User talk:Sciencewatcher/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Nice edits

I'm enjoying reading your well-reasoned analysis of articles that the alternative medicine types throw into articles. Welcome aboard. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Although sometimes inactive, I think Sciencewatcher is one of the best pseudoscience editors on wikipeida. Cool Hand Luke 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you mean he's one of the best science editors on Wikipedia, and he also brings critical balance to psuedoscientific articles.  :) Actually, haven't seen him until yesterday. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. (I didn't want to write "anti-pseudoscience" because editor follows reliable sources to ensure that pseudoscientific topics are written from a neutral point of view.) Cool Hand Luke 18:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Keep up the good work.--Sciencewatcher (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

The original tag was placed by Guido den Broeder. I was just moving it because a large tag was placed halfway through the section. I have no idea why the POV tag was originally placed. JamesStewart7 (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The tag was placed because the bottom part of the section was not supported by the references. I have corrected that. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me know...

if you receive more personal attacks like these. That sort of behavior cannot be allowed to continue. E4043 (talk · contribs) also made this edit today, FYI. — Scientizzle 15:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this and reverting it. I have never heard of Steven Novella. It's funny what goes on in some people's heads. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

ME/CFS

You are presently adding a huge amount of false, tendentious information to numerous pages related to ME/CFS, thereby breaking various policies and guidelines. Please stop. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll just repeat what WLU just told you: don't be a dick. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reported about your behaviour at AN/I here. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 07:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

GdB is talking about you

Go here. I'd respond, but I just edited the articles instead. And also dropped a note on the talk page of the unblocking admin. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I suspected this might happen. I'm going to stop editing for a while so I don't make myself look bad. It's better if others look at the disputed articles so it isn't just me against Guido all the time. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish you had dropped me a line earlier. I focus on removing CAM cruft from medical articles...don't even get me started on CFS. I'll edit awhile, although my skills are just to compare sources with statements. You do not know how many times editors think a source supports something, and it's not even close. I know, you're shocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a continual battle, although the articles do seem to be getting better. CFS is worse than most so that's where I concentrate my efforts, although even the CFS articles are improving. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done a pretty comprehensive move and clean-up based purely on the page name problems. Hopefully that'll clear up some of the issues, but we'll see. I've also made the naming controversy quite prominent in the CFS article (first paragraph, second sentence) - it is a confusing terminology and split, and people should be able to see right away that there's not just one term for it. If the ME/CFS wasn't so damned ugly and didn't mess with the sub-pages so much, I'd be inclined to leave it but this is a close second. It looks like whoever put those articles together/spun them out of the main article didn't have much familiarity with the rules around here, and even the wikiproject doesn't seem to be a real wikiproject. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work, WLU. I haven't gone through all your changes, but it looks like you've done a good job of presenting a NPOV. I think it was Jagra who originally spun off the sub-articles. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Given how huge CFS is now, after the split, it needed to happen. It's much easier to move and rename than it is to write, so I still deserve less credit than whoever did the heavy lifting. I'm certain we've had the discussion before about what to name ME/CFS, I'm certain I've posted or read google results before, which makes me wonder why we're discussing this again. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 18:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

AN/I about WLU

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:WLU. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC

You may not know, but there was a fairly recent user conduct RFC concerning issues similar to those you raised at WP:ANI: see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder. It was closed due to a block for other reasons, but it looks worth reactivating. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You are at or beyond WP:3RR at Chronic fatigue syndrome management. Please stop reverting and use other means of dispute resolution (whether talk page discussion, third opinion, RFC, or anything else). Continuing to revert may get you blocked. Fram (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It was originally my change, which Guido reverted, so he is at one higher revert than me. Also he refuses to discuss the reasons for the tags, and keeps putting them in, which is why I have removed them. Seeing as you have noted this, I would appreciate it if you would help resolve this. I alreday posted in the admin incidents noticeboard but nobody was interested. Thanks. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I note with interest that Guido has warned both you and JFW that you will be blocked! --Sciencewatcher (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no rush, we have only so many hours in a day. Nobody dies if the section remains tagged for longer than five minutes. Currently I am waiting for you to respond to the concerns that I posted on the talk page. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I already addressed them. If you still have a problem, use the talk page, don't just keep adding the tags back. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And also: please don't accuse me of vandalism when I clearly wasn't vandalising anything. If anyone was close to doing that it was you, although your actions didn't meet the wikipedia definition of vandalism either. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it works. The dispute is still there, so that must be indicated. If we can't find a solution between the two of us, we should seek help, but removing dispute tags just because you get impatient is forbidden. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 15:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You just said "you have yet to address my concens", but you gave no indication of why or how. If you won't discuss your objections, then clearly there is no valid disupte. I am (and always have been) happy to discuss anything you have a problem with. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I will try explaining my concerns again, if you are wiliing to return the tags. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 15:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've put the tags back in. Thanks. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I expect to have some more time for this article tomorrow. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 15:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

No e-mail? I've a comment for ye which is better in private, but here's the vague version:

Talk page posts are bluster without sources, and so long as the talk page suggestions are not implemented there's not much point in fussing over the blustering. Now that there are sources to review for CFS, there's no point in provoking the discussion. Review the sources, but let's leave the opinions on anything but the sources out of it whenever possible.

