor's publications...like in a University journal or newspaper article, something along those lines? CTJF83 18:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of the doctors listed are from other countries; their publications are written in another language and I would have to search www.google.de or some other foreign google website if I wish to have any luck in finding and acquiring them.
Nonetheless, in order to obtain a doctorate, a person is required to publish a thesis. Also, in working at a university (unlike the requirements for working at a college), a professor is funded for the ongoing research which he is required to do (contractually), which the university publishes regularly. That contract is voided and the professor loses his funding when his research stops or significantly dips in quality (his/her work is no longer worth publishing). He/she loses his/her job as a university professor. Thus, as doctorate university professors in their field, it is understood that they have publications, since they have to have published at least a thesis in order to obtain their doctorate, and since they have to have ongoing works (which the university proudly publishes) in order to maintain their status as a professors at their university.
COice6 (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I believe that most Wikipedians would agree that the work and research of doctorate university professors are a reliable source of information, if we have no specific reason to believe otherwise.
COice6 (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't immediately tell the reliability of the website in question. You saying they all have their doctorates on the subject, doesn't make it true, sorry to say. Not sure what else to tell you besides WP:3O or WP:DR. CTJF83 19:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:LuckyLouie also agrees better sources are needed. CTJF83 19:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that maybe they do not have their doctorates, or are u suggesting that the work and research (in the properly relevant fields) of doctorate university professors is not a reliable source of information?
COice6 (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You would need a 3rd party source showing they have doctorates and are experts in the field. CTJF83 19:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained, these persons are from foreign countries, so I would have to search through a foreign-language search engine, and I do know their languages. I can provide a few but do not have the ability to do so for each and every of the two dozen professors. Furthermore, since this was done primarily in the 80's and early 90's, I am sure that most of their works are in monograph format found at the libraries where they taught at, rather than digital format. But here are a few that I can clear for now:
Dr. Oivind Ekeberg, MD, PhD,  Professor of Behavioral  Sciences in medicine, Medical faculty, University of Oslo, Norway. Dr. Knut Kvernebo's publications can be found here. Dr. Ekeberg Øivind is an editor of the Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, and I doubt he got that position if he really does not have a doctorate. Youssef Massamiri, here is his evidence of being a doctor. Michel Obeid, here is an article on his research of a cancer drug. I seriously doubt that all of these doctors were just actors and liars. There is enough evidence that they were not. This is a non-exhaustive list but I think I have proved my point. I can take the time to supply another five or so but I feel have already spent enough time to prove my point with those last few.
COice6 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am in no way suggesting they aren't doctoral experts and in no way saying you are lying or making it up. I'm just saying how Wikipedia policy works as far as WP:RS, and WP:SPS go. CTJF83 20:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. So have I sufficiently indicated that those individuals are actual doctors/professors, and that soufanieh.com is not lying in stating that they are?
COice6 (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not saying anyone is lying, saying you need 3rd party reliable sources, and not sources from the self-published website on the topic. CTJF83 20:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So have I sufficiently indicated that those individuals are actual doctors/professors
COice6 (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tags were removed by another user. As was the questionable content. I just love spending time in these debates..... sigh.... History2007 (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I "like" that comment, History? CTJF83 21:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not laugh, but I only have a vague feeling that "like" is some type of facebook lingo or something like that. Not having a facebook account (I am too old for it) I am not sure... But if you like it, that is fine. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, ya that ruins the joke if you don't use Facebook. CTJF83 02:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which claim prompted the WP:REDFLAG, and what part of WP:REDFLAG is triggered?
COice6 (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion

[edit]

Proposed deletion of Our Lady of Soufanieh

[edit]

The article Our Lady of Soufanieh has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 99.245.37.46 (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the PROD tag because this article is not eligible: it has already been discussed at WP:AFD. Elizium23 (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Elizium23. We have danced that dance before. History2007 (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psychokinesis

[edit]

I'm sorry but WP:FRINGE sources such as the Journal of Scientific Exploration can't be used to assert the reality of PK as fact. I've discussed your edits at WP:FTN, the thread is here. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Here is the Swedish research study, taking note of Tramadol (and not Kratom), pertaining to the sole cause of 9 deaths:

http://jat.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/4/242.long — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B024:BD79:486E:B88A:9E76:BE5A (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Guerra, Giulio Dante. AlleanzaCattolica.org, "La Madonna di Guadalupe". 'Inculturazione' Miracolosa. Christianita. n. 205-206, 1992. , accessed 1 December 2006
  2. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd3G1S_24NM&feature=watch_response
  3. ^ D.A. Brading, Mexican Phoenix. Our Lady of Guadalupe: Image and Tradition Across Five Centuries, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, (2001), p.314; Stafford Poole, The Guadalupan Controversies in Mexico, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press (2006), p.110
  4. ^ Eduardo Chavez San La Iglesia de México entre dictaduras, revoluciones y persecuciones chez,, Ed. Porrúa , Mexico 1998, pp. 165-166)
  5. ^ http://www.truthsoftheimage.org/tr/en/claims/9bomb.html
  6. ^ http://www.sacred-destinations.com/mexico/mexico-city-basilica-guadalupe
  7. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd3G1S_24NM&feature=watch_response
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:COice6&oldid=1086460266"