User talk:Valjean/Archive 10

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Archive 10
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15 Bizarre diff This diff is rather bizarre. It shows one editor editing another editor's userpage(!), and then adding portions of a quote that reveal a misunderstanding of NPOV. Odd... Thank you for your constructive criticism on my talk page. I respectfully disagree with you. The vast bulk of edits on political pages are from people pushing POVs. Mine are no exception. This is a good thing because people without POV are unlikely to contribute to those pages. NPOV is achieved from a synthesis from all these POVs. After everyone has removed material they dislike, we are left with NPOV text. I am merely removing material I find controversial. Consensus is required to INSERT material, not remove it. Surturz (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[1] That is quite a quote. Fyslee (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC) I think I was in my rights as the quoted party to ensure I was quoted fully. Timeshift quoting me on his userpage in that fashion was a bit rude in the first place (since he has used that quote against me several times in talk page disagreements). I agree that my understanding of NPOV (and WP consensus) was not as good back then as it is now. I am, however, interested in how you stumbled upon that edit? Are you watching my edits, Fyslee? If so, why? --Surturz (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC) No need to stand up for me, i'm a big boy. I always knew he pushed an agenda as his quote states, but never have I seen him be so obvious about it. Even though others agreed with me over Surturz' Kevin Rudd edits, it inspired me to find the quote where he said he pushes a POV, and I did, and put it on my user page as a quote of the year. I chose to quote only part of it, as the rest is out of context or sheer blather. What is important is that I haven't misquoted Surturz - The vast bulk of edits on political pages are from people pushing POVs. Mine are no exception - this is what he said, it cannot be taken out of context, it is what it is. Timeshift (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Timeshift9, I'm sure you can fend for yourself. That was a good find. Surturz, how did you find this? Are you watching my edits? If so, why? I suspect we are both on each other's watchlists and watch many of the same articles as well. That's perfectly fine. I don't mind. I can understand wanting to be quoted correctly, but you should probably have gotten permission first. Whatever. It's a matter between the two of you. What is especially interesting is that you would want to display your (previous?) misunderstanding of NPOV. What about that quote would you now find to be imperfect? IOW, what changes and improvements have you made in your understandings of NPOV? I know that I was likely in the same boat in the beginning. NPOV is a deep subject and I'm still learning, so don't expect to find the perfect answer from me! -- Fyslee (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC) I found this because I have previously left chat on your talk page and it is in my watchlist. The word 'Bizarre' caught my eye. You however, must have intentionally looked up my contributions list? Or maybe from my talk page, timeshift did leave a note there, I guess. Timeshift trucking out that quote ad infinitum says a lot more about him than it says about me... namely that he would rather use personal attacks than discuss actual edits. Why bring up something I said six(?) months ago unless he wants to play the man, not the ball? --Surturz (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC) What is most interesting to me about this is to watch editors develop and grow here. We are all doing it and what's most important is that we have a positive learning curve. Good luck in your growth here. I know that we all need it. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Yah well, Timeshift has taught me not to be too forthcoming in my opinions about WP policy, lest I be quoted for six months again. --Surturz (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Irritating isn't it?! This place is a very open environment, but stand by your convictions, don't be afraid to have a POV, do your best, make mistakes and learn, apologize when necessary, IOW be a real human being, and with time you can earn the respect of those who hold opposing POV. It's easy to get the respect of those who share your POV, but when you can collaborate effectively, and disagree agreeably, with those on the other side of the table, you will have achieved something quite rare here. Good luck. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Center for Consumer Freedom Hi Fyslee, sorry I don't mean to be engaging in whitewashing (is that a formal term? is there a guideline on this?) it just seemed that some of the language on the page was needlessly negative. I'd like to do some more work on the article, so I'll definitely be careful about this. Another question, what is "IOW duplication"? I'm not familiar with that policy, so if you could point me to a page about that I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Don't worry. You seem to be relatively new here, but you have as many rights as I have! Remember that. I was getting concerned when I saw that sourced material was being removed. Negative material, especially regarding fringe groups, is a necessary part of articles, as long as it is properly sourced. Our fringe policy gives the mainstream POV priority, while NPOV still requires that all notable aspects of the topic be presented, including sourced facts, both positive and critical. The guidelines regarding the LEAD require that notable aspects of the subject mentioned in the body of the article are (briefly) mentioned in the LEAD. That involves a form of duplication of material. (IOW = in other words). Whitewashing means just what it does in the rest of the world. Often editors who don't like a POV and wish to slant an article towards another POV will remove material or reword it in such a way as to nullify its effect, thus rendering their favored POV stronger. That is a (multiple) policy violation. Our job is to include all significant POV. I don't know what your POV is, and whatever it is, it's perfectly proper to have one. Just be careful to enable the inclusion of other POV, even those you may not like. You may even be totally neutral regarding the subject at hand. I don't know. I was just concerned. That's all. I hope that explains things. You are more than welcome to seek help any time you wish. Good luck. -- Fyslee (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Alston BLP vio Did you read the reference? It is an allegation by an non-notable individual in an opinion piece. It hardly justifies the inclusion of text calling Alston 'the world's biggest luddite'. Not even front page opinion pieces in WP:RS newspapers get a guernsey in AusPol articles, I don't see why this text should remain. --Surturz (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC) I wasn't aware we could pick and choose between V & RS in newspapers, with a notable exception - Letters to the editor - which aren't normally accepted as V & RS. BTW, being called a Luddite isn't really that bad. Maybe insulting, but hardly qualifying as a BLP violation. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC) It looks like the author is a regular columnist, and thus a RS per Wikipedia policy: Kieren McCarthy articles at The Register Google search: Kieren McCarthy -- Fyslee (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Look, if you feel strongly about this, revert my change. The admin User:Orderinchaos made it pretty clear (see here) that opinion pieces are not to be considered WP:RS even if they appear on the front page of a respectable newspaper. I don't agree with that ruling, but I've argued against it as much as I dare. --Surturz (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC) I don't feel at all strongly about the Rudd article. Australian politics doesn't interest me. What concerns me now is the meaning of RS. Orderinchaos' statement (without understanding the context) is disturbing. Have you taken it to the RS noticeboard? -- Fyslee (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC) If you would like to do that, go ahead. I have no desire to make a complaint against the admin in question, or dispute their ruling. --Surturz (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Reckless driving Thanks for the info about the reckless driving uproar; I wasn't aware of that part of chiro history. Eubulides (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Apology I misunderstood a comment of yours at User_talk:Shell_Kinney and posted a narky comment aimed at you. I reverted it a few minutes later when I realised my stupidity. Sorry for not assuming good faith. --Surturz (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC) All forgiven. You may be surprised by this, but I have helped to get several skeptics banned from Wikipedia. Disruptive editors just make things difficult here, and some are incapable of adapting to a collaborative working environment. Some editors suffer from various types of mental illness or other problems that make them incapable of changing, and when they exhibit such behaviors (even if not diagnostically mentally ill), they need to be topic banned or go all together. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Aspartame controversy I see you've been working on Aspartame controversy. I thought I'd take a stab at the article, but I don't think I have the patience to deal with problems of this extent. I'll stick with it for awhile and see what happens. --Ronz (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Be patient. Believers in conspiracy theories are quite beyond the reach of rationality. They are not worth getting wikiscars. You'll be dealing with an editor who doesn't understand our policies and who is hell bent on righting great wrongs, and that can get him/her blocked. Let it be. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC) User:Fyslee/Alternative medicine critics Hi, your list is looking good. I am not real big on lists here but I think this might be helpful for locating information for references. There are lists for CAM so this is kind of balancing things out. Anyways, it is looking good. I also want to wish you a happy and healthy holiday season. Our editing hasn't crossed paths for quite some time so I hope all is well. Happy holidays, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Merry X-mas! BTW, some of those lists might be appropriate for a See also section. I know there are similar articles and lists that are critical of mainstream medicine. Please suggest some on the talk page. -- Fyslee (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Ok I'll try to hunt down the difs for you. I took them off my watchlist I think but they should be pretty easy to locate. I hope you also enjoy and happy and healthy New Year! --CrohnieGalTalk 12:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC) Done, I post three that might be helpful with a note about it. Happy editing!--CrohnieGalTalk 12:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC) Whoops, you want critical of mainstream, let me redo as I think what I posted isn't what you are looking for, sorry it's early. :) --CrohnieGalTalk 12:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC) Seasons Greetings Best wishes to you and yours! --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC) The Risberg Cohort Study In 1992, Risberg and colleagues surveyed close to 1,000 Norwegian cancer patients about alternative treatments for cancer. Their initial purpose was to determine the prevalence and determinants of alternative medicine use.29 The investigators later realized that it would be possible to link their data to the Norwegian Statistical Registry to obtain information on survival. They found that alternative medicine use was associated with poorer survival; 79% of alternative medicine users died during follow-up compared with 65% of nonusers. This analysis was confounded by the poorer clinical status of users at the time of the survey. As might be expected, a patient with a treatable early cancer might be less likely to turn to an alternative cure than a patient with advanced disease and few remaining conventional treatment options. A multivariable Cox regression was used to control for baseline differences in stage, performance status, time since diagnosis, and other prognostic variables. There was a trend for alternative medicine users to have shorter survival (hazard ratio 1.30, 95% CI, 0.99–1.70; P = 0.056), a result that was robust to various sensitivity analyses. The authors hypothesized that shorter survival might be explained by "patients’ correct perception of the gravity of their disease." Whatever the explanation, the study certainly finds no evidence that use of alternative medicine improves survival.30 http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/54/2/110 Lame Science"Dirty Harry"Apologist flailing about: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Jim_Butler cheers, Jim Butler (t) 12:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC) The COI accusation is lame indeed. In fact it is a personal attack: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." Immediately below that line is one about mentioning COI not being a personal attack, but he's mistaken, so the above line does apply. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Thanks. That was helpful. I'll email you. best, Jim Butler (t) 06:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I see that you remember my comments about Dirty Harry, so keep in mind that I still generally sympathize with SA's POV, but not his harsh and incivil methods. You and I can be allies regarding despising his methods, but we can't always be allies regarding POV. There he and I are usually allies. One thing about you I have always appreciated - you are a gentleman and are civil. We can disagree and do it agreeably. I admire that. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Right on, I couldn't agree more re disagreeing amicably, and have the highest regard for your ability to do that (as well as the defensibility of your views themselves... you trend skeptical, but your reasoning is clear, and you're not arbitrary about stuff). And that quality, being intellectually honest, is what's most important in a collaborator. What is cool is that even when we disagree on POV, we usually agree on NPOV (e.g. the titling question for the pseudosciences list.) That's more important than whether or not we agree on POV. What's more robust over time, trust/rationality, or simple coincidence of worldview? best, Jim Butler (t) 06:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Very true. Believe it or not (ultra chiroskeptic that I am), one of my very best friends is a chiropractor. Okay, no longer practicing, but he is a chiro. He was educated at one of the more scientifically oriented schools, not a straight school, and that enabled him to see through the crap the profession is filled with and he got out. It is still filled with so many dishonest flakes, lazy jerks, fraud and quackery, that he just couldn't stand it. I've heard that from so many chiros. Probably 50% leave the profession within five years of graduation, not necessarily for those concerns, but often because they can't survive unless they become expert conmen. The profession happens to have the highest default rate on governement student loans. It's a scandalous profession in so many ways. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I have heard of good chiros, but I prefer seeing D.O.'s for manipulation; at least getting thru med school serves as a filter, i.e. quality control. If the dark side of chiropractic is sleazy used-car salesmanship, the dark side of acupuncturists is flaky idealism. More a sin of omission than commission. At least the worst thing an incompetent (but properly schooled, i.e. clean needles and not stuck in the lungs, etc.) acupuncturist is likely to do to you is simply fail to help you get better, rather than hurt you. I'm for truth in advertising. L.Ac's don't (generally) claim to be docs, and that's as it should be. With D.C.'s, I tire of the claims of educational equivalance with M.D.'s & D.O.'s (look, N-thousand hours! -- all that crap). As if quantity established quality. I don't buy it at all. Show me MCAT scores or something. Has the claim of educational equivalence with MD's ever been debunked by an RS? regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 09:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Fibromyalgia Hmm.... section on malaria does not read: Malaria (meaning bad air) is a vector-borne infectious disease caused by protozoan parasites. It is widespread in tropical and subtropical regions, including parts of the Americas, Asia, and Africa. Each year, there are approximately 515 million cases of malaria... But rather: Malaria is a vector-borne infectious disease caused by protozoan parasites. It is widespread in tropical and subtropical regions, including parts of the Americas, Asia, and Africa. Each year, there are approximately 515 million cases of malaria... Why provide rough translation of neologism coined in the late 20th century? Why insist on n00b's casual (and silly) addition being sacrosanct and then threatening to 'report'? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.101.202 (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure what refering to the malaria article has to do with this. Such an addition would be an improvement to that article. There are articles which do provide a "rough translation" at the beginning, and often a very precise Latin translation at that. Take a look at the Chiropractic article. At the right side of the page you'll see the Latin translation. All that used to be in the first sentence! Here's what it looked like. It was so bulky that it was suggested we move it, and now it doesn't take up so much room. That is another way to deal with it. Many other articles still have such translations in the first sentence. That's common practice here. Diabetes mellitus is another one. The whole idea here is article improvement. Instead of deleting, try improving. I have no special burden for the precise wording that has been chosen by several users (not just one n00b). It can likely be improved, and that was what I was suggesting to you. I would report you for edit warring, not because of the particular wording. It isn't sacrosanct. It's all about improving article content. There were a few tries, and none of them has been perfect. Try your hand at it and come up with a better version, but don't delete it, since you are at WP:3RR and can be blocked for edit warring. Only make suggestions on the talk page about this matter. Don't touch the article when dealing with this matter. You really can be blocked. You seem to be the newbie here, so consider this friendly advice. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Hi Fyslee, I notice you reverted me which is fine. I just want to explain my thoughts on this. I reverted this editor and then left a polite note on the users talk page, as I am sure you saw, also warning about the 3rr being a problem. But since I reverted with a comment to take it to talk page and the editor did, I felt my revert was in error since I had said to take it to talk and s/he did. Personally I agree with the addition so maybe I should have left it but I was second guessing myself. I hope this explains my actions. I think the IP should read up a little more about WP:3RR and WP:EW, at least to start off with. To the IP, there are a lot of policies and guidelines at this project and it takes time to go through it all and understand it. Even seasoned editors have a tendancy to forget some things and need to go back and review, I am one of those. The best thing though for a situation like this is to use the talk page when someone reverts you rather than going back and reverting the article. Revert wars are usually a no win situation. Talk page discussions on the other hand are usually, anyways I hope they are, the best way to iron out differences and explain your points for why you changed an edit and also it gives the other editors a way to explain why they agree or disagree with you. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request to amend prior case:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal Thought you'd want to know I've asked for a finding related to you to be amended. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC) OMG! I have just complained about this particular issue. It looks like we're on the same page. I'll go there now and make a statement. Done. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Now located here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Motion Keating letter An excellent letter by Keating starts here, about chiropractic philosophy and how it hampers the profession. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC) List of osteopathic colleges Happy New Year! I noticed that you created this article. What to do you think should be done with it? --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC) I don't remember why I created it. Likely to fix a need at the time, maybe a redlink. Do whatever is appropriate with it. I have no special burden for it. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC) I'll look where it's being linked. Thanks for the idea. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC) If you have time... Hi Fyslee, if you have time would you take a look at Reiki [2]? The vandals have hit it pretty hard lately and I don't know enough about this to fix the article. I am bringing it to your attention because I know you do ocassionally edit there. If you don't have time no problem, I am sure someone who knows the article can fix it back up. I am just not the right editor to do it. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009 Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3. The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 45 24 November 2008 About the Signpost From the editor: 200th issue  ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones  Wikipedia in the news Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view  Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Volume 4, Issue 46 1 December 2008 About the Signpost ArbCom elections: Elections open Wikipedia in the news  WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System Features and admins  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Volume 5, Issue 1 3 January 2009 About the Signpost From the editor: Getting back on track  ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK  Editing statistics show decline in participation Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting  News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments Dispatches: Featured list writers  Wikipedia in the news WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey  Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Motion in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal The Arbitration Committee has altered the above-linked case by successful open motion. The header of the finding which previously read "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (Finding of Fact 3.2) has been changed to "Sources used by Fyslee". For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Thank you! There is some justice here after all. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Hello Sorry for the revert, you were just in the line of fire! Duck! I know what you meant and you know what I mean. Dematt Understood. I was writing something on your talk when this popped up, so I included something from below in my reply there. I hadn't seen this when I wrote what's below. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Categorization, characterization Hi Fyslee -- regarding this edit -- no matter what introductory prose in subsections say, putting any topic in "List of Pseudosciences..." amounts to characterization per WP:PSCI. (Therefore, "questionable sciences" shouldn't go in.) This is true for any controversial category. "List of Terrorists" shouldn't contain a waffly section; it should either omit grey-area cases or have a different list title. That's pretty straightforward logic. Wasn't that why you argued for a change in the list's name to something more qualified, like "List of alleged pseudosciences" or something like that, so that "grey" area topics could be included along with brief explanations? regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 05:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC) That was my reasoning. I'm tired of the wikilawyering that panders to the fringe, instead of fighting for an NPOV version that will allow inclusion. You can choose one side or the other. BTW, the elements of chiropractic that should be mentioned aren't "questionable science", but clearly PS. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC) I can choose one side or other of your false dichotomy? Yeah, right, Mr Bush. It's that kind of rigid thinking that gets us into these messes. later, Backin72 (n.b.) 06:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Bush? That hurt! Joke: "You know what happened the last time someone talked to a Bush? They ended up wandering in the wilderness for forty years!" Actually its not a false dichotomy to me, but it is a mixed bag, not a clear cut case. In this less-than-ideal situation one can choose to look at the fundamental cause of the dispute and try to improve it there. That problem is the title. Or one can choose to try to protect one's favorite belief from inclusion and exploit the less-than-ideal title, instead of fixing it. That's an exclusionist agenda that breaks down, rather than builds up, the encyclopedia. It also strengthens the fringe agenda here, which is to make fringe issues look like they are mainstream. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Ha! Good one. Sorry, but I did want to get your attention. Anytime it's "you're either for or against", and we're clearly talking mixed bags and grey areas, I get uncomfortable. I really do think the looser title would be the most NPOV way to do it, whether WP:PSCI existed or not. I've always been for a looser title, and have never WP:GAME-ishly argued for a narrow title so my favorite topics don't go in. I don't game (and I get pissed when people say I do, which is probably why SA is saying that I do). As for vert sub, it sounds pretty pseudo in my book (the only question being a suitable RS). Chiro as a whole, mixed bag, of course. Re TCM, I guess qi and meridians are pseudo too, if taken literally in the present day; IMO, seeing them as "clinically useful matephors" is a more enlightened way of dealing with them. If TCM can predict anything biomedicine can't, e.g. PC 6 for nausea, then that's reason to believe there may be other clinically useful stuff encoded in that ancient system with all those weird concepts. cheers, Backin72 (n.b.) 06:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC) See User talk:Dematt. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC) ArbCom request for clarification: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE A request has been made for clarification of the ArbCom case WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE as it relates to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. I'm leaving this notification with all editors who have recently edited the article or participated in discussion. For now, the pending request, where you are free to comment, may be found here. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Nice quote from that clarification From the Statement by Eldereft (diff) "There is also a perennial proposal to rename the list to include alleged, purported, or some similar qualifier in the title. Fyslee gives what I see as the best-articulated formulation of this position here." Yes, I still think a change of title would significantly reduce the edit warring by dealing with the single most important fundamental defect with the article, the title. It needs to be changed to something neutral like List of purported pseudosciences, or something like that. Some relevant diffs: [3][4] -- Fyslee (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC) More from Article title subsection: I have supported a title change all along. We get into these disputes because of this non-NPOV title. Just change it and we'll be able to move on and include the items without problem. I don't recall all the suggested alternatives, but here is a previous discussion. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Something in that direction is what I'm seeking. The even simpler List of purported pseudosciences would work even better. This gets us totally away from edit warring over which division to place an item in (of the four WP:PSCI divisions). We just list V & RS that make a claim that something is a pseudoscience and let readers make up their own minds. We should have some inclusion criteria in the lead that limits contributions to obviously science-friendly sources, otherwise we'd be open to constant WP:POINT violations by PS POV pushers who will attempt to include their favorite anti-medical and anti-science quotes. Let's face it, the term does get used as a type of retaliation which can fool some ignorant people. Why this requirement? Because "pseudoscience" is an often derogatory term used by those on the scientific side of the fence to describe fringe ideas and concepts that don't jibe with the current scientific data. Other uses are POINT violations. If scientific data changes, some inclusions that would previously not be proper, might become proper. Until then it would be a POINT violation and OR. We just follow the scientific and skeptical sources, and any other sources that are overtly pro-science. Sources skeptical of science exclude themselves. Sources that claim to be scientific but aren't (an important part of the definition of pseudoscience!) are also out. That would be established by using scientific and skeptical sources that criticize them as PS. Another thing that be of great service to readers is liberal use of attribution. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Parsing of WP:PSCI Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines on the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. The four groupings found at WP:PSCI Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. I have previously parsed the ArbCom decision's four groupings, here reproduced and tweaked: There is an obvious demarcation line that the ArbCom members seemed to recognize, and that is "who is supporting or criticizing what." They made four groupings, and the first two are always recognized by the scientific mainstream as fringe=alternative (often alternative medicine) ideas opposed to the mainstream, but supported by believers in pseudosciences. The scientific mainstream criticism is allowed to be stated, IOW that the fringe=alternative believers are wrong, and that their position is pseudoscientific, all by the use of V & RS, and can (in addition) even be so characterized by editors at Wikipedia (by using the [[Category:Pseudoscience]] tag). IOW, the ArbCom decision is supporting scientific mainstream editors and limiting fringe editors: 1. Obvious pseudoscience 2. Generally considered pseudoscience The next two are quite different, since they are about ideas on the mainstream side of the demarcation line mentioned above. They are mainstream ideas that may or may not be firmly entrenched, but are somewhat trusted or still being researched in a legitimate manner. They may actually be experimental. No matter what, they are not considered fringe or alternative medicine ideas. They are sometimes accused by the fringe side as pseudoscientific (in true pseudoskeptical style - see Carroll), and the ArbCom decision forbids the fringe editors here from categorizing those mainstream ideas as pseudoscientific. Again, the ArbCom decision is supporting mainstream editors and limiting fringe editors: 3. Questionable science (IOW, things like psychoanalysis, which is considered mainstream and is specifically addressed by the ArbCom, and would not be allowed in this list). 4. Alternative theoretical formulations ("are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process," IOW also considered mainstream, and would not be allowed in this list. "Experimental alternatives are unproven but have a plausible rationale and are undergoing responsible investigation."[5]) I think this parsing is more accurate and it makes sense. The ArbCom members would hardly be expected to disallow V & RS, but they certainly would set limits on what certain fringe=alternative editors have occasionally tried to do - editorially calling mainstream ideas pseudoscientific by categorizing them as such. The ArbCom members support mainstream science and set limits on how far fringe editors can go in (mis)using Wikipedia categories. They are not addressing the use of V & RS in lists and articles. Changing the title of the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts would help to enable the use of all V & RS, as required by inclusion criteria. The current title is not NPOV. We need a List of subjects alleged to be pseudoscientific or List of subjects asserted to be pseudoscientific, or better yet, List of topics referred to as pseudoscientific. That would be the primary inclusion criteria (IOW what was "on-topic"), and would allow well-sourced criticisms by scientific academies, various organizations, and even individuals who are quoted in V & RS. At the same time the ArbCom decision would disallow the disruptive POINT violations of pseudoskeptics who attempt to include more-or-less mainstream ideas in this list (such as vaccinations, antibiotics, etc., as has happened). Such sabotage attempts would not be allowed. Those who are still acting in a protectionist mode will of course attempt to retain a hard title "List of pseudosciences", since that will allow them to keep their widely criticized pet ideas out of this list. That's unwikipedian and such attempts should be defeated. It limits the list by disallowing many very notable opinions in V & RS. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your summary of the current situation. While your willingness to find a way of keeping the current content that you find acceptable is much appreciated, this comment seemed to me to be marred by the paragraph alleging "stonewalling" straying into criticising the person rather than looking for mutual agreement. Please try to focus on article improvement and avoid anything that could be perceived as incivility. Thanks again, dave souza, talk 09:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC) You are of course right. I got carried away. It's hard to separate SA's editing style from his many ArbCom problems which are related to that editing style. It just seems that he's repeating it here. I was referring to the current ArbCom involving him in which an indef ban is being proposed. But you're right, I need to concentrate on the subject, not the person. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Ping You have mail of a personal nature from me. Take your time, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009 The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery Volume 5, Issue 2 10 January 2009 About the Signpost News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones Wikipedia in the news  Dispatches: December themed Main Page Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009 The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery Volume 5, Issue 3 17 January 2009 About the Signpost News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom Wikipedia in the news  Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Pseudotitles Context: List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts I offer my compliments on your clarity and consistency in the discussion of prospective titles for the list of pseudosciences and pseudo-pseudosciences, or whatever we'll end up calling it. (Hey, maybe I should propose that one, I kind of like it!) It's been good to have your quiet voice of sanity amidst the high-pitched tones. hgilbert (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I believe that, with rare exception, a title should be NPOV, that all existing V & RS are fair game, and that the readers should be allowed to make up their own minds. We shouldn't be afraid to let them read what is being written in the real world. If we use good attribution, they can then weigh the sources as they see fit. Some will will accept anything from skeptical sources, others will reject anything coming from Quackwatch, but will accept something from the NIH, and yet others will reject anything that isn't written by Mercola, Null, Clark, or is endorsed by Curezone, Townsend Letter and David Icke (not that those last ones should be used as sources). People are different and come from different places. We shouldn't hit them over the head. If we keep the current title with its narrow inclusion criteria and very conclusive wording, then the content must abide very strictly by the PSCI ruling (which - tsk, tsk, tsk! - is a content ruling!) and we'd end up with a very, very limited content. Using our current tiering system we also limit content severely, simply because PS is usually ignored by scientific academies. If we really updated the list to abide by the current title, the list would have little worth, as it wouldn't cover the subject very deeply. The fact that the ArbCom made a content ruling, something they are not supposed to do, has thrown a monkeywrench into the works and created unnecessary complications. OTOH, if they have really intended the groupings to mean what I have parsed them to mean (which I think is fairly accurate), they are just using common sense. The problems with the ruling have then been created by various other interpretations and misuses of the ruling by editors. I will admit that no matter what, this isn't a totally simple matter, and we're all struggling to understand it. -- Fyslee (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Aspartame controversy Fyslee, thank you for this edit and in particular for the following edit here. IMO, a very sensible application of WP:RS and WP:PSTS. At absolute most the assertions you removed should have been made explicitly clear to be minority or fringe views. Good catch. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I do try to apply policies appropriately. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC) AfD nomination of Mucoid plaque An article that you have been involved in editing, Mucoid plaque, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mucoid plaque (3rd nomination). Thank you. ZayZayEM (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009 The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery Volume 5, Issue 4 24 January 2009 About the Signpost Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices  News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet  Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST and You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Delivered at 04:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable) Inuit An Inuk is the the singular but Inuit is the plural version. Although I did notice that in other languages, French Wikipedia for example. I suspect that it has to do with the fact that the words are not English to start with. In the two examples you gave, Caucasian and Asian, are probably English words so the adding of an s for the plural words. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Beautiful explanation. I'm satisfied. I suggest that you search Wikipedia for uses of the plural "Inuits" version and fix it, but also leave a hidden note in the article text for future editors, with your explanation. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC) It catches on after a while. I remember a long time back when some people were insisting that the plural of the word Māori in our New Zealand articles should be Māoris with an s. No problems these days, and don't see the hidden text style note these days. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC) It's sure good we have ethnic editors who understand these languages. Adding a hidden note won't hurt anything. Keep up the good work. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC) I think I got most of them yesterday. The only ones I left were external links/references that used the word. One thing I forgot to mention is that Inuit has a slightly different meaning in different areas. In most places it will only mean those people that at one time were called Eskimo. However, in a smaller area that speaks Inuinnaqtun and Kangiryuarmiutun the word means "people" but refers to all people in the world, while the correct word to describe the former Eskimo is Inuinnaq (a real person). Oh and I'm not from here really I came from the UK. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC) I have lived in Greenland for a couple years, but unfortunately didn't learn the language. I did manage to learn about the generic meaning of the word ("all people..."). -- Fyslee (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Talk:Mucoid plaque Less heat and more light please. If we just focus on the sources, it will be easier to reach agreement. I suspect that this editor just didn't understand what I'd said, so could you refactor some of your speculations? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Now that I have read the newer comments, I agree that he is just not understanding any of us. I have refactored and replied. Thanks. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks! Tim Vickers (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Odd. Yes, an SPA all the way. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Chiropractic Thanks for catching that. Damn it, how did I manage to miss the edit where he changed a section heading from "Philosophy" to "Dogmatism"? --TS 16:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Don't sweat it. It can happen pretty easily when a lot of edits have been made. I just went back to Eubulides' last edit and compared it to the present one and then restored his version. We need to get that and similar controversial articles protected from IP edits. -- Fyslee (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Fluoridation Thanks for spotting that stray "of". I removed it. The wording is still awkward, but at least it's grammatical now. Eubulides (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Anon user I was called a sucker Lakinekaki User:Lakinekaki A request for advice The people working on it are mostly the same person, and the person who originally wrote the essay. There is an ANI discussion about this editors account and IP hopping. Even the link that you reference sais: The general rule is: one editor, one account. You see, IP address in NOT an ACCOUNT. STOP FUCKING HARASSING ME. Lakinekaki (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC) From: User_talk:Jehochman#Avoiding_scrutiny I'm wondering about the history behind this situation. This editor is editing using several different IPs. Here are three of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.200.240.232 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.200.240.241 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.200.243.116 This is especially serious because he's editing policy pages. He is definitely attempting to avoid the scrutiny of other editors, and has admitted it on his talk page. Why is this being allowed? -- Fyslee (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Hello Fyslee and JEH. If you're making a list of this guy's recent IPs, here is mine: 212.200.240.194 (talk · contribs) 212.200.240.232 (talk · contribs) 212.200.240.241 (talk · contribs) 212.200.243.165 (talk · contribs) 212.200.243.174 (talk · contribs) 216.80.119.92 (talk · contribs) I have no objection if anyone wants to file it at WP:SPI. The editor announced on the user page of his named account that he would only work with IPs from now on, so this is not precisely deceptive, it is just scrutiny-avoiding, and the T-word may apply. (He may have been trying to get a reaction out of us). There is a possibility that he is using the internet from a mobile phone supplied by this Serbian company: http://www.mobilnisvet.com/. He could be doing this from the US, since the guy appears to be based in Chicago. Banning him wouldn't exactly stop him from editing. But it is at least thinkable to block anonymous editing of Wikipedia from this company's phones. Two or three /24 blocks would be a start. My other idea is to list all the IPs he uses on his named user page, and full-protect the user page. He would still be allowed to edit. Such novel ideas are not always supported, but it could work. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Please take this to WP:SPI so that a checkuser can look at the possibility of collateral damage and then place range blocks. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 04:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Hi. An anon user asked for you to be warned for calling him a "sucker". You can take this as the warning. Deb (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC) A disruptive anon and very experienced user who actually should be using his existing username is violating policy by seeking to avoid the scrutiny of other editors. Such a user doesn't have the right to be so sensitive. Let's get real here. This isn't a kindergarten where we cry to mommy for imagined slights. If you really are going to support such a person, then I'll stoop to your level and satisfy you by striking the word, so you can actually do something serious about stopping the violation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Examples_of_forbidden_uses_of_multiple_accounts_or_meat-puppetry -- Fyslee (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Stubs Sonopuncture Wistar Institute Edward Bach Unani Institute for Complementary Medicine American College of Preventive Medicine Metamorphic Technique Fight the Power University of Wales College of Medicine Eyology Plum blossom (Chinese medicine) Albularyo Macrobiotic lifestyle General practitioner Sirloin steak Astrological age Cryotherapy Water therapy Caroline Myss Cleanup Therapeutic touch Faith healing Autosuggestion Merge Folk medicine Blood electrification Journal of the American Medical Association Add Sources Adverse drug reaction Moxibustion Ayurveda Wikify Homeopathic repertory Michel Gauquelin Early uses of petroleum Expand William Graham Sumner Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine Inflammation SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping. If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker. P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Truzzi Works for me - on further reflection, scientific skepticism is not really a good further information link there, good job. I did wikilink it in the section, though; the article is already linked in the preceding section, but I think overlinking is ok with that. And sorry about the thinko in typing links instead of redirects, that was my bad. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) My talk page Explained here Please refrain from posting on my talk page. If you have a problem please take it up with a third party administrator. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC) ?? Rather odd behavior, unless you are a child. You feel you can attack other editors, but you can't discuss it? Wikipedia should be a place where we can edit congenially and assume good faith, but I see you aren't willing to contribute to a collaborative environment. Whatever. You're on my watchlist, and I suspect quite a few others by now. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC) It looks like you have retired, rather than apologize over this incident of your own creation. I offered you an honorable way out, but you have chosen this route. Too bad, but that's life. Good luck. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009 The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"  Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music  Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Sock puppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Landed_little_marsdon Talk:Homeopathy I don't care too much about "civility", especially when it is targeted against myself, but this comment of yours is quite extraordinary. It starts with a valid argument, and I don't understand why you didn't stop after that. I don't see why you had to fill up your post with invalid arguments, cheap rhetorics and even a meatpuppetry accusation that insinuates that a professional mathematician in Europe acts as a proxy for an Indian quack. (To cover for the unlikely case that you actually believed what you wrote, I am sending you a relevant diff that I am not free to post here because it was partially oversighted.) I also appreciate the underhanded way in which your comment calls me insane, and I hereby return the compliment – to your comment, not yourself, who I suppose were simply a bit absent-minded when you wrote it. However, I agree with the last sentence of your comment ("This is simply disruptive, and it needs to stop."), with the obvious referent being the paragraph in which it appears. --Hans Adler (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC) I of course don't believe you are insane, it just happens to be a famous Einstein quote that describes what is going on. One could just as easily substitute that it is "disruptive" to do "the same thing over and over again and expect different results." That's also called stonewalling. As for the remarks by User:Happening (who was a sock of Dr.Jhingaadey), I don't believe you are a sock, but you are trumpeting the same tune which he encouraged you to trumpet, and you haven't stopped since then. The guy is banned! Be careful about allying yourself with him or his POV. That type of supportive action is called meatpuppetry, which doesn't have to be done in concert with the banned user, or even with their knowledge. Simply fighting for the same cause in such a repetitive manner against a firm wall of resistance from mainstream editors can bring unwanted attention. I've seen it happen before. The whole idea behind forbidding meatpuppetry is that when a user is blocked or banned, their disruptive actions should not be continued by other editors. The problem should be gone with their exit from Wikipedia. Editors who pick up where they left off and keep fighting their battles can get banned, just as they were banned. It's the disruption and stonewalling which has to stop. I'll take a look at my remark and may possibly refactor it a bit. I may be irritated about the situation, but I bear no ill will toward you as a person. It's the situation you are involved with and perpetuating that's the problem. I just think we should do what many RS do and call a spade a spade, IOW homeopathy is quackery, plain and simple, and its use and promotion kills people, in spite of it having no proven physiologic effect. BTW, I liked your remarks and edit summaries here, here and here about how to deal with the word. They showed a more collaborative spirit in the face of the same stiff opposition you are still experiencing. I hope you soften your stance about inclusion of edits you don't like, if not your personal beliefs about homeopathy. You are welcome to hold fringe ideas as personal beliefs, but not allowed to advocate fringe beliefs at Wikipedia. OTOH, you are allowed to fight for mainstream ideas, in contrast to fringe ideas like homeopathy. That's not advocacy, but defending reality against personal fantasy and belief systems. To put it another way, (generic) you are always welcome to call reality "reality", but not to call homeopathy "true" without mainstream proof that it is. It may be a personal reality for you, but if the mainstream doesn't say it is objective reality in V & RS, then Wikipedia treats it as a fringe belief. In contrast, on private user pages you may be allowed to wax more eloquent on your personal beliefs. At least on mine I don't object to such discussions and often find them enlightening and entertaining. You may think I hate believers in alternative medicine, but that's far from the case. Believe it or not, two of my closest personal friends in real life (not cyberspace) are chiropractors! -- Fyslee (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC) This and your response above show that you still haven't got the faintest clue where I am coming from – which wouldn't be a problem if you didn't judge me. Let's start with your refactoring. "delusions" -> "ideas" – why? do you think I am a quack/homeopath or promoter of quackery/homeopathy? "reeks of meatpuppetry for" -> "carrying on the battle fought by" – The meatpuppetry insinuation was offensive when you made it the first time. In the light of the evidence I sent you it was your obligation to remove it entirely and apologise for it. But instead you replace it by a guilt by association argument associating me with this unsavoury character? WTF? Your comment above is even worse: There is obviously no need to lecture me about Ramaanand socks after I have sent you a diff in which I challenged one of them when he denied being one. Did you even bother to read it before replying? Or did you have trouble detecting the sarcasm in what I said to him? I don't think subtlety was my strong point in that post. "I don't believe you are a sock, but you are trumpeting the same tune which he encouraged you to trumpet, and you haven't stopped since then." – Is this your way of making good for a meatpuppet accusation? Saying that you don't believe I am a sockpuppet of this brainiac? And it is somehow my fault that I am one of the six people he asked for the same thing? Special:Contributions/122.167.16.87 That disqualifies me from representing my opinions whenever your shortsightedness makes it indistinguishable from his? If that's the new way we are handling such matters, I will soon have a few requests for you. [6] – It appears you misread this. "It seems to be the best fit" in the edit summary is my explanation why I translate the German word "Paramedizin" with the stronger word "quackery" and does not imply that I condone it. [7] must be seen in the light of the previous comment by Peter morrell, a homeopath. Note that all experts who used to edit the article have been banned or bullied away, so that their role in counterbalancing the pseudosceptic extremism must be played by neutral editors such as me. This has changed the situation, and I am setting my own accents. After all, I am nobody's meatpuppet. [8] – I still stand by this compromise proposal, which I had forgotten about. Thanks for digging it up. This demonstrates that NPOV is often a matter of nuances, which it is hard to get right in a combative atmosphere. "You are welcome to hold fringe ideas as personal beliefs, but not allowed to advocate fringe beliefs at Wikipedia." – A minimal amount of research would have shown you that my "fringe beliefs" that I am "advocating" here are the following: 1) That the placebo effect is not entirely discredited by recent research. 2) That homeopathy may or may not be able to induce a stronger placebo effect in certain patients. I don't think that's much worse than your fringe belief that homeopaths are murderers. (When was the last time one was convicted for murder?) "OTOH, you are allowed to fight for mainstream ideas, in contrast to fringe ideas like homeopathy. That's not advocacy, but defending reality against personal fantasy and belief systems." – You are fighting for the continued inclusion of a badly sourced derogatory word because it's TRUE, and I am the one who is being irrational? Wow. "you are always welcome to call reality "reality", but not to call homeopathy 'true' – WHO are you talking to??? "It may be a personal reality for you, but if the mainstream doesn't say it is objective reality in V & RS, then Wikipedia treats it as a fringe belief." – The mainstream, backed by V & RS, says "quackery" is not a derogatory word and it is perfectly OK and NPOV to use it, and my opposite view is fringe? Wow. Citation needed. Please direct any further responses to me, not to your burlesque projection of me. You may have to seek treatment for your severely pathological case of out-group homogeneity bias first. Even ScienceApologist is more nuanced when judging me. [9] "Misguided" and "loving homeopathy" are both incorrect, but still way better than the offensive crap that you are producing. I am expecting proper retractions and a sincere apology. Otherwise I will have to figure out whether ANI or AE is the right venue. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Now I am really puzzled! We are apparently talking "past each other" and not communicating very well. I don't think you are a homeopath; I detected no sarcasm in your comment to the sock, since it all seemed to be consistent with everything else you've done here, which indicates you are a German mathematician who believes in and defends homeopathy; my comment about "murderers" was obviously (if your mother tongue was English) not to accuse you or anyone of actual murder, but only to make the point that the use of homeopathy kills people (especially using nosodes instead of vaccines) when it diverts them from using effective methods; and much of what I wrote was in the generic "you" form, which I even noted once to make sure you understood that I wasn't always talking about you, but was talking about believers in homeopathy in general. Whatever the case is, I think this is sufficiently messed up by now to be beyond much hope of repair. You have missed the mark about me in numerous comments above, as you believe I have done about you right from the start. We are indeed failing to understand each other. Your "furious" response (edit summary) reveals that you aren't assuming good faith and are interpreting my words far beyond anything I intended, just as you are accusing me of doing to you, so I guess neither of us are innocent. You may be correct about that to some degree, and I am sorry about offending you. As I wrote, my main concern is with the issue, not you as a person. I will add a new comment to make sure that no one thinks you are in collusion with Jhingaadey. I wouldn't want anyone thinking that. I made it clear above that meatpuppetry doesn't always involve direct collusion, but can mean endless repetition of the same arguments. I'll make that clear. I hope that will at least fix that matter. Let's just drop this and move on. I did refactor per your request, and I did remove any insinuation that you were acting "for" Dr. Jhingaadey by removing that poorly worded comment. I wish you had accepted my good faith refactoring instead of refusing to accept it by bringing up a previous version. If you want to keep bringing up past versions, as you did in your comment, that is your choice, but that wouldn't be constructive. I'd rather seek to put out the fire, rather than to keep stoking it. We may not agree on everything, but let's at least keep this low key. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Last informal warning This is my last attempt to (in your words) "put out the fire". You have now repeated the worst of your unfounded insults: "The whole idea behind forbidding meatpuppetry is that when a user is blocked or banned, their disruptive actions should not be continued by other editors. The problem should be gone with their exit from Wikipedia. Editors who pick up where they left off and keep fighting their battles can get banned, just as they were banned. It's the disruption and stonewalling which has to stop." [10] This kind of well-poisoning is completely unacceptable, whether you do it knowingly or out of extreme negligence. You dig up an old compromise proposal of mine that you agree with sufficiently that you later propose it yourself for consideration. ("That wording of yours sounds pretty good to me, and it could be considered along with the suggestion below as good wordings." [11]). And you continue to accuse me of stonewalling in exactly the same matter? And don't claim that the passage of yours that I cited above was not intended to refer to me. I don't believe for a second that you just put it in in an attempt to "put out the fire". What I expect from you now is that you put up or shut up. You have made enough offensive insinuations: (1) that I am "carrying on the battle fought by" a certain user; (2) that my approach is not collaborative ("Please adopt a more collaborative attitude toward this issue, as you have done in the past."); (3) that I no longer stand by my compromise proposal ("I continue to appeal to you to reconsider one of your previous compromises"); (4) that I hold [a] fringe belief[s] such as e.g. belief in efficacy (in the usual sense that is testable with placebo-controlled studies) of homeopathy, or that my admitted belief in the existence of the placebo effect is a fringe belief ("You are welcome to hold fringe ideas as personal beliefs[...]"); (5) that I am advocating [a] fringe belief[s] ("but not allowed to advocate fringe beliefs at Wikipedia."). For each of them I expect substantiating diffs or an unambiguous retraction. In case you are still puzzled, look at this and this; this should help you to understand my real position. Normally you should be acquainted with it already, since you replied to my post in the second diff, and in the ensuing discussion it became clear that you are a strong believer in the minority position that the placebo effect is a mere illusion. I must warn you that your bullying and well-poisoning clearly falls under "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to [...] any expected standards of behavior [...]", and if you do not reply to my satisfaction I will ask an uninvolved admin for help. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I give up. Bring in the army. You want war and I don't. It's your choice if you don't want peace. I want to reduce tensions, while you want me to mend your hurt feelings. Let's face it, justice cannot be done for either of us in this case, so just drop it. If you wish to be combative, that's your choice, but don't do it here. As I wrote above, we are way beyond misunderstanding each other, so I doubt that anything I say to you will ever be understood in the manner I wish it were, so there isn't much point in trying. We have some type of very basic (making the language difference?) problems with communicating, and I'm not sure how to solve it since I don't speak German. Nota bene: Anymore posts from you on this matter will be considered harassment, so good bye. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC) please This is a personal attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy#Puppetry.2C_Protection_.26_POV_tags Please apologize. You have no excuse. I asked you 2 specific questions (using reliable sources) and instead of trying to give a rational answer you are attacking me personally. This is disruptive; If you don’t apologize I will have to follow the right venue - AVI or whatever seems appropriate.--JeanandJane (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC) For what should I apologize? For agreeing with the previous commentator? Have you asked him for an apology? Or is it for noting that your "choice of subject matter", your "style", and your "consistently deficient spelling and grammar" happen to be "very reminiscent of a banned user"? (All very true.) Or is it for noting that you are a "supporter(s) of their POV"? (Also true.) I don't recall you ever asking me any questions, so you're off the mark on that one. Maybe your indefinite block should be reconsidered if you are going to get more combative. If you're going to dish it out, then you don't really have much right to have such a thin skin. We are adults here and shouldn't take perceived slights so seriously. More mature editors brush such things off and move on. It's interesting that your thin skin and combativeness are also reminiscent of a banned editor. (Maybe that's just a coincidence, but it's true.) You are really getting to be a very interesting editor and I'll be interested in watching whether you develop into a collaborative editor, or a more combative editor. I hope the former, in which case I'll be happy to work with you. Otherwise I may just ignore you, or may occasionally pop in for a comment. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Fyslee: I will report your behavior. This is not appropriate.I see that other users have the same problem with your edits. I dont know who you think I am. The facts are that I asked very specific questions about the POV of the article and both of you attacked me without trying to give a rational answer. You are the combative and the disruptive one. Other editors responded to my concerns changing the sources which support the statement " Claims of efficacy beyond ......." .--JeanandJane (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I don't know who you are. I was not responding to any questions you may have asked somewhere on the page. I was only responding to another editors observations, and agreed that there was alot going on that looked rather odd. You want me to apologize, but I don't know specifically what you are referring to, so above I asked you what you want me to apologize for, but you haven't told me. I'll repeat it in list form so you can readily point out what you don't like, then we can at least talk about it, because your vague objections aren't helpful: For what should I apologize? Is it: For agreeing with the previous commentator? Have you asked him for an apology? (I see you have.) For noting that your "choice of subject matter", your "style", and your "consistently deficient spelling and grammar" happen to be "very reminiscent of a banned user"? (All very true.) For noting that you are a "supporter(s) of their POV"? (Also true.) Now please point out which of those three things I wrote that are objectionable to you. -- Fyslee (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Andrew Wakefield I was able to find substantiation for at least part of a sentence that was awaiting citation at Andrew Wakefield but my medical knowledge is not enough to be sure whether the simple terms used in the Wakefield article match up with the medical terms used in the British Medical Journal. Could you check my change and see what you think? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC) I suggest you bring this up on the talk page. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Odd post Did you really intend to place this edit on that user's talkpage?LeadSongDog (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Oops! Thanks, and fixed. -- Fyslee (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Hans Adler Fyslee, I presume you don't think User:Hans Adler is User:Dr.Jhingaadey - Hans Alder is a long-standing editor who, although I often don't agree with him, behaves well, and is willing to discuss his points. I presume you were trying to say that some issues were raised by him and Jhingaadey, and you disagree with those issues, but I've reviewed your phrasing, and the phrasing is ambiguous enough that it could be read as an accusation. I think you should apologise to Hans, briefly and politely clarify your point, and this should bring the situation to rest. The Homeopathy article has calmed down into a very pleasant editing environment, I'd like to de-escalate this situation, and move on with the copy-edits that should take this to FA. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I definitely don't think they are the same person, and even he hasn't suggested that I think so. He has just chosen to escalate an issue, even after I refactored, apologized, refactored more, etc.. His use of numerous straw men has muddied the waters so much that I can't keep up with him, and further communication with him only irritates him into making another attack with even more straw men. He just keeps on and on, even though I have repeatedly requested that he drop it and deescalate. I rarely do this, but I have forbidden him from continuing this matter on my talk page. Ask him to deescalate and drop it. I have long since done so. You mention an ambiguous phrasing of mine (that must still be visible). What do I say and where is it? Please provide the diff. Then I can at least deal with IT. Dealing with Hans is futile effort. -- Fyslee (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I don't think the following is helpful: Hans, quackery can involve fraud, but not necessarily. Most quacks and promoters of quackery are believers in their favorite ideas. The word is a legitimate description, and is often used regarding homeopathy. If you were to ask medical scientists and skeptics to name three of the most classic and popular forms of quackery, homeopathy would likely top the list. We couldn't give a hoot as to whether it's derogatory or not. That is not a legitimate reason for deleting it. Wikipedia is uncensored. We use the whole dictionary here. We could use the word "murderers" for those who prescribe homeopathic potions for pay, but "quack" is good enough. This perpetual attack on the use of the word reeks of meatpuppetry by carrying on the battle fought by the indef banned Dr.Jhingaadey. It needs to stop. You and others who promote this objection to the Q word keep getting the same response, and a paraphrase of Albert Einstein's quote comes to mind: "It is futile, disruptive, and stonewalling to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results." Please adopt a more collaborative attitude toward this issue, as you have done in the past. (See here for context.) -- Fyslee (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC) The statement of meatpuppetry really isn't helpful, nor is the extremely combative tone of the "murderers" part. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Okay, I'll strike it if it will soothe him. I would put a hat on the whole mess, but I'm involved. -- Fyslee (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Done. -- Fyslee (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I would still like to know what ambiguous wording I have used (be extremely specific, IOW only a few words). Please explain what is ambiguous about it. I'm not interested in just deleting or striking stuff that isn't really ambiguous, just because he has thin skin. He's on the English Wikipedia, and we shouldn't have to bend over too far backwards to accomodate non-English speaking editors. -- Fyslee (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009 From the editor — A new leaf Commons Picture of the Year Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting News and notes Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more In the news Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom Dispatches How busy was 2008? WikiProject report WikiProject Gaelic games Discussion report Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins Approved this week Technology report Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Arbitration report The Report on Lengthy Litigation You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Your rollback request Hello Fyslee, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism/spam, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 18:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I'll use it responsibly. Now to learning how to use it! -- Fyslee (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC) You're welcome! Acalamari 18:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009 This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles: Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC) What the deal Hello Fyslee, I saw you made a change to the format of Golden Plates. I reverted your change because it created unnecessary white space and made the format look worse. You then reverted by saying that it is "standard format" and that no more white space was created than other articles. Is there a required format for articles? If so, please direct me to that specific new rule/policy. If not, is there a new rule that put you in charge? Why would you revert when it is obvious another editor disagrees with your edit? I could your assistance in helping me understand your position or should we just revert each other? --StormRider 03:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC) The only reason I reverted you was that I didn't find your argument very convincing. On another website with other forms of formatting, it might be a very different matter. To the best of my knowledge, there is no absolute standard, but a quick look around will reveal that whitespace (and sometimes an image, chart, or infobox) separating the TOC from the LEAD is the defacto standard being used. When one then comes to the Golden Plates article one gets an uncomfortable visual jolt since it is so different. It looked terrible on my screen, with text being pushed around and separated. Maybe that's why the defacto standard is as it is -- it makes no difference which browser or screen resolution one uses -- it will always look organized. I was just trying to make it look better by cleaning up the messy appearance, since readers are more familiar with that format. I wasn't aware that you were guarding and owned LDS articles, but it looks like you've gotten a barnstar for doing that. Whatever. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Copying the above to the talk page for discussion by other users. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Fyslee, I answered you on the discussion page, but thought I would follow it up here. This is not a significant issue, but one purely of personal taste. I am just one of those anal fellows that abhors blank space and being forced to page down to continue reading an article. I have an interest in religion articles and particularly LDS articles. Religion articles are a focus of a high degree of vandalism and fly-by editing. Do you watch any articles or do you just always shoot from the hip in your editing? I would caution the use of "own". You have been around long enough to know that is an accusation that is not supported by the facts and it is unappreciated. It would be like me accusing you of thinking that your edits are so superior that you revert anyone who disagrees with your personal opinion. Both are unappreciated and result in pissing matches that are distasteful. I encourage you to continue to edit articles, but don't think you are the final arbitrator. Be flexible enough to recognize that there are alternative ways of formatting articles and they are equally acceptable to your desired format. Cheers. --StormRider 17:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC) I have replied on the talk page. I have over 3000 items on my watchlist, plus their talk pages (so well over 7000 items), but I do focus mostly on fringe science issues, IOW alternative medicine. That's my area of special interest. I also watch some editors and some religious topics, as well as the noticeboards, which alert me to some issues that are happening elsewhere, which is how I discovered this problem: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#More_eyes_needed_at_Golden_Plates The closest I get to "shooting from the hip" is undoing vandalism and fixing poorly formatted references and articles, which is why I noticed this problem. The problem was immediately evident when I saw the messed up appearance that was disturbing. As far as a "final arbitrator" goes, you are apparently such a person (I reverted once and you twice) and I'm leaving the further fate of that issue in your hands. You win, but read WP:POT and think about it. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Hey Fyslee, I came across this on FTN. I have a suggestion. Instead of leaving the last word to the last reverter, if you can stomach it, maybe set up a quick style preference !vote in RfC style on the talk page, and then leave it to the gods? I'm pretty sure a nonstandard version is going to get shot down by a majority of editors. I"m also pretty sure that this will come up again without a record of consensus since nonstandard layouts tend to get standardized by other editors (for good reason). Phil153 (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Very true. What about making it a real RfC? I'm experienced at doing that. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Kinesiology tape New article that requires a lot of loving. I did a lot of the much needed formatting, grammatical, and punctuational clean-up as well as some tagging. That said, it certainly could use some professional help. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Hmmm.... It looks like a new editor is spamming the concept around, no doubt in good faith, but something needs to be done. I think the editor needs to be alerted to stop the spamming and article creation and to concentrate on making the main article acceptable by our standards. If the article is developed properly and succeeds, then a few appropriate places can be wikilinked to it if there are sources to justify doing so. Right now the biggest weakness is the poor references. They need to be specific and preferably accessible using good URLs. While URLs aren't a requirement, we can't be expected to just trust a newbie who is spamming this around. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009 This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles: Books extension enabled News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Cardiology task force Cardiology task force Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!) -- MifterBot I (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 20:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Maen. K. A. (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Are you kidding me??? This change just cracked me up. In other words, even the homeopathic potion producers know there's nothing in solution? It cannot have any effect. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Sure they know, but they are experts at flying under the radar. They know the law and know how to avoid getting charged with false advertising. Since homeopathic products were grandfathered into US law, there aren't the same requirements for their marketing as for other products, IOW it's a legalized fraud. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Well, clearly the whole supplement industry is a legalized fraud, thanks to Senators Harkin and Hatch. I still laugh when someone says that Big Pharma is out to protect its profits. I think that Big Supplement makes as much! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Not only do they make as much or more, they don't spend much if anything on research. Most of their expenses are devoted to marketing designed to fly under the legal radar and on packaging. Their profit margin is enormous compared to Big Pharma. Oscillococcinum is probably the one with the greatest profit margin. Compared to the value of gold, it makes gold look like nothing. It's all about selling sugar pills and water for an enormous profit: "In a monetary sense, this single French duck may be the most valuable animal on the planet, as an extract of its heart and liver form the sole "active ingredient" in a flu remedy that is expected to generate sales of $20 million or more. (For duck parts, that easily beats out foie gras in terms of return on investment.)" [12] Those were the figures in 1996. Boiron's website probably has the figures for sales now, which must be enormous, and it's all a total fraud. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Hey, those little bottles are expensive. Bought spices lately?LeadSongDog (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Yes, they are expensive, and the contents are worth less than the bottle! -- Fyslee (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) Perfume too, but at least with spices and perfume you get a nice meal and maybe a bit more... Sorry. I just had a thought: Homeopathic petrol == water fuelled car? Everything is linked. Anyway, I've taken up a new sport. Would you fellows like to join me over at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views? It's right up your alleys. Verbal chat 15:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC) They still must think that there's magic involved. This whole area is just frustrating, and Wikipedia has got to be the biggest promoter of CAM woo than anyplace on the internet. I feel like there's maybe 5 or 6 editors who are interested in removing the woo, and one, SA, who's so pissed off about the whole thing that he keeps getting blocked (and keeps coming back to his credit). But it's a moving target honestly. I go to look up an article about a plant, and find a list of how eating that plant will cure everything from pattern baldness to erectile dysfunction. Sigh. Sigh. Sigh. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC) You'll find one that works one day ;) Verbal chat 17:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC) That is what irks me most about the supplement industry - I bring burlap sacks to hippie stores to buy spices by the pound ... and wind up supporting a place with a nudge*nudge wink*wink we cannot tell you why we are selling this but we all know aisle. On the bright side, I just remembered hearing something on NPR in a precoffee haze yesterday morning - the FDA may be asking for more authority in the DSHEA area; or something meh - link on next break. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC) There we go - the US Government Accountability Office just recommended that the FDA regulate "dietary supplements" more stringently, and be granted authority to do so (story, recommendation). Not there yet, but here is to hoping. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC) I'm pretty disappointed in the fraud in the dietary supplement industry as well, although it's probably a bit too totalitarian to outright ban the things. Perhaps better disclosure labels. On the other hand, at least there's no adverse effects with homeopathic remedies-- and the placebo response likely helps people get better. Recent studies show that the effects of antidepressants, which can cause severe adverse effects, might be due to publication bias [13] and placebo[14]. Many depressed people would have improved with placebo, but instead had to take the risk of permanent sexual side-effects, weight gain, apathy, suicide ect. People's trust in the experts can lead to them being abused -- my coworker's 13-year old son had a tantrum and threw a pencil at a fellow student. The child psychologist immediately put him on risperidone, which among other alarming things (weight gain, anxiety, sexual dysfunction) could cause him to lactate. Luckily, herbs and natural substances with less side-effects and similar efficacy are beginning to be recognized. SAM-e and 5-HTP have been recognized as likely effective for depression for at least forty years -- and have little proven adverse effects -- yet because they can't be patented, they haven't been well-researched. Other examples include Harpagophytum, which appears to be equivalent to Vioxx with much fewer adverse effects, Veregen, the recently FDA-approved green tea extract for genital warts which is about as effective as Aldara without the serious adverse effects and a lower recurrence, and kava kava, which is effective for anxiety without strong evidence of negative effects in doses of the root-derived substance. II | (t - c) 00:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC) "No adverse effects" ???!!! "Are you kidding me???" Please don't ever think that dietary supplements have no effects or side effects. They just aren't declared or always understood until it is sometimes too late. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I meant no adverse effects with homeopathic remedies. No adverse effects placebo effect means that homeopathic remedies could potentially offer a better benefit-cost ratio than some pharmaceuticals for highly placebo-responsive conditions (not sure what those are aside from depression) in the people who believe in them. Certainly herbs and other supplements can have potent effects, both good and bad. II | (t - c) 08:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Gender I note on another talk page you're suddenly a "she" - when did the (un?)happy event occur? Or is that genderfusion on the part of the poster? (please note the innocently wagging tail of the puppy... no snickering here, nosir!) KillerChihuahua?!? 20:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC) No offense intended, but Fyslee sounds like girl's name. II | (t - c) 21:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC) How many girls do you know named Fyslee? Seriously. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Why do I feel like you're barking at me? As for your question, I've never encountered the name before here. Nevertheless, there's something about it -- perhaps it's that names which end with vowels (anita, elise), and particularly high-pitched vowels tend to sound more girlish than those that don't. That despite Lee is generally a male name. And I'm not alone [15]. I'll admit I assumed both Fyslee and MastCell were female when I first encountered them, probably because they don't have the all-too-common testosterone-charged, aggressive internet tone. II | (t - c) 23:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC) It has alot to do with which language is being used, and my username is a combination. BTW, Lee is one of those rare names in English that is used for men and women, both as a first, middle, and last name. You can't do that with many names. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Hi I am 2 days old here and already in trouble :) Regarding Aspartame controversy Sorry, I was just in the middle of an edit when you did your revert. I am trying to come to a consensus but the other editors do not seem familiar with the material (GAO87) and they seem to believe I am 'making it up'. Your help is greatly appreciated, but please see the discussion page and aid me in understanding just what the problem is, Thank you. Unomi (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC) You need to get that consensus before you do anything more about this. You should have been blocked by now, so you are very lucky that you've been treated far better than you deserve. Even if you were to get support elsewhere at Wikipedia (I see you have been forum shopping....a questionable and sanctionable practice here), you will still have to come to consensus with the editors who are editing that article. Even if you place what you think is a perfect edit in the article, it can and will likely get removed if the other editors don't support it. If you work in a collaborative manner with the other editors, and develop TOGETHER with them a version they find acceptable, then you can feel relatively certain that your hard work will be there tomorrow, and that THEY will defend it, because it is also their version. The edit warring has to stop. This is not the place to "right great wrongs". What you wish to add contributes nothing to the article. The source has already been used and summarized, and an article shouldn't depend too much on one source, especially an old and very outdated one like that. It's really only of historical interest, and the history of this controversy has already been covered pretty well. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009 This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles: News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Take Care Please don't use Science Apologist's talk page to have long and involved discussions with users that are not SA. This has caused problems in the past. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC) That's an interesting new policy. SA determines how his talk page is used. But I will give you this, even being near SA can be problematic, which is why I have often been retiscent to get involved in any issue he is actively involved with. His approach has been wrong and it taints the situation. I have often agreed with his edits and wished I could help, but I'd just end up getting involved in a shit throwing contest and dirty myself, so I have pretty much always stayed away and let him fight on his own. It's all a bad situation, and something needs to be done about the root cause of why this all happens in the first place, but ArbCom hasn't stepped up to the plate to a sufficient degree. It shouldn't be necessary to have to defend proven reality, while allowing alties, fringies, and PS pushers -- as long as they're civil -- to do whatever they want. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC) It's not a policy, it's unsolicited advice. I take no position on the edits or the dispute, except to note that it's a shitshow that needs resolving (which we appear to agree about). Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) We do agree on that. I hate the whole situation. I personally have gotten a bad deal from the ArbCom, which has partially been fixed, but the whole process nearly ended my life and has caused me much real world problems ever since. I wish there were some way policies could be improved to allow more effective actions against fringe advocates who game the system, or that more admins were brave enough to just block them. Some admins do it and it works quite well within the existing rules, but there aren't enough admins who do that, and then there are admins who openly protect such tendentious pushers of nonsense, one of whom is the most active in defending this block. That admin's involvement in this matter looks more like a continuation of his fighting his/her ideological battle, rather than a defense of Wikipedia. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC) SA & Tom Butler Don't worry Fyslee. Tom's anti-science POV can't rely upon RS, NPOV, WEIGHT, or a host of other Wikipedia guidelines, so if Tom thinks that abusing SA, then pushing him out of the project, is going to allow the altmed types to write whatever they want, well, it ain't going to happen. I know SA's style is unhelpful at times, but he really stands up to these anti-science types. If they think they've "won", well, they really believe in magic. SA is one of the smarter editors around here. I don't care about SA's style one way or another (I'm close to it at times), because I don't think civility trumps NPOV under any condition. Don't waste your typing on Tom. He thinks he's right. Oh well. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Tone Hey, what's with the unpleasant tone? "Vandalizing and whitewashing" is a little extreme considering all I did was to move information about the budget and charter from the criticism section to a section on general organizational information - where it's probably more appropriate, anyway. Nothing was deleted. hgilbert (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Maybe I misunderstood something, but I read an edit summary that mentioned moving, and there were two edits in which things were deleted without any moving. Hmmm. I'll have to look at it when I get more time. Please provide the diffs and I will get back to you. Sorry if I screwed up there. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Looks like you did screw up. Most of the text was moved, the deleted text was a duplicate. You can easily find the diffs by going here, and I don't see why it is the aggrieved party's job to provide them. It fits your pattern of never getting anything wrong. I am still waiting for your apology. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC) To be more specific: Hgilbert's edit that introduces a new section heading and fixes a text duplication. [16] Your revert of that specific edit, containing the citation above in the edit summary. [17] I don't think I misunderstood something, but if you two get along now it doesn't matter anyway. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Hgilbert, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what went wrong, but I do apologize for that edit summary. Our previous history made me jump to a conclusion and I reacted too quickly and sharply. I am very sorry for that. (BTW Hans, this is about the last two of my edits, not the previous one.) But....looking at my first one, it inadvertently did create a duplicate. I just hadn't noticed that. My main concern was that material from a critical source was having part of the criticism moved to other sections, leaving it talking about the charter, but the charter part was now elsewhere, and also the detailed mention of certain trials was part of the criticism, but was now being moved elsewhere as well, all of it being sourced from the same ref. Whatever happened, I did make a mistake. BTW, there happens to be another duplication that was untouched. I'll remove it. If you still wish to fix that section, please propose your edits on the talk page and we can discuss them. I am perfectly willing to see improvemnts to the section, as long as the "teeth" and documentation of the criticism aren't "pulled". We can certainly work together on this one. I apparently didn't fully understand your original edits and misjudged your intent. My apologies again. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Apology accepted. I didn't realize there was a link between the quoted critique and the information about the charter (in fact, I'm still not sure there is one, see the article talk page for why), but I understand now why you saw them as related. Let's assume that we are editors who are actually both working for accuracy, and be patient with each other's evident POV emphases. All POVs need to be represented here, so we are actually supplementing each other! hgilbert (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC) I fully agree. I'm sorry about causing any irritation. I'm far from perfect, and I do appreciate it when I can work together with editors who hold differing or opposing POV. It's for the betterment of the encyclopedia when all significant POV are presented properly, and it's well-nigh impossible for editors from one POV to do that alone. We all have to work together. We do disagree on some subjects, but let's at least try to do it agreeably. I may fail at times, but I do mean well and I'm sure if we met and shared a beer or bottle of good wine we'd probably have a good time! -- Fyslee (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009 Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009 Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »   — 16 March 2009 News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request to amend prior case:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal Thought you'd want to know I've asked for a finding related to you to be amended. