User talk:Curtis Bledsoe

Welcome!

Hello, Curtis Bledsoe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Stephen Barrett

Hi, can you please not make sweeping changes to Stephen Barrett without discussion on the Talk page first? Thanks Shot info 04:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few comments to Talk:Stephen Barrett that you might be interested in, including a reply to your comment. If you want to make a case for your previous edits, you could use Wp:blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material as support. --Ronz 02:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One way to avoid an edit war is to discuss before deleting, esp since it appears as if there has already been an edit war. Also, I think your comments about "detractors" were presumptuous - I don't know that Wikipedia has a rule prohibiting people with strong feellngs, or who are even a 'target' as you put it, from editing. I agree with you that the quotes that have no sources, or someone's individual website as a source, should be deleted. I believe that is where we are going on the talk page (see the last edits on the Barrett talkpage). But insulting an editor is not a good way to gain support.Jance 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I "insulted" any editors here. If I did, I'd like the chance to consider apologizing. Could to show me where? --Curtis Bledsoe 15:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I did some research on some of the targets of Barrett - at least, Hulda Clark. From all I can tell, she is every bit the quack described by Barrett. I have no great expertise in homeopathy, but I doubt its efficacy. Nonethless, there seems to be some FDA regulation supporting those 'medications'. What is unfortunate is that Barrett has chosen to go after some of the 'alternative' companies without any evidence or proof to support his lawsuit. The court rightfully granted a directed verdict there - and pointed out that Barrett can not be considered an expert in these areas. While Barrett was not 'de-certified' as some alleged, he did retire in 1993, and has no documentation of continuing education, nor does he have advanced degrees in the areas he claimed to be an expert. It is my feeling that this should be the criticism of his methods - and not a litany of unreliable personal websites by those Barrett criticized.Jance 06:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just becuse someone doesn't have advanced degrees in something doesn't mean they're not an expert. Just as some people who *do* have advanced degrees in something are not experts. I don't know much about the details of Barrett's legal activities, I know him only as a source of good information about quacks and the target of much derision by quacks and their defenders. There's nothing wrong with including legitimate criticism of Barrett's techniques or whatever. The key word there is "legitimate". I think we both agree that the source needs to be carefully considered. We also agree that sources like the Village Voice are valid while the personal websites of Barrett's target and/or those who feel threatened by him are not. --Curtis Bledsoe 15:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The issue of "expert" in the context I raised it was a legal question of evidence in court. I agree that Barrett has provided good information, and from what I can see, the information he presents on his website is based on reputable science. I believe Barrett is genuinely concerned about the dangers "quacks" present to people who are desperate and duped. He does not seem to be the same as Milloy in "Junkscience.com" who argues that second-hand smoke is safe, global warming does not exist, and that evolution is bad science...oh yeah, and who has been exposed for his ties to tobacco and other lobbies. I bring this up because I earlier thought that they were the same group.

The pertinent question of Barrett's legal involvement is whether or not a private citizen like Barrett or a non-profit corp should investigate (and evidently prosecute) scam artists and dubious medical practices, or whether he should leave it to regulatory agencies and state authorities. The former allows an abuse of the legal system, imho, and in the opinion of the court. I don't think Barrett has thought through the implications of giving any private citizen carte blanche authority to sue a company (or individual) of wrongdoing, and then shift the burden of proof to the defendant (to prove he didn't do what was claimed). There is a reason investigative and prosecutorial authority are government-controlled. We have Constitutional protections against abusive governments, but do not have such protection against private persons. Just ask any abused homeowner of a condo or homeowner association board. My guess is that Barrett was thinking like a doctor, and not a lawyer. In medicine, it is rightfully the duty of the medical practitioner making the claim or manufacturing the product to prove its safety. In courts of law, it is not the duty of the defendant in a private lawsuit to prove that the plaintiff's case is false. This is the "method" which is questionable, and perhaps an interesting point to make in the article. (Also, it looks like Barrett or his org. got mixed up with a lawyer that wasn't very good.) And, as to the defamation cases - I don't think Barrett understood the legal definition of defamation. Sadly, it appears that his attorney didn't either. "Malice" in this context is not synonymous with malicious. It is making a false statement with knowledge or reckless disregard for the truth (without any reasonable investigation). Also, Barrett is a public figure and the matters he raises are of public interest. The bar for defamation is very high, irrespective of the federal "Communications Decency Act." I don't condone public personal attacks,. But Barrett has made pubic attacks against individual "medical" practitioners whom he considers quacks (and who probably are quacks). Rightly or wrongly, he has to expect verbal backlash by those same people. He will have a heavy burden to prove defamation. Jance 21:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Barrett "prosecuting" people? No. He's doing what any citizen has the right to do, commenting on the public claims of individuals who are selling goods and/or services. --Curtis Bledsoe 23:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Curtis, he was. If you read the case cited, NCAHF argued (and so has Barrett but not in the court case) that he should be able to sue a company and shift the burden of proof to the defendant in this case. That is why I said he was thinking like a doctor and not a lawyer. I said that to provide an understandable 'defense' for him. The attorney who took that case should have known better. NCAHF (and he) argued that a private person should have the same authority as the attorney general in investigating these claims, and shifting the burden of proof. So yes, I'd call that prosecuting. That was the whole POINT of the court case. There is nothing wrong (in my opinion) in his having Quackwatch and expressing his opinion and presenting studies/the science on questionable practices. I think it is a good thing. So your comment here is absurd. And you might notice that I have not used the word "prosecute" in the this article. But read the case! (Before you claim that my paragraph is unreferenced).