Ya, I'm a huge hypocrite. I feel bad about it too, but the nice thing about reminding other people is that you get a nudge yourself. So I'm trying to stay cool as a cucumber, based on this comment.

God I am a HUGE hypocrite. There should be an antibarnstar for giant hypocrites, I'd get three. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 20:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've added email to my account. Anyway, sorry I didn't realise I was treading on anyone's toes. Rather than posting huge diatribes (not pointing a finger at you or anyone in particular) I tend to summarise and post a few relevant refs when necessary or when someone asks. It gets irksome when certain people (again not you) ask for refs and when you post them they inevitibly find some fault with them, so discussing in general summary terms sometimes seems a better solution...i.e. you have posted all the refs and now it's time to discuss them in overview. Obviously when some people have a fixed pov this is pretty pointless and doesn't achieve anything, and unfortunately the CFS articles are well and truly in that position right now. However I will take your advice and try to avoid too much comment and stick to posting what other people have said in journals, etc. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, I generally ignore the talk page, unless it's something useful, which you find on well-done medical articles, where intelligent and civil individuals discuss a new drug or therapy that should be added to an article. When you get to a talk page with long-winded, tendentious editors, like someone who shall remain nameless, but has been blocked more times than I can count on two hands, I utilize the rarely used template, WP:TLDR. Just a suggestion. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tried that, but I ended up getting warnings from admins. It seems the admins want you to interact with the individuals, which doesn't really seem to achieve anything. The problem seems to be wikipedia is too tolerant of bad behaviour...even repeat vandals who just put the word "dick" randomly into pages all the time just get blocked 5 times in a row and never seem to get banned. Any other site (including the one I moderate) they would have been permanently banned long ago. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi SW. 90% of the time the talk page is useful (perhaps a better way is "with 90% of the editors). Personally I highly encourage you to use them, particularly with contested edits (you really can't have a good discussion via edit summaries). On the CFS page, I really think the sources adequately do the talking for us - ME and CFS are not differentiated. A source is always worth more than a discussion on the talk page though.

You're not treading on my toes by the way, and I do post long diatribes (I've added WP:TLDR to my talk page : ). CFS is not the usual example of most pages, but it is an example of a difficult page to work on. You may also be interested in WP:DNFTT - if it's just pontificating, it won't end up changing the main page. You can point out the flaws and policy/guideline based objections and ignore the irrelevant stuff. It's less satisfying than a flamewar, but it usually ends up with a consensus page rather than a pile of bitterness. You may, or may not, be interested in this very long essay I wrote, it's an optimist's guide to wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks WLU, I'll read those when I have time. I agree that the CFS page is difficult. I think it might be better to just have an admin arbitrate a solution, as I don't know if there is going to be agreement this time. Also, you must admit that there are a lot more problems now - due to a certain editor - than there have been in the past. The disputes always got resolved in the past after discussion on the talk page, but this time I can't see any resolution happening. Your advice to ignore the crap is good - I'm not going to make any comment unless I can shed some useful light on the discussion. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WLU, 90% of editors are definitely worth reading. Unfortunately, I'd argue that other 10% can really wreck a talk page. It's one person, oftentimes, ranting for kb's of bandwidth. You should read the history of these articles. Note how peaceful they were for months, when a certain editor, who's been blocked before, was blocked. Why do we spend so much time rehabilitating (and often failing) these tendentious and frankly not so useful editors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Undent. OM, I totally agree that in this case, Guido is a problem, not an assistance. We work with the tendentious editors because 90% of the time they end up blocked or banned, but in 10% you get a great contributor. I was a tendentious editor, I like to think I'm at least partially redeemed. The system works, it's just not great for the impatient, in my opinion. Unfortunately I'm hugely impatient, so I skirt on thin ice more than I should. The nice thing is, when someone ends up blocked, they've usually caused so much work on the page that when they leave, the consensus version that remains is very strong and well-supported. Sciencewatcher, for what it's worth your last two posts here are excellent in tone and approach - in 90% of the cases that would be appropriate and fruitful. Deal with the content, ignore the baiting and coyness. Also not that admin's aren't superusers, the next step would be perhaps a request for comment, perhaps mediation. Arbitration is different and very serious, I don't know if it'll end up there. I hope not 'cause arbitration is hugely time consuming. If you're looking for a good example on how to deal with problematic editors, User:TimVickers is great in my opinion (but please don't go ask him for help, that'd look like forum shopping). All my advice and opinion, not guaranteed to work. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As you can see in the RFC comment above, this has already been done. Anyway, I've already posted an entry on the admin incidents board (now deleted/archived), and doing anything else would just be forum shopping. I'm just going to leave it to someone else, or more likely until the admins get so fed up they actually decide to do something. In the meantime I'm just going to work with the editor as best I can, and I suspect that mediation will be involved in a few articles. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U have never really worked in my experience, they might be good with an editor who is willing to listen to what others have to say and try to improve based on that. I have seen one AN/I posting that resulted in a topic ban, but it has to be very obviously problematic. I can link if you'd like but there ain't much there, it was a WP:SPA which makes things easier. A RFC on content is usually very helpful though. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 10:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)