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC) OMG! I have just complained about this particular issue. It looks like we're on the same page. I'll go there now and make a statement. Done. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Now located here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Motion Motion in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal The Arbitration Committee has altered the above-linked case by successful open motion. The header of the finding which previously read "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (Finding of Fact 3.2) has been changed to "Sources used by Fyslee". For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Thank you! There is some justice here after all. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Parsing of WP:PSCI Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines on the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. The four groupings found at WP:PSCI Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. I have previously parsed the ArbCom decision's four groupings, here reproduced and tweaked: There is an obvious demarcation line that the ArbCom members seemed to recognize, and that is "who is supporting or criticizing what." They made four groupings, and the first two are always recognized by the scientific mainstream as fringe=alternative (often alternative medicine) ideas opposed to the mainstream, but supported by believers in pseudosciences. The scientific mainstream criticism is allowed to be stated, IOW that the fringe=alternative believers are wrong, and that their position is pseudoscientific, all by the use of V & RS, and can (in addition) even be so characterized by editors at Wikipedia (by using the [[Category:Pseudoscience]] tag). IOW, the ArbCom decision is supporting scientific mainstream editors and limiting fringe editors: 1. Obvious pseudoscience 2. Generally considered pseudoscience The next two are quite different, since they are about ideas on the mainstream side of the demarcation line mentioned above. They are mainstream ideas that may or may not be firmly entrenched, but are somewhat trusted or still being researched in a legitimate manner. They may actually be experimental. No matter what, they are not considered fringe or alternative medicine ideas. They are sometimes accused by the fringe side as pseudoscientific (in true pseudoskeptical style - see Carroll), and the ArbCom decision forbids the fringe editors here from categorizing those mainstream ideas as pseudoscientific. Again, the ArbCom decision is supporting mainstream editors and limiting fringe editors: 3. Questionable science (IOW, things like psychoanalysis, which is considered mainstream and is specifically addressed by the ArbCom, and would not be allowed in this list). 4. Alternative theoretical formulations ("are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process," IOW also considered mainstream, and would not be allowed in this list. "Experimental alternatives are unproven but have a plausible rationale and are undergoing responsible investigation."[18]) I think this parsing is more accurate and it makes sense. The ArbCom members would hardly be expected to disallow V & RS, but they certainly would set limits on what certain fringe=alternative editors have occasionally tried to do - editorially calling mainstream ideas pseudoscientific by categorizing them as such. The ArbCom members support mainstream science and set limits on how far fringe editors can go in (mis)using Wikipedia categories. They are not addressing the use of V & RS in lists and articles. Changing the title of the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts would help to enable the use of all V & RS, as required by inclusion criteria. The current title is not NPOV. We need a List of subjects alleged to be pseudoscientific or List of subjects asserted to be pseudoscientific, or better yet, List of topics referred to as pseudoscientific. That would be the primary inclusion criteria (IOW what was "on-topic"), and would allow well-sourced criticisms by scientific academies, various organizations, and even individuals who are quoted in V & RS. At the same time the ArbCom decision would disallow the disruptive POINT violations of pseudoskeptics who attempt to include more-or-less mainstream ideas in this list (such as vaccinations, antibiotics, etc., as has happened). Such sabotage attempts would not be allowed. Those who are still acting in a protectionist mode will of course attempt to retain a hard title "List of pseudosciences", since that will allow them to keep their widely criticized pet ideas out of this list. That's unwikipedian and such attempts should be defeated. It limits the list by disallowing many very notable opinions in V & RS. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Can I ask you Fyslee where these things fit in with projects? Take attachment therapy - a pseudoscience relating to attachment which claims to be mainstream and is practiced by some psychologists (still). In earlier days a few shoddy studies appeared in peer reviewed journals, as do articles, and also articles in books on psych topics. Mainstream psychologists and psychiatrists have analysed it and debunked it with a series of publications in peer reviewed journals and books. My question is - is this still part of psychology in the sense that a pseudoscience is a pseudo which battens on or derives from some form of science? Pseudosciences do not stand alone. In the same way, is homeopathy part of the medicine project in that it purports to be medicine and the research that has been and is still being done on it is medical research? Medicine is the science its the pseudo of. The alternative view is to lump all pseudosciences together. Am I making sense? Fainites barleyscribs 21:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Hmmm....I'm not sure if I understand everything you're getting at, so I'll take a stab at part of it. If a practice makes medical or scientific claims, then it likely belongs in some sense under the medicine project AND the alternative medicine project, but the medical project will of course call it what it is -- quackery and pseudoscience, since they are the ones best able to evaluate the scientific and medical claims being made, while many of those in the alternative medicine project may seek to defend it. Others who deal with such subjects all the time may be better able to deal with the societal effects, and the unethical and legal aspects. Doctors and scientists who do both are usually active scientific skeptics (IOW, debunkers and quackbusters), while "pure" scientists usually ignore the subject as unworthy of their attention. The debunkers and quackbusters are concerned about ethics, truth in advertising, and consumer protection, so they are activists on the matter. Maybe we need a project that spans the two projects and includes editors who are concerned about ethics and scientific accuracy. I don't know if that helps at all, and maybe I've missed the mark entirely. If you are getting at something else, please be more specific and provide an actual situation. -- Fyslee (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Thats about it really. Put simply the question is - should psychology pseudosciences be part of the psychology project and medical pseudosciences be part of the medicine project or should they be totally divorced from them on the grounds that because they are pseudosciences they are not actually "psychology" or "medicine"? If neither fits the bil, should there be "sub-projects". Just having a pseudoscience project seems to me to divorce the pseudosciences from their roots as it were. This does not seem satisfactory to me as the scientific investigation of pseudoscientific or borderline claims is very much part of the work of the scientific community (for the more serious pseudosciences that is. Lots of them don't really attract serious attention). The specific example is the one I gave you above - Attachment therapy, a pseudoscience which got removed from the psychology project for that reason. Fainites barleyscribs 22:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009 From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Mysterious huffings in Mindinao. Whoops, I belatedly noticed your request to respond here. Alas, I have only general ideas to offer. NickyMcLean (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC) "could coverage"? See [19] -- 'good coverage' perhaps? Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks! Will fix. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Personal attacks At WP:ANI#Martinphi requesting unblock there are three posts in which you attack Unomi based on an unfounded belief that he is a sockpuppet or returning user. As I noted elsewhere, with only a little research you can easily find out which country Unomi is editing from. You can also google his user name to find a lot of additional information about him, some of it related to his country of residence. The SPI case (apparently Unomi didn't know it was a RfCU since the term seems to be officially out of use since the merge of all SPIs to a single page) ends with "Checkuser evidence shows no IP-relationship nor any geographic relationship nor any other checkusery sort of evidence between the three candidates". I have rarely if ever seen such a strong formulation for a negative CU result. It led to the following unblock comment: "Checkuser evidence appears to indicate this sockpuppet ID was a mistake. Undoing my own block." I have analysed at Talk:Aspartame controversy#Unomi deserves an apology how several editors, most notably one who was blocked for edit warring two weeks ago and hasn't logged in after the block expired, have shown typical mobbing behaviour in response to very little provocation and the flimsiest evidence. I have had ZERO responses pointing out any inaccuracy in my analysis or even just disagreeing with it. The short version: Unomi tried to fix the misrepresentation of a source, didn't go about it with the care necessary at a controversial article, and got no constructive feedback. OM told him "Please see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, WP:VERIFY, and WP:CIVIL for good measure. Oh, and you're approaching tendentious editing." Unomi did follow at least the last of these links, and at WP:TEND#Characteristics of problem editors found a reference to an obscure old Arbcom case. OM replied: "Sniff. Sniff. Damn someone forgot to wash some socks out." From that point on, OM and some others shut down communication with Unomi almost completely, instead repeating the baseless sockpuppet accusations as a mantra. You should be more careful before attacking others in public. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC) I'm well aware of the results of the CU, and I noted that in my comment. I have put a hat on the dispute which veered way off-topic. I still stand by my descriptions of Unomi's edit warring and SPI status, and was surprised by the denial, and then the subsequent inaccurate attacks (I was indeed vindicated, since I had been judged in the absence of evidence), which escalated things. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC) "Slip through" is hardly an appropriate description of a strongly negative CU result after a fishing expedition. To repeat myself from the analysis I linked above: Guess the word that is missing here: "Xs have been characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other expert […]." Incidentally, I am getting a certain unfavourable impression of you. Do you remember an instance where you admitted you were wrong about something? I would love to read it and raise my opinion of you. Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC) I have apologized many times during my stay here at Wikipedia. That Unomi wasn't nailed by the CU doesn't change the fact that Unomi still edits in a tendentious mannerm but has at least seemed to drop the obsession with the Aspartame controversy matter. I do see some ray of hope for this relatively new user, and that is because (s)he doesn't always follow the pseudoskeptical party line usually pushed by Levine2112. I am seeing more attempts at seeking consensus, which is a very positive trend. I'm hoping the best for this user. It does take time to learn the ropes here. None of us understands all the ins and outs of Wikipedia, and we are all learning. Mistakes will happen, apologies need to be made, and wounds can be healed. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I missed the strikethrough in the ANI comment. I count this as an answer. Nevertheless I am not very impressed by the language you are continuing to use. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Is it that I describe the behavior of a tendentious editor? That's my opinion. You are welcome to yours. I am being very subdued compared to what some admins are urging me to do, which is to raise the issues at RfC on user behavior. I'm being encouraged to actually try to get both Unomi and Levine2112 indef blocked, but I'm waiting and we are collecting evidence. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC) If that's what people are encouraging you to do, then you are probably keeping bad company. I am not impressed by what Levine has been doing on the pseudosciences list, and if you look at the analysis I linked above you will see that I am not uncritical of Unomi's edits, either. Yet in my opinion is Unomi and Levine don't fit the criteria detailed in WP:TEND; their crime is simply to form a counterweight to other editors who also don't quite fit the criteria (example). Their respective behaviour is inconvenient to some, but certainly not banworthy. I think it's nevertheless OK if you claim that Unomi is editing tendentiously, because that's clearly a subjective statement. The language I was objecting to was: "That Unomi wasn't nailed by the CU doesn't change the fact that...". And also some things at ANI that didn't get strikethrough: You quoted User talk:Unomi#Indefinitely blocked - apparent sockpuppet of User:Immortale as if that thread reflected badly on Unomi. Obviously many people are not going to follow the link, so they won't see that contrary to what you would expect, in that thread nothing remotely like hard evidence is presented, Unomi gets strong support from slakr (who seems to be completely uninvolved) and me, and he is unblocked by the blocking admin because of a negative checkuser result. And of course, "a CU was indeed performed, which you did slip through". This is what I mean by character assassination. If you have any evidence that Unomi is a returning user or somebody's sockpuppet, you need to put it on the table. If you have no evidence other than an ultimately unsuccessful fishing expedition by his enemies, then you must shut up. For some perspective, you might want to look at this new user. It appears that his first contributions were to an article that was deleted. All his following activities seem to revolve around the deleted article. Transfer this new user into the present, and it would be fairly easy to convince a checkuser to use the tools to see whether he is a good hand account of ScienceApologist, or something like that. It would probably come out negative, but of course after that one can go around repeating that there is something wrong with this "new" user even though he narrowly escaped a checkuser conviction. Or can one? Should one be able to do that? --Hans Adler (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC) LOL - Hans has been busy on talkpages lately :-) Shot info (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC) This is not the first time. It happens occasionally, when I see that someone is being mobbed. I just can't have that. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Your efforts might be better used if you would discuss the problems with the one being criticized and advised them of how Wikipedia works so they don't get into more trouble. By criticizing me you are siding with them and giving them more courage to continue their disruptions. Not that I don't sometimes deserve to be cautioned, but don't forget to do something about the cause of the whole problem - pushers of fringe POV. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I don't think I am neglecting that part. But criticising a mobbing victim publicly is not an ethical option. And the fringe POV pushers are clearly not the only problem we have here. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009 From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter Special report: Community weighs license update News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Unkind words Please remove your personal attack on me. Address the substance of my argument rather than attacking me. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC) He is - just because you don't like it doesn't make it less valid. Shot info (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I only noticed this edit due to posting a barnstar here, and all I have to say "wow". This was the kind of post that should be kept somewhere, and probably deserves another barnstar. Something like this would make a good basis for or extension to an essay. Verbal chat 09:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the barnstar! I truly wish I could have commented on the substance of the argument without mentioning the author of the argument, but the two are wedded together. The situation is so likeAlice in Wonderland as to be bizarre. His argument strikes so directly at misuses of basic logic and common sense that parts of my reply are worthy of inclusion in our polices to some degree. In fact it already is, but worded better. Eldereft cited the relevant part from WP:RS, a part I wasn't really aware of, but which means that we are often violating RS, because we aren't enforcing that part of it. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Just to note that the barnstar is for edits more general than just this post; I wasn't even aware of this at the time I posted the barnstar. Verbal chat 14:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Picking a petty point of pure pedantry, RS is technically a guideline elaborating and expanding on the policy V. But yeah - I think this encyclopedia would benefit immeasurably if we all were actually to adhere to appropriate sourcing. Also, good call; there is nothing wrong with calling out unproductive discussion and unproductive editing patterns. Keeping those discussions tightly focused on the article at hand is the only way I have found to keep them even remotely editable. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) For continued service The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar For your contributions to medicine and science articles, and those articles that would otherwise make claim to be such. Verbal chat 09:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Huzzah for edits based entirely on appropriate sourcing! - Eldereft (cont.) 17:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Questions for Unomi Unomi, you have made a number of statements at the NPOV noticeboard that puzzle me. What are you talking about? Your heading there and the content that followed don't seem to hang together. You immediately turned it into an attack on me, QW, and Barrett. Here are some of the things you wrote that I'd like you to explain: 1. You wrote: "@Fyslee: I am going to ask you one last time to cease and desist with using strawman tactics and attributing statements or intents to me which you do not back up with diffs. I have never sought inclusion of Scientology sources." (BTW, your use of @ isn't standard indentation here and is rather irritating. Very few use it.) 1a. Where did you ask me to "cease and desist..."? 1b. What "strawman tactic" are you referring to? (Be VERY specific with a quote and diff.) 1c. What statement or intent have I attributed to you? 1d. Where have I stated that you "sought inclusion of Scientology sources"? That was a subject relevant to the heading of the section, but I didn't write anything about "you" doing it. That wouldn't have been true at all. We both know that it is Levine2112 that is doing so. 2. You wrote: "The source which you seem to hold in such high regard was held in such low esteem by California Superior Court Judge Hon. Haley J. Fromholz that he saw fit to write..." 2a. Where does he refer to QW in any manner? He is referring to Barrett in a very limited and specific situation, where he was poorly prepared because of a bad lawyer he was using at the time. Nothing the judge said applies to Barrett in other situations outside the court room, or even on that subject (FDA regulations) in other situations, where he is usually much better prepared. It certainly didn't address QW at all. You're stretching his comments way out of context and applying them too broadly. You are not the only one who has done that, and that person is currently being sued for libel by Barrett. 2b. Just FYI, the judge was heavily biased against Barrett and the other expert witness, to the point that there are questions about whether he was influenced by illegal methods, and he made a very poor call. He was obviously antagonistic and far from unbiased, as a judge should be. 3. You wrote: "...but you must realize then that in-text attribution of the opinions must be..." 3a. I agree with you! I have written it several times. How many more times do I have to write it before you will believe me? 4. You wrote: "You consistently indicated your unwillingness to abide by wikipedia guidelines and policy..." 4a. I have not "indicated". That's your interpretation. 4b. It is also a matter of interpretation as to whether or not I am abiding by those guidelines and policies. Other very experienced editors agree with me and disagree with you, a newbie here. Don't be so bombastic in your statements. Maybe we happen to understand those policies better than you. If you rely on Levine2112 for an understanding of those policies, you will surely be led astray. Recognize that he is wikilawyering, and thus is twisting them to his own purposes. 5. You wrote: "...if you continue to make unfounded and slanderous accusations we will very quickly see ourselves at yet another venue for dispute resolution." 5a. What accusations are you referring to? I don't find any accusations on that page. That's pretty strong language. 5b. What other "venue" are you referring to? Is that a threat? I can assure you that if you were to escalate this matter, your every edit would be carefully examined and I doubt you would survive at Wikipedia. You would likely be indef blocked or banned as some other editors who have done similar things to me have experienced. They are no longer allowed access to Wikipedia. In spite of (and maybe because of ;-) the fact that I am quite knowledgeable about the ideas of many forms of alternative medicine, most notably chiropractic, having made it a study for many decades, I am a very strongly pro-science, mainstream, editor who adheres to Wikipedia policies as best I can. I'm not perfect, but no one can question my loyalty to Wikipedia's policies and NPOV. I have made mistakes, especially in the beginning, but I have a positive learning curve. As examples of my support of NPOV you will find that I am one who supports and protects the inclusion of some of the worst fringe nonsense imaginable here. Why? Because if it is a notable fringe subject, then NPOV requires that it be presented here, and I support that. In the other direction, I support the inclusion of legitimate and well-sourced criticisms of mainstream subjects. I'm not a deletionist or whitewasher. Please explain your accusations and refer to each item by number. Do it below. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Response to Fyslee Hi Fyslee and thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the issues that you have raised. 1. 1a. I have never used the phrase 'cease and desist' prior to that posting, but I have made numerous requests for clarification of reasoning behind partisan and divisive language as well as making assertions which you have not endeavored to back up by pointing to actions or statements that I have made. 1b. In this case the strawman tactic is exemplified by raising the specter of Scientology on the NPOVN board when that was not relevant to my query there. Without context or qualifiers this looks like implicating that I want to use CoS here. Your post seemed quite out of place. 1c. :You have on numerous occasions made comments to the effect that I am a POV pusher, a fringe defender, and a sockpuppet. You have stated that I use WP as a battleground and that I am a tendentious editor. 1d. See 1b. 2. 2a. From my reading of the arbcom case and amendment as well as the record on RS/N I found that the consensus is that for all intents and purposes QW = Barrett. I have not researched extensively beyond the realm of wikipedia consensus. But it seems from a direct quote on Quackwatch that this could be widely understood. I am not able to make any assessment of how the judge came to his conclusion regarding Barretts credibility as an expert witness in that particular case. I do find your theory that it was caused by bad prepping by his lawyer plausible though. I am curious; the person being sued for libel, is that for stating that a judge found Barrett not-credible as an expert witness? 2b. Could you point me to a source where these questions regarding the Judges credibility is raised? (non-rs is fine). 3. 3a. Your agreement seemed very slow in materializing, and you have professed a reluctance based on 'over attribution'. This is quite simply incompatible with the use of opinion in an article. Patronizing tone, believes skirting wikipedia policy "shouldn't be a problem" due to text in Lead. In the same breath acknowledges 'characterized' as opinion that may not be correct and downplays matters of attribution. here (When discussing opinion included in articles) Asserts 'generally for attribution' but worried about 'over attribution' comparing it to 'over linking', concludes 'sounds good in theory' here 4. 4a. See 3a, Note that opinion must be attributed, note also that you still adhere to the belief that the lead of an article can make the article exempt from core principles such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V. 4b. please see appeal to authority, biased sample, and appeal to belief. I very much doubt you will find many who argue that opinion should not be attributed, and I doubt that you will find many that hold QW to be entirely an WP:RS, should it not be held to be a RS in entirety then the burden of proof for individual assertions is on the person who includes it in the article. Hence you will likely find it easier to attribute them properly, the fact that an experienced editor as yourself has failed to attribute the assertions casts some doubt on the validity of your argument on this point. 5. 5a. You have repeatedly, since I first made your acquaintance, made statements that were designed to damage my reputation and standing. You have continued to forward the same insinuations and allegations with no attempt to back them up with diffs or anything else. You came to my talk page to apologize for the 'misunderstanding' only to continue the same behavior on AN/I. You are spreading what amounts to a thought-terminating cliché which is unfair, unjustified and falls afoul of WP:CIVIL. 5b. The other venues are quite clearly any in the gamut from WQA to RfAR. I certainly did not mean it as a 'threat' it is unfortunate if you understood it as such. I can only wonder what your comment is meant to constitute. Yes I see you have quite an extensive editing record here, I found your first ones particularly interesting. I can see where your knowledge of SPA policy comes from. I hope you will allow for a short list of diffs which formed my experience of you here. Pushing for indef ban here Allegations of tendentious and disruptive editing, poisoning the well. here Abrasive ES, bad faith accusations here allegations of SPI, appeal to ignorance, denies WP:AGF, alleges medcabel is an invocation of WP:BATTLE here Alleging pushing of pseudoscientific POV, misrepresenting WP:CIVIL, implying a 'great lack of understanding of the scientific process'. here Poisoning the well, here Thought police, no mention of content. Note that this is almost immediately before the MartinPhi allegations here Characterization of SPA, 'defender of fringe POV', allusions to banning here Puts a 'hat' on everything but allegations. here Continues allegations of SPI and edit warring here Denies WP:CCC, counters arguments with special pleading and generalized claims of 'misinformation' here Seems to indicate that I should have been 'nailed', repeats allegation of tendentious editing, attributes 'obsession', cites 'a ray of hope' *reinforcing the image of wrongdoing here Shifts burden of proof, acknowledges citing of opinion yet ignores attribution. here Characterization as a 'tendentious editor' here Characterization as 'pusher of fringe POV' and 'problem', instigator of 'disruptions' here Patronizing tone, believes skirting wikipedia policy "shouldn't be a problem" due to text in Lead. In the same breath acknowledges 'characterized' as opinion that may not be correct and downplays matters of attribution. here (When discussing opinion included in articles) Asserts 'generally for attribution' but worried about 'over attribution' comparing it to 'over linking', concludes 'sounds good in theory' here Generally abrasive characterizations and manner of presenting arguments here Attempts at intimidation to discourage dispute resolution here Denying WP:CCC, accusations of WP:SHOPPING for commenting on 1 noticeboard to a post he didn't open; accusations of stonewalling while refusing to answer on grounds that 'may be a trick questions' here Characterizing analysis as 'twisted' without counter arguments here Abrasive ES, text that denies the fact that other editors agree with levine here Without context or qualifiers this looks to implicate that I want to use CoS here I hope that you will understand that this is just a rough draft and that I welcome requests for clarification. Thanks again. Unomi (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Reply Thank you so much for being upfront and explaining yourself. To some degree your efforts above do shed some light on your comments. I wasn't expecting things outside the noticeboard to be part of the issue, since my comment stood alone there, and I thought you were overreacting to it. Anyway, there is much confusion and I'm sorry about needlessly hurting your feelings. I'm quite blunt in my expressions at times, and that can hurt. That is not my intention. I'm not really thinking about the reception while I'm writing criticisms. Maybe I should! Rather than answer each and every point, I do notice a few themes that may need clarifying. My comments may not be totally satisfactory, but at least they'll explain where I'm coming from. I do think you are pushing a fringe POV, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. It has at times been disruptive. Your siding with, and finding fellow travelers in some of our more notable fringe POV pushers, is unfortunate. You will be judged by the company you keep. That's life here. As far as attribution goes, I was only cautious because I wasn't sure how it would be applied. I've seen it done in very POV and manipulative ways, so I just wanted to see examples. The ones you provided looked just fine, and I commended you for them. Have you forgotten that? I have repeatedly supported attribution, especially since the change of title. The fact that I haven't actually gone and started revising text is not because of hypocrisy or lack of desire, but because the discussion about doing it wasn't finished, and because it involves more editing, and right now all these disputes are taking my time. You have provided diffs and interpreted them negatively, while I find my total support for attribution being expressed there. I don't know how to be more clear if you are going to interpret diffs of my comments in such a one-sided manner as to ignore my intent. As to the original accusations of being a sock, I have ceased making accusations of that nature, even though I have mentioned the situation. I guess you interpret my mere mention of the history as a repetition of the accusation. Too bad. When you denied having been the subject of an SPI, I was rather surprised and pointed it out. I wasn't repeating the accusation, just setting the record straight. The original concerns which caused the SPI report to be filed in the first place (I can't speak for the filer) were mostly related to your support for, and repetition of, the edits of a known fringe POV pusher, Immortale. The resemblance was unnervingly close. Even though the CU was inconclusive, your editing style still was and is a problem, and since that time has been the focus of my criticisms. That is unchanged, especially since you still refuse to accept the advice of several more experienced editors and admins to not touch the Aspartame controversy for awhile. That has always worried me. I'd think you'd want to protect your reputation here, and even I have advised you for your own good, but you have persisted. That's very unfortunate. Refusal to accept advice is a sign of a negative learning curve, and your credibility here will be judged by that curve. (You may wonder why I merely say "inconclusive". That's because a CU can only confirm, but not rule out, a sock. Experienced sockmasters can sock from multiple locations in the world at the same time. There are apparently ways to do it. I have once seen one do it to a discussion list, where he (he identified himself properly) would get blocked as disruptive, then change usernames and IPs, and gain access to the list, get blocked, and repeat the process. He went on for hours like that and filled the list with his propaganda. His IPs ranged from NZ, Australia, USA, and several European countries, all within a few hours time, sometimes minutes time. He was doing all this from NZ. So my wording doesn't mean I still think you're a sock of Immmortale. Don't worry about that. I'm just a stickler for details in this case.) I have made statements about you which I haven't backed up with diffs, simply because it would be too time consuming, and the other editors who were reading would know what I was talking about. If it were a major RfC/U or ArbCom, I would be very meticulous with diffs. Talk pages are often another matter. They are usually more informal. Sometimes it was impressions about you, and those can't be backed up with a few diffs, but are based on the totality of your editing. Whether you think I am accurate or not, you need to recognize that that is the impression you are giving many editors. Other editors who are pushers of fringe POV recognize you as an ally and they then rally around you and defend you. You may not wish that, but that's what's happened. While you shouldn't be judged for the faults of those around you, humans do judge others by the company they keep. Unless you actively distance yourself from them, you will risk sharing their fate. I've seen it happen, and I wouldn't be telling you this if I was interested in causing you harm at Wikipedia. I'm giving you advice that can help you and protect you. I did see a glimmer of hope when you didn't totally agree with Levine2112, but you still are worryingly close to him in your POV and editing. He is generally considered one of the most disruptive and insidious of the major fringe POV pushers and defenders. Martinphi is another one who has just had his indef block upheld in an overwhelming manner. Levine2112 is more civil and smooth, hence the more dangerous for this project. Steer clear for you own sake. As to the person who is being sued for libel, they are the source of the statement about Barrett's lack of board certification. We don't have the actual court's wording. We only have a very twisted account of what happened, and that person is known to hide facts, twist them, and to fabricate conspiracy theories that have been proven to be fabrications. We simply can't trust him, yet he is the one who has engineered a campaign of hatred against Barrett, including several counts of libel. As to the judge's statement about Barrett's credibility as a witness, that statement has been misused by the libeler and those who quote him, as well as others who know about the case. It has gotten far more mileage than warranted. It goes counter to the vast number of very official and notable sources that quote Barrett and Quackwatch in a favorable manner. They realize that the court situation was very specific and only applied there. Barrett was enlisted to testify by a lawyer who had problems, and he didn't do a good job of preparing Barrett for the case. Barrett was also naive in that situation. When we are dealing with sourcing here, nearly all of the content at Wikipedia can be considered "opinion", since one person's absolute fact is another person's opinion, and yet another's lie, depending on their POV when looking at exactly the same information and source. That's why it makes little difference to Wikipedia if it's a fact or an opinion, it needs to be sourced unless it's a universally accepted fact like "the sun rises in the east." If it can be contested, it must be sourced. (That's a bit blunt, but that's nearly the case.) I don't not believe that the LEAD can be exempt from policies. We just happen to disagree on the interpretation of those policies, and to how they apply to the list. I'm not alone in that matter. Policies are indeed subject to interpretation and application, whether we like it or not. My first edits here clearly reveal that I had no understanding of what Wikipedia was about, and it has changed quite a bit since then. Back then sourcing wasn't even enforced very well. I quickly learned the hard way to change my ways. That's where I started establishing a positive learning curve. I made plenty of mistakes, but when more experienced editors scolded, warned and advised me, I took it to heart. That's the only way to learn here. Seek to avoid conflicts. When your edits or comments are contested or questioned, step back and ask why, rather than defend them. Wikipedia will be here tomorrow. There is no deadline, and your edits will only stand if they are impeccable and actively defended by those who are often your opponents. That's consensus editing. It's all about compromise. I doubt that you'll be happy with all I've written, but those are my honest opinions. Even though we disagree, I hope that we can learn to disagree agreeably. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am going to comment on some of the points you have made, I don't have that much time right now so please excuse if they come across a bit unpolished. Going over your editing history there seems to have been a bit that has been deleted. Your first logged edits indicate that you came straight from SkepticWiki to here, they also show that you were involved in 'anti-CAM' activism on the internet in general. You concentrate on editing on Barrett, Aspartame and CAM. What I think is happening here is that you see relatively NPOV as 'pro-fringe' POV. Anyone can go over my edit history and see which edits I have made and try to point out which ones exhibit a 'pro-fringe' POV. I think that you hold a view that there is (and should be) a divide between US & THEM, your recent edit to writing for the enemy displays an odd use of emotional language in the place which is trying to avoid it, reinforcing that it is 'right' to find it distasteful. I believe that this translates into your interpretation of events as 'Other editors who are pushers of fringe POV recognize you as an ally and they then rally around you and defend you.' denying the possibility that I could in fact have been unfairly treated or could be correct in my statements. Are you saying that for example Hans Adler is a 'pro-fringe' pusher? I also find it odd that in a declared meritocracy you would state and seem to endorse :'You will be judged by the company you keep. That's life here.' Regarding sourcing yes of course, the difference is that opinion must be in-text attributed to source. I welcome the fact that you have stated that you no longer believe that I am a sock ;) I am going to ask you to refrain from bringing up the SPI issue in the future, and while I respect your right to your opinion I am going to ask you from using words to the effect of POV pusher, pro-fringe or any other loaded characterizations unless you back them up with diffs in the the same post. Failure to respect WP:CIVIL in this regard will force me to take this more formal mediation venues. I would also urge you to take responsibility for your enabling actions and encourage others that would use that terminology to refrain from doing so, or I will see how mediation venues take arguments such as 'enabling personal attacks'. Please do not take this as a 'threat' but understand it as a statement of intent. As you have stated that you will abide by RS, not treat the lead as a plausible reason for exemption and thereby acknowledge that QW must be considered by RS/N on its merits per context I see no reason to dwell on the matter of Barrett or QW, I am sure that RS/N is more balanced on the matter than either of us can be considered. I look forwards to editing with you in the future, Unomi (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC) PS, I did not deny the SPI, I thought you were referring to a Request for Comments / User. I was not aware of Request For Check User at that time, since I have been informed that this was what you probably meant. Unomi (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks, and good luck. Sincerely. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC) I have a bad feeling about a sockpuppet Hi. I think I need some help. I recently opened a discussion on WP:ANI regarding some very vitriolic responses to a fairly straightforward AfD discussion [20]. During the process, I was able to read about 1000 words worth of direct conversational speech by the admin who was attacking me User:Uncle G, as well as his policy arguments. Out of nowhere, a new user jumped in with the pared down version of the exact argument the admin (Uncle G) had used with me on the AfD discussion, even though he hadn't voted on it. Upon viewing User:Unomi, I came across your discussions with him. I don't know if I'm being paranoid or not, but several phrases, including the same weird "staw man" analogy were used by both. The sentence construction is almost identical. As is an almost uncanny resemblance in their attitude and word choice. I could give you more examples, but you did a lot of work on this, and are probably more qualified to let me know if I should pursue this or not. I hate causing conflict like this, but I have a really bad feeling in the pit of my stomach about this.--OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 18:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Please disregard the above comment. This does not require any action on your part. The most likely explanation is that I simply overreacted to what was happening to me personally, and looked for an external cause to blame. I have already apologized to Unomi for dragging him into what turned out to be a very poorly-chosen battle regarding an AfD discussion. Please feel free to disregard my earlier comments, and I apologize for wasting your time. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 02:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009 Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process WikiProject report: WikiProject China Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Because you're not looking for it This: "The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community." .... is all that is required in the flood geology article. No preaching. No bad quotes. No misinformation. Science is merely a method of understanding the universe as it is, it doesn't require protection by forcefully taking down its enemies. --KP Botany (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I haven't been involved in very many of those types of disputes, but the ones I have been involved with have ended up with bloat, per your concerns, largely because of a created need. PS editors struggle to get their ideas incorporated as fact and fight tooth and nail, thus causing other editors to find sources to contradict them, and it then goes into a seesaw back and forth. Too bad. The article then gets larger. If the scientific POV and better sources were all that were required, we'd have shorter articles on PS subjects, but NPOV requires coverage of all significant POV, including the views of believers. I have no problem with that, since this is an encyclopedia like no other. The relatively new Fringe guidelines and PS ArbCom rulings have attempted to tame the situation somewhat. We'll see what happens in the future. BullRangifer (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC) In my opinion, the articles get larger simply because the anti-pseudoscientists freak out and attempt to refute every point. That's not necessary. The pseudoscience is merely reported as what is reported. The scientists don't attempt to refute every point, and trying to make it seem as if they had is what leads to the bloat. It also detracts from the factual nature of the scientific reportings. And the biggest problems tend to arise in non-pseudoscience articles, like the insane pressure pushing to get an anti-homeopathy platform posted in the belladonna article. I can't believe that anything arbcom decides will amount to helping making en.wiki better, particularly this arbcom. NPOV requires coverage of all significant POV is usually bent to allow very minor POV into articles. Significant means just that. --KP Botany (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Rename I've renamed you but be advised you have so many edits that it will take a few days to process them all, most likely. If there are any problems in this regard, you'll need to contact a developer. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks! That was fast and came unexpectedly, causing an edit conflict ;-) This will take getting used to. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC) You've Got Post I sent you an email. Regards, Skinwalker (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Dispute resolution: Barrett's status as "medical expert" Unresolved BACKGROUND: A discussion found here. This is a CLOSED discussion between the two of us. Only after Stmrlbs has either documented his claim or withdrawn it, may others chime in at a later point in the game. We need to get this out of the way before progress can be made. This is about a dispute regarding what I consider to be a likely dubious claim made by Stmrlbs "...[Barrett] made his name by representing himself as an medical expert." Stmrlbs makes the claim as part of his argumentation for why an unsourced (or at least improperly sourced) piece of information about Barrett's lack of board certification should be included in the Barrett article. THAT is not the subject of discussion here. It is Stmrlbs's claim about Barrett claiming to be a "medical expert" that I question. I'm bringing the discussion here since the dispute quickly became a distraction and circular discussion, and thus a violation ofWP:TALK. I put a hat on it, which is standard practice in such situations, something that Stmrlbs apparently doesn't realize and has reverted twice, rather than accepting what more experienced editors do in such situations. Anyone can do it, including uninvolved editors. There is no firm rule about it. If there was hope for the matter being resolved without disruption on that talk page, it would be OK to remove the hat, but that isn't the case. In response to the following comment, I'm going to seek to get to the bottom of this matter: "Please tell me what you think this situation is and where it says an editor (not an admin) can just hat a whole conversation with other people's comments without notifying the other people involved. I do not want my comments hidden, and you never talked to me before you did this." --Stmrlbs (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Stmrlbs, our comments are still there. A "hat" doesnt't remove them. It just helps to ensure that our personal dispute doesn't continue to disrupt the discussion. It veered off-topic, and would have been more appropriate as a separate thread, but since it became more personal and very circular, it doesn't belong on that page. Other editors might have removed the whole thing as a TALK violation, but I didn't do that. I'm not sure why we're having the impasse in our communication, but maybe your first language isn't English? Well, here goes... you ask me to tell you what I "think this situation is". Fair enough. The situation is that you made a possibly dubious claim as part of your argumentation. That claim may be fallacious. If you were to build your argumentation on a fallacious idea, then the conclusions that followed it would be fallacious as well, and we'd end up not really solving the matter about whether or not to include the board certification matter. That's why my response to your claim meant: "Wait a minute. Something's wrong here, and let's clear this up before continuing." I said you hadn't documented your claim, while you claimed you had, all several times in what became a circular discussion. I'm a skeptic and you have made a questionable claim. You must document it or drop it and any line of reasoning based on it. I'm still waiting for documentation for THAT claim. Not any claims about "expert", but about "medical expert". That's what you claimed. Please document it. I have already stated my opinion about his expert status, so let's not go in circles here. Don't force me to repeat myself. Please provide an example of him "representing himself as an medical expert." I'm not saying he hasn't done it, but that I'd like to see it, and in what manner it has been done. That is an important matter to clear up. Focus on those two words -- "medical expert". -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC) My answer is here --Stmrlbs (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC) No resolution, so I left a final message and am dropping the matter for now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC) If you have time Would you check out this about ChiBall Method? I looked at the link which to me is in violation of spam but I could be wrong. I think this editor is also doing redirects which I will be honest I still don't understand the use of these very well. I have taken time to try to understand this enough to 1) see if it's appropriate to add and 2) if it is, to write it better than it is now. Well I don't understand this well enough to make an intelligent decision at all about it so here I am aking you to take a look and do what is best for the project. I also noticed this along the way by clicking on the arrow in the contributions of the editor. I would appreciate if you have the time to look into these with your knowledge of alternates, thank you in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC) ps, it's going to take time getting used to this new user name of yours but I love what you did with your user page. Hi, I forgot about this post to you and just checked it out. Thank you very much for your input on this matter. Much appreciated, be well as usual, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC) There was no evidence of notability and only one self-published source, so I deleted it and requested them to create the article first. If it's notable enough for an article, then it can be added. I have never heard of it. I didn't see any redirects being made. Where did you see that? -- Brangifer (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC) I saw this edit by Verbal removing a redirect. Then two edits later this one which did the same thing that Verbal reverted, I think. I'm not real good with understanding redirects so I maybe off on this part of it. But this was my thoughts at the time. Am I incorrect about this being a redirect? I guess I need to reread about this and see if I can understand redirects better. My past experience was not too good understanding it though, unfortunately. This happens to me a lot I'm sorry to say about some of the policies/guidelines/explanations of things here. I am a slow ranger with understanding esp. when it goes into major details. I hope this explains my reasoning anyways. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC) It was a redirect but then the articles got created and turned into glorified disambig pages, but a useful new article was created. The redirects/disambig should probably be looked at again soon. Verbal chat 15:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC) What new article was that? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Green tea etc. Re this edit to WT:MEDRS: at its top, WT:MEDRS says "To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or the Wikiproject talk pages of WT:MED or WT:PHARM". Eubulides (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Of course! Will do. I'm getting lazy.....-- BullRangifer (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 39 months later Context And we're still feeding this editor? Come on now. We know that he won't hesitate to make hundreds of more comments about this dead horse, repeating himself time and time again, ignoring entire policies in order to make Wikipedia a battleground for those who want to attack Barrett. Please don't feed such editors. --Ronz (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Occasionally I get emails from admins who wonder why we haven't raised a RfC/User and get him permanently banned. Even they share our concerns about his lack of value to the project, in relation to the disruption he causes. We then get newer users who feed off of him and learn to be disruptive too. They (admins) would like to deal with the root of the problem. Food for thought... -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 3RR Resolved Context here and here. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Morgollens. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Sorry, you've violated it, also. I'm afraid it's my "job" as Admin to report you, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Morgellons indeed. The anon you were editing against has been blocked, which saves you. But please, in future, don't indulge in edit wars with anons, get it reported and fixed instead William M. Connolley (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC) I did report it directly to a couple admins, but it wasn't any of them who did the final blocking, and since at least one of the reverting editors was an admin, I was rather surprised that warnings, rather than blocks were handed out. With editors who have previously been warned and blocked for the same behavior, they know what they are doing and don't need more warnings. They just need to be blocked again with longer blocks, and in the case of registered users, indef blocks. I didn't realize it would be considered an "edit war", but rather reverting persistent vandalism by a recently blocked editor. Aren't BLP violations and vandalism excepted from the 3rr rule? I'd like to understand this better, but will also try to be more careful. I just got caught up in the situation, what with all the swearing and insults being thrown at me and others who were reverting the person. -- BRangifer (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC) In my opinion, it's not vandalism, as it may be the case that some have associated Morgellons with GMO and allergies, although I haven't heard of any such association; and it's not a WP:BLP violation, as no one is named. As an involved admin, I don't think I could do the block. (A few months ago, I believe I actually made a substantive edit to the article, rather than just removing fringe statements.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC) I can see your point about the GMO part. Some of the edits weren't about that, but were nonsense edits and swearing. Hmmm... maybe I'm getting the talk page edits mixed in with this since the IP was active on both fronts. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Since the editor knew what they were doing and didn't source the additions, I can understand why myself and others considered it vandalism. Now as to my question above, if it had been nonsense edits (vandalism), would it be excepted from the 3rr rule? BTW, a little FYI.-- BRangifer (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC) I'd think reverting nonsense would be exempt from 3RR, but that may require more commentary to determine whether it's in the present definitions. The only relevant phrase in WP:3RR#Exceptions is "Reverting obvious vandalism".... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC) It looks like a number of us considered it to be so, and I took my cue from that, as well as the history, which included numerous warnings for those identical edits being vandalism... ;-) -- BRangifer (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC) A couple of notes. Firstly, sorry if my playful editing at AN3 of the result to "1 week" confused you. That referred to the anon, not you. As to "obvious" vandalism, my advice would be to be cautious in the context of 3RR. The exception is intended to be very tightly drawn. Adding "Yo mama!" is obvious vandalism. Adding "Morgellons are caused by GMO's" is a content dispute. The general principle is that if a reasonable outsider with no knowledge of the subject whatsoever can't tell it is vandalism, then it isn't "obvious" William M. Connolley (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the good explanation, and I definitely agree. I guess I got caught up in the situation and since the edits were happening in both article and talk space, with some nasty comments as part of the mix, and with plenty of previous comments and warnings clearly identifying exactly the same types of edits (the GMO stuff) as vandalism, even left by admins, I took it for granted it was obvious vandalism, but I do see your point about an outside observerer coming on the scene. Well, at least the IP is temporarily out of commission and I'll be more careful in the future. What will happen when he (self identified as non-existent Tex, but existent User talk:Tex, and the IP locates to Texas) comes back? -- BRangifer (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC) If he returns and causes problems, you can tell me. [21] is an odd edit, presumably a mistake, maybe a deliberate attempt to mislead, I don't know William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Chiropractic Is there anything about the Chiropractic article U C that I don't?-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC) What are you thinking of? At least give me a hint ;-) -- BRangifer (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Is the article too pro Chiropractic? Does it flout the rules of Wikipedia?-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Well, it should be neither pro nor con chiropractic, but it should present all significant POV on the subject and its history. Right now there is very little coverage of the very reasons why chiropractic has been and still is controversial. It is given very short shrift. The subject is large enough for several articles, and writing anything on such subjects would be made very difficult by Levine2112, who does all he can to protect the reputation of chiropratic, which is his declared goal here. He has succeeded in developing the art of civil stonewalling and circular discussions as a method to keep well-known facts out of Wikipedia. A whole article on quackery and unethical practices common in chiropractic is missing: practice building, organized scams, insurance scams, quack methods, deceptive ways to get and keep patients, etc.. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Request for counsel Dear BullRangifer, I'm a new member on Wikipedia, and think I have run into a problem, well maybe not a real problem, but a new stituation I am not used to. Since you seem to share some of my viewpoints, from what I could see on your page, I decided I ask for counsel on a matter you seem to have experience in. I have stumbeled recently on some pages named "Science and the Bible", "Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts" and eventually "Qur'an and Science". As far as I can see all three articles suffer from problems. While "Science and the Bible" is honestly trying to maintain an objective outlook on Science in the Bible, the other two articles are increasingly fraught with what I consider pseudoscientific positions without accurately identifying them as such. The last article is the most problematic, because it has the neutral title "Qur'an and Science" without - in my opinion - covering the topic in a neutral fashion. I tried to improve on the last article, and have run in my first conflict on wikipedia. My - sourced - and in my opinion relevant and counterbalancing content was removed a few times by another editor, without giving much reason another editor, with hardly mentioning any reasons and not by any means satisfactory reasons (to me). I want to refrain from getting snarky and don't wan't to get into an edit war. This is *not* meant as a request for mediation, I just want to hear an independent opinion and some hints on that matter from a person that has experience with such problems. I hope to read from you soon. Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC) I would be glad about any reply, either here or at my e-mail: Spillerix@gmxDOTnet. Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry about not replying right away. I took a quick look and I'm afraid that I'd get in over my head in an area I'm not very familiar with. I try to stick to topics I know something about. Maybe in the future I'll get involved. I'm going to watchlist the pages. Please wikilink them all above. You might want to also place a comment on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your reply. I added the wikilinks and I'll see what help I can find on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, as you suggested. Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost Wikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009 License update: Licensing vote begins News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism WikiProject report: WikiProject Color Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009 Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more Dispatches: Valued pictures WikiProject report: WikiProject Film Features and admins: Approved this week Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Another agenda? I hope you dont mind my post but you seem to have the right approach to NPOV! I am new to Wiki and dont know the 'moves' or have any support connections. Recently I started to improve an Alt Med Stub Leaky gut syndrome after advising my intention on the talk page some weeks before, with no response. It matters not to me whether it is Med or Alt Med if the science is there, and in this case it seems to be. Anyway I have run into an editor obviously experienced who seems determined to remove any new material on the page and keeps reverting and refuses to discuss on the talk page with asinine comments on the edit bar. I dont think i have transgressed, at least not to the extent indicated. Would you mind looking at the edits and advise me how i should proceed. Thanks Peerev (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC) From a quick look at the edit history, I see that an unreliable source was used by another user. That's unfortunate. The Townsend Letter is a very fringe newsletter. After that point in time, you began to boldly add a bunch of stuff and it got reverted. You then did something that violated the WP:BRD cycle. You restored it and added more, when instead you should have started discussing the matter on the talk page. Now your additions have been reverted again, and since you are actually involved in an edit war (because you violated BRD, which is only intended to run one cycle), if you restore now you will be screwing up big time and can get in trouble for edit warring. I suggest you immediately start a thread on the talk page and request an explanation for why your additions were deleted. I would also suggest you leave notes on User:Eubulides' and User:Orangemarlin's talk pages. They are MDs and very experienced editors. You might get some good advice, since they have also edited that article before. Other points: Only twelve references at PubMed is an indication that you're dealing with a very fringe/alternative medicine subject. As to sourcing, letters to the editor are not considered RS. Also, what do you mean by "another agenda"? When you write "It matters not to me whether it is Med or Alt Med if the science is there, and in this case it seems to be.", that's a good approach, but note that "if the science is there", then it's not alternative medicine. You might appreciate this page I'm working on. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks for response and tips; it seems I should follow BLD and discuss now, and find out basis for reversions. On the broader issue whilst there are only 12 hits on pubmed for Leaky gut syndrome, there are 51 for 'leaky gut' including 21 reviews, where as there are 54 reviews for 'bowel permeability and tight junctions' So it seems that the science is there and probably no longer an 'alternative med' subject based on your sandbox? However SBOS does not seem appropriate as only one cause among many possible. Is there any problems with re-classifying the article to a Med stub and how should one go about this. It is likely to get more interest then and attract more editors, given that it has mainly attracted same so far? thanks Peerev (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC) It would probably be best to wait with reclassifying it, as that would be OR. If it ever becomes a mainstream diagnosis, it will become obvious, without any more debate. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Skeptics Yes Wikipedia needs more skeptics.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009 Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy Features and admins: Approved this week Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Note You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chiropractic. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. MBisanz talk 05:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Wow! I just left a message on your talk page before reading this. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Impressions A few thoughts.... A good first impression strongly influences the interpretation of what follows. A poor last impression leaves a lasting negative impression, and can easily erase a good first impression and everything positive about what happened between the first and last impressions. Goodwill can easily be destroyed by leaving a negative last impression. A customer who receives a good impression, and gets excellent service, can end up being a business's worst enemy, if the last impression was negative, and the customer then goes out and reports that impression. Likewise, a good movie can be ruined by a poor ending. In the end, the last impression may well be more important than the first impression. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks >> V. >> thank you for dotting my Vs.  :) --stmrlbs|talk 21:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC) You are very welcome! -- Brangifer (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC) RE: Skepticism Verbal is an activist debunker, and you might be too, so perhaps you should refrain from editing that portion of the article. Activist debunkers exist, and the term should be noted in Wikipedia, as it was for years. I'll note the talking pages and add it back. If you would like to improve that part of the article, then please do so. 24.209.226.121 (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC) ??? I'm not sure what the problem is right now since I haven't checked you out (which I will), but that's not how things work here. If we're "activist debunkers" (a good thing, BTW, so thanks for the complement), would that make you an activist "promoter"? We all have a right to edit here. It really makes no difference what our personal POV are, as long as we don't write our personal opinions in articles. We must source what is included and avoid using prose that includes peacock language, unnecessarily glorifies or villifies the subject, etc.. If the source does it, that's a different matter. Articles are composed of the facts and opinions which the sources provide, and NPOV requires that all significant sides of an issue are presented, including criticisms, as long as they are from WP:V & WP:RS. You aren't allowed to WP:OWN articles or forbid anyone from editing them. If you have a WP:COI (IOW are a promoter of the subject), then you'd better take a look at Wikipedia's Law of uninteded consequences before you get into trouble. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC) The user that initiated that edit may've violated WP:CONFLICT. If you are an activist debunker, it's a conflict to remove part of Wikipedia related to activist debunkers. In general, if you have a POV about a topic, don't edit articles on that topic. Also, don't remove language that's been in the article, which you have a POV and a conflict on, without giving a reason for removing it. In general, it's better to find sources for the material, then to remove material to promote your POV. 24.209.226.121 (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I am neither condoning or criticizing the points in the above discussion, but I wish to ask the IP, how does one become an activist debunker? We have far to many activists on the project (cf. this) and debunking them, or preferably, reducing the disruption they cause, would be a boon to the project. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC) The way I see it is science debunks. E=MC^2 does not need a website, a book tour, or a podcast. It doesn't need to post messages on forums or Wikipedia. It stands alone. But, when people take science, or even rational thought and mask it as science, and create websites, they enter the area of activism. This is done for many reasons. Some are altruistic and some are motivated by profit. The altruistic may want to rid the world of pseudoscience. Those motivated by profit may want to sell a book, movie, or website. Some may do it just because it makes them more comfortable. As to the biographies of living people, good luck. They may not be activist debunkers, but they are activist who want to protect their own biography, or a biography of an ideal, or the biography of their money making author or celebrity. They will go as far as discrediting the site publicly to do this. That's another reason Wikipedia has WP:Conflict. Regardless, the truth stands well on its own. When people become active for a specific version of the truth, or people start to cover up the truth, or people start to profit from the truth, you might not yet know the truth. A burden of this site is it invites activist. Cheers! 24.209.226.121 (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Alternative Medicine book authors Context. Your edits have been reverted as vandalism. Please note the correct title which you changed for some unknown reason. Please be more careful in the future, or you may be blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Actually, I'm the co-editor of the book. If you check the Library of Congress listing, you'll see that the editors are Larry Trivieri, Jr., and John W. Anderson. Burton Goldberg was not an author or editor - he wrote the introduction. The cover you show is of the first printing, which had Burton's name on the cover (he was at the time the owner of the publishing company); that is no longer the case.Jwander1 (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Very interesting information. Please forgive me. I acted in good faith, as you can see how the cover differed from your edit. I suggest you write something about this matter on the talk page to avoid confusion in the future. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC) No problem. It's listed in all sorts of ways on the web. Here's the LOC listing: LC Control No.: 2002727698 Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.) Main Title: Alternative medicine : the definitive guide / Larry Trivieri, Jr. and John W. Anderson, editors; introduction by Burton Goldberg. Edition Information: 2nd ed., [completely rev. and expanded]. Published/Created: Berkeley : Celestial Arts, c2002. Description: xxv, 1233 p. : ill. ; 29 cm. ISBN: 1587611406 Goldberg liked to take credit for other people's efforts. The authors of the first edition were "The Burton Goldberg Group" - he got his name on the cover, while others did the work. For the second edition, which you have listed, we editors finally got some credit.Jwander1 (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Good for you. Credit where credit is due. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Please consider changing the listing for the book in Further Reading. Thanks.Jwander1 (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Done. I assumed you had done it. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks - I appreciate it.Jwander1 (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Glad to be of help. Feel free to contact me if you ever need help here at Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC) The link People by astrological sign lists at Astrology Hi, I added earlier today the link above to the astrology article. Since I operate the site that was linked I opened a discussion about it the wwek before at the discussion page. As you can see there, I wrote reasons to adding the links. No one wrote anything about it for some days. After that, I added the link and wrote that in the discussion page. I understand that you don't think that the link should be added. Let's discuss the reasons in the discussion page. By the way, what is the problem with the English. Thanks, WhatWasDone (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC) You have a WP:COI, so your additions are considered WP:Linkspam. The English grammar isn't very good at all. The sentences are garbled or incomplete. It wouldn't be considered a RS here anyway. Otherwise it's an interesting site and I wish you luck with it. I too have a website and blog, but I can't use them here either. That's the way it works. The place to get the ultimate decision on this matter is here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Before you present your query there, read this very important policy page: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the guiding. I am aware of the WP:COI and therefore I wrote in my user page that I operate the site and started the discussion before editing. I didn't think about the reliability issue before. Since astrological sign is determined by the birth date which is given, my site is a Verifiable source and there for reliable. I start a discussion on that at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks a lot, WhatWasDone (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC) You're very welcome. Note that I have absolutely nothing against you or your website. Even though I don't believe in astrology, if the editors at the Noticeboard decide your website is reliable enough, then that would be great for you. BTW, "reliable" source doesn't mean exactly the same thing here as the word "reliable" means in other situations. It's close and of course related, but it's tied together with some of our other polices, which makes it a bit more complicated to understand. Wikipedia has many different policies and guidelines, and it can take a long time to get the hang of it, but just be patient and you'll get it. Good luck. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC) I have just taken a look at your entry at the Noticeboard. Sorry for misdirecting you, but I think you have gotten enough information there to guide you. I can certainly understand your disappointment, but the fact is that there are billions of websites, many of them very interesting and good, but most of which can't be used here. An encyclopedia has to limit itself to the most reliable and often notable websites as sources and external links. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC) You did help me a lot. I thank you for that. By the way, one can compute astrological sign without believing in astrology ;-) WhatWasDone (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC) True enough. I'm considered a Pisces, even if it's a month or so off what it originally was when astrology was first conceived.... -- Brangifer (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC) If you have time There is an editor editing the Reiki article. I know what he is doing is not policy and his pov is obvious by his user name. If you have time to look at this and handle it better than I, I would appreciate it. I am having troubles a bit with focusing and typing is hard for me a bit. On a different note, which if you would like you can take this part to email, I am going into surgery within the next few weeks for spinal surgery so I also will be on wikibreak soon for awhile. Thanks as always, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC) What a mess! They haven't a clue about editing here. Hopefully they'll get the point and not become disruptive. It does take time to learn the ropes here. Good luck with your surgery. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for taking care of this for me. I don't like to revert more than once except for obvious vandalism. I think I am going to need some luck, thanks. Well I'm off to lie down. Take care and thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Skepticism Thanks for stomping on that little bushfire - I've been away. Unfortunatly I've found looking through my watchlist quite depressing. I don't know how you have the patients! (pun intended?) Cheers, Verbal chat 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009 News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson Features and admins: Approved this week Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Cyberstalking Request located here. You should nominate your talk page for semi-protection from IPs & un-established editors, click here for a shortcut or just say the word and I'll nominate it for you, Just a tip! I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Done. Thanks for the idea! -- Brangifer (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC) I have semi-protected your page for one year. Please leave a notice at WP:RFPP if you wish to change it, or leave a note at my talk page. Cirt (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks! -- Brangifer (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009 From the editor: Writers needed Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera Features and admins: Approved this week Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Detox and other sticky things Hey, minor thing, just wanted to let you know I updated the source and restored some text at Acupuncture detoxification; I really don't see how the text is "advertising". All it says is that (a) Smith founded the method, and (b) that he says it should be used as a comp- instead of alt-med. FWIW, (b) sounds to me like the responsible position to take on a technique that patients enjoy, is at worst placebo (and apparently provides something they aren't getting elsewhere), and quite safe when done as directed. It's perplexing and discouraging to see all teh dramaz around your Wikiproject:User Rehab idea, which I think deserves a chance, although I'm too busy IRL to jump in. A silver lining: to the extent that this contentious stuff is a harbinger of where the wikiproject could go, maybe it's nature's way of saying: careful, this thing could be a tar baby; are you sure you want to mess with it? best regards, Middle 8 (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC) I wasn't aware that he was the founder. That should be made clear. Right now it just says he developed a particular proctocol. It isn't obvious that his protocol is exactly the same as the subject of the article. It could be infered that it is a variation of the protocol, which could have been founded by someone else. Make sure of the facts and source them. The reference didn't work when I checked it, but it does now. That link is used twice, both as a reference and an external link. It should only be kept for the internal link. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009 License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace? WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations Features and admins: Approved this week Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Personal attacks You have a history of making personal attacks such as repeating claims that the POV of two very different editors you don't agree with is indistinguishable, even after one of them protested. Latest instance: 6 June 15:45: User:Whig shocked by User:NootherIDAvailable's claim that homeopathy can cure cancer. [22] 7 June 00:03: You make a point of calling NOIDA Whig's ally. [23] 7 June 00:41–01:26: Whig makes it very clear that he agrees with NOIDA being blocked.[24] 12 June 13:48: "[NOIDA] has been universally opposed with the exception of a couple editors like Whig, who share the same POV." [25] Per WP:NPA you are not supposed to make such personal attacks ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.") unless you can prove them. In this case you knew that the accusation was false. This is very similar to what you did to me when you called me a meat puppet of a previous incarnation of NOIDA.[26] (February 2009) This is also similar to what you did to User:Unomi, who at that time was being harrassed by several editors under the lead of Orangemarlin [27] (who switched accounts shortly after I took him to task for this and another, unrelated incident, and while I was preparing a user RfC), when you publicly smeared him on ANI as having "slip[ped] through" the fishing checkuser case that had come out strongly negative.[28][29] When I confronted you about this, you were as evasive as after your attack on me and continued to make similar unfounded disparaging claims about Unomi.[30] (March 2009) This unacceptable behaviour needs to stop. I advise you that two of the three instances fall under the homeopathy article probation and that I will report the next applicable instance to WP:AE. I will also ask User:Tim Vickers to comment here. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Since none of these comments are serious attacks, although some are certainly unfriendly and impolite, I think I'll give some general advice that will apply to anybody reading this page. Hopefully this will head off any problems in the future. The highly-charged "battleground" atmosphere around these controversial areas, added to the stream of sockpuppet accounts, can lead some editors to focus on who the other people editing the article are, if they are sockpuppets, and endless arguments about the subject in general. This is never productive. Try to avoid even mentioning suspicions about sockpuppets on article talkpages since a suspicion aired early may well be wrong, in which case you only aggravate people, or may be right, in which case you warn the other editor to be more careful before you have enough evidence for a real sock report. I myself try to focus on the text of the article and the sources used - nothing else. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Deja vu! I've been here before and I'm not going to bite. For Tim, this type of debate with Hans has occurred before and it never did end properly because of the apparent impossibility of understanding each other. I suspect part of it is based on language differences. It just went on and on forever. When a debate is based on misunderstandings and strawmen, no one can win. Since many of the accusations are in my opinion false, strawmen, or twisted and one-sided versions of occurrences, it is impossible for me to really defend myself, so I will just say that Hans shouldn't be so sensitive and should note that this is indeed a personal attack against me, and a very aggressive one at that, even stating that I "knew that the accusation was false". That's more than just a statement, but a judging of motives. As to Tim's advice, it is the ideal. I'm not perfect and I have on occasion stated what everyone knew, that Whig (who has been blocked before) has acted as an ally would act much of the time, and that he is a very avid pusher of homeopathic nonsense here. THAT is not a personal attack, but a statement of well-known fact. That he can't tolerate the use of the common joking method of referring to homeopathy as "homeopathetic" is truly sad. A sense of humor would do more good than getting offended by my reply to another user. Instead he got offended and when made aware that I wasn't talking to him, he still berated me. That's a personal attack. No, I could go on and try to defend myself, but I know from experience that it would be futile effort. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Déjà vu indeed. You attack someone, your target objects. You repeat your accusation without proof. And when taken to task you claim it's all a misunderstanding due to language problems. The proof that you knew your accusation against Whig was incorrect and offensive is in the timeline above. For your convenience the relevant passages from Talk:Homeopathy: Lead (again) [...] Homeopathy can cure a lot of conditions that allopathy is unable to treat (e.g.Cancer)!-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC) [anonymous comment] It is completely false and irresponsible to say that homeopathy cures cancer [...]. Using homeopathy to the exclusion of other modalities is risky and inappropriate in many cases [...]. —Whig (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC) [...] Succussion [...] [...] BTW, your ally, NootherIDAvailable, has just been indef blocked as a sock of Dr.Jhingaadey. I say "ally" because you happen to make many of the same arguments in efforts to advocate for homeopathy. [...] Brangifer (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC) [...] My ally? [31] Whig (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Ally? On the cancer matter, apparently not, otherwise nearly identical. [...] Brangifer (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Please stop trying to make personally disparaging remarks about me, it is not appropriate or acceptable behavior. I have no relationship with the individual who was blocked and I would agree with the blocking. You seem to think that everyone who isn't a homeopathy denialist is entitled to be attacked. That is not right. [...] Whig (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Don't worry about being called his ally. Fyslee called me his meatpuppet and I am still waiting for a retraction. Perhaps we should create Category:Allies and meatpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey? --Hans Adler (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Then, just a week later, you smear Whig on User talk:NootherIDAvailable, a page which he is presumably not watching since he never commented there: He has been universally opposed with the exception of a couple editors like Whig, who share the same POV. Then in this very section you repeat the unfounded accusation, just with a little qualification ("much of the time") added to be safe: [...] I have on occasion stated what everyone knew, that Whig (who has been blocked before) has acted as an ally would act much of the time, and that he is a very avid pusher of homeopathic nonsense here. THAT is not a personal attack, but a statement of well-known fact. No acknowledgement that calling someone's opinions completely false and irresponsible and saying that blocking him was justified was not exactly the typical behaviour of an ally. No promise to be more careful in the future. Instead new attacks such as a parenthetical "who has been blocked before" (quite pathetic in the light of [32]), the strawman of "homeopathetic" [33][34] (which happens to be on the same page but is not in the diffs I presented above), and a completely unprovoked, apparently preemptive introduction of the word "strawmen". If you want to see the world in black and white only that's sad but nobody else's business. When you attack random editors you don't agree with (first me, now Whig) by claiming their positions are essentially indistinguishable from those of a banned user, or even (in the absence of any evidence) that they support a banned user, it poisons the atmosphere and gets into the area of WP:NPA. Editors who are sympathetic with a fringe topic and try to keep its coverage accurate and the debunking within reasonable amounts are much more vulnerable to character assassination than pseudo-sceptic editors who try to maximise the debunking and have no interest in the topic otherwise. I have gone through the first seven items in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2#Evidence of disputed behavior and found that the descriptions are very misleading: the actual diffs are no worse than some of yours. If you doubt it I will provide them. It will save time in case a user conduct RfC on you becomes necessary. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC) I see you discovered the carefully guarded secret that I, many years ago, have actually been blocked ONCE (along wih Levine2112) for 3rr! Even those blocks were contested because the blocking admin couldn't count, but whatever. You're going to ruin my good reputation. ;-) I think Whig's long history of appeances on noticeboards, topic bans(?), and his impressive block log all speak for itself. There have been some pretty heavy matters there compared to my ONE run-in with an admin who had lots of problems and left the project. When two editors share the same POV in many aspects and generally back each other up, calling them allies isn't a misuse of the word, and definitely not a personal attack. In English (and I suspect in German) using qualifiers is still the proper thing to do. That's how language works. I did not "know" until it was brought to my attention later that he had objected to a statement that made homeopaths look bad, and even then he didn't totally disagree, but also claimed homeopathy can cure cancer, a statement you conveniently leave out above. When it was brought to my attention that there had been an objection in one instance, I did make an exception. That's the proper thing to do. That doesn't nullify that in many other ways they share the same POV, and that's not an attack, it's just an inconvenient fact, which is made even more inconvenient when it later comes to light that Whig had been defending a notorious, repeatedly blocked, sock puppetmaster. Somehow my mentioning that someone has a fringe POV is bad if they really are believers in fringe POV, but your calling skeptics "pseudo-skeptics" (revealing you don't understand the concept) is alright? That's not an attack? In your overly-sensitive book you should consider what you said a gross personal attack. If I acted like you I should be making a big fuss like you're doing, but that would be below my dignity. When Whig mistakenly responds (attacks me) to my lighthearted skeptical response ("homeopathetic") to ANOTHER skeptical editor (who understands perfectly) and gets offended because HE mistakenly thinks I'm responding to him, THAT'S suddenly supposed to be MY problem? He didn't even apologize for his mistake or attack on me. Why didn't you make a big fuss about that? Did I make a big deal about it and take him to task, go to his talk page and berate him, threaten AN/I, WP:AE, or RfC/U, ALL OF WHICH YOU ARE DOING??? (Talk about personal attacks!) Of course not. I let it pass. I'm not seeking war like you seem to be doing. Since when are you somehow so perfect that you have a right to cast stones and be so extremely sensitive that you can't take small imagined or even real slights like a man? You have attacked other people, don't forget that. When you become perfect, then you might be qualified to cast stones, but even then, the one who first mentioned "casting stones" wasn't seeking war but peace. Even though he was perfect, he didn't cast stones, but offered forgiveness. Now that's not conflict escalation, but de-escalation. Think about doing that next time you're tempted.... Since this is headed for being just like the last time we discussed similar matters, I suggest you just drop the matter and leave this talk page, and don't return to discuss this matter. (Other subjects is okay.) I'm archiving this disgraceful revealing of your petty combativeness, and if you wish to make Wikipedia a battlefield and escalate this personal attack on me, as you seem threatening to do, that will indeed reveal you're not interested in peace but in escalating conflicts, which is unwikipedian, the opposite of dispute resolution, and isn't very conducive to improving things, but only in defending your (and Whig's) wounded ego. I really have a hard time having much respect for such overly-sensitive reactions. Good-bye. BTW, I generally do respect many of your contributions as a scientist. Keep up the good work in that regard. This type of pettiness, especially in defense of other people who happen to have their own serious issues with pushing fringe POV in a manner that has caused much disruption and gotten them into serious trouble, only detracts from your reputation. You should be above such things. If Whig's got a problem (which he often does), let him defend himself. As it is he doesn't seem to have learned from his blocks and mentoring and might need to visit that again. If you have other more peaceful matters to discuss, you're always welcome here. I'm always open to constructive dialogue that helps to improve the encyclopedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)