And I support you in removing unreliable webpages, esp. Bolen's.Jance 23:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem?

I don't know who you are, but you should stop vandalizing the Barrett article. What you are doing can not be called anything but vandalism, especially after all the warnings you have received.Jance 21:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do NOT have support for your massive deletions even from those who fervently support Barrett (and I am rather neutral). What you are doing is nothing but vandalism, and is being treated that way - and not just by me.Jance 05:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to learn the difference between vandalism and a good-faith edit. --Curtis Bledsoe 05:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the difference. And what you are doing is vandalism. Deletion of an entire section, after you were told to not do that is vandalism. Also, if you even bothered to read the case you would see that the section has NO editorializing. The section is EXACTLY what the court stated. The mere dismissal in this case is not the main point of it. The main point of the case for this article is NCAHF's belief that it could shift the burden of proof onto the defendant. This is NOT OR. You need to either learn to read or learn how to read a legal opinion before you start making accusations that you haven't a clue about .Jance 05:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you don't know the difference, otherwise you wouldn't continue to try to call good-faith edits "vandalism". --Curtis Bledsoe 05:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is a massive deletion a "good faith edit" after you had been asked not to do this? And, the section cites two different cases, and one is a hotlink. The other citation is a valid Wiki citation - it does not have to be a hotlink. You also should not be so free to throw around words like "slander" that you evidently don't understand. Jance 05:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it isn't a "massive deletion". A "massive deletion" is what you did - removing a large percentage of the updated article. All I did was remove a couple of paragraphs from a section that weren't supported by any verifiable link and which contained editorial comment that wasn't relevant or necessary to the section. --Curtis Bledsoe 05:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Jance.--I'clast 06:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section contained no editorial comment and did contain all references. A hotlink is not required to be used as a source. However, for your benefit, I added a hotlink that does have the scanned opinion. I thought the citation was more appropriate. Now we have both, as well as a link to the appellate decision. Finally, what you deleted was entirely relevant - indeed, it was on point - to this particular criticism of NCAHF. Jance 17:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does contain editorial comment. The question is whether or not you are able to recognize editorial comment for what it is. --Curtis Bledsoe 17:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that would be a "no". --Curtis Bledsoe 04:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to The National Council Against Health Fraud

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Ronz 06:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not edit warring. I'm simply protecting my edits from a petulant user. I will not violate the 3RR, but I will also not tolerate unsupported reverts to information that I have added to articles. --Curtis Bledsoe 06:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. It looks like you may have already violated 3rr with the last edit you made there. I agree that the position information that you added was repeatedly removed without good cause. However, it looks like you've removed some King Bio information 4 times now in the past day. You probably should restore it to avoid a 3RR block. --Ronz 06:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I have, though you are welcome to provide evidence to support your claim and if you are correct then I will undo the offending edit. --Curtis Bledsoe 17:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Since I gave you the warning at almost the exact same time that you made the edit, I think we can let it slide. --Ronz 17:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Ronz. (!!) Happy New Year, Ronz.--I'clast 06:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis, I do suggest that you scroll through September / October edits & Talk to get some idea of the previous editors' balncing that you are rushing through.--I'clast 06:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I would recommend that you make these suggestions to Jance and others. --Curtis Bledsoe 03:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reproducing webpages

Curtis, would you please try to summarize some of this as one would in any other paper? I absolutely agree that these points should be discussed. For the record, I am not 'anti-Barrett' and I personally agree with most of these things. However, reproducing a webpage is simply bad writing. Also, would you please look at the formatting of references elsewhere in the paper, so other editors do not need to clean up after you? Thank you.Jance 18:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I *am* providing a summary. It isn't like I'm simply putting the entire document into the article, that would quickly take the article over the 64k limit. I'm citing relevant portions of the article and providing a summary of the organization's position. --Curtis Bledsoe 18:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not. Also, you are incorrect on the breast implant article. Even the biggest proponent of Bi agrees there is *some* evidence. What you wrote is factually incorrect. Jance 00:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of causality in any of the studies cited. There are a lot of *anecdotal* claims, but that isn't the same thing. Also, the qualifier on the existence of evidence isn't the only thing that's wrong with the article. --Curtis Bledsoe 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true, Curtis. This is something I DO know something about. The fact is that there IS evidence. Even an anecdotal 'claim' is evidence. But more than that, there are recent studies that have findings that suggest there may be, in the Plastic Surgery journal, and so you can not say there is no evidence. It is true that there is no CLEAR evidence. Your following me with constant reversions is going to get you banned.Jance 00:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An anecdotal claim isn't evidence of anything beyond the opinion of the person making the claim. Someone's belief that they got sick because of implants isn't evidence that they actually did. It is just their opinion. That's why wider studies are necessary and if those wider studies show no increased incidence of illnesses among women who got silicone implants vs those who didn't - as is the case, then there is clearly no evidence to support a cause/effect relationship between implants and illness. There's a difference between "clearly no evidence" and "no clear evidence". For example, even though it may please you to think that I'm "following you", I'm not. --Curtis Bledsoe 00:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking you would say that. And, this is not actually true, by law or in medicine. I am not going to bother discussing anything with you since you refuse to listen, or discuss anything civilly. Jance 01:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly capable of discussing things civilly. The fact that you are unable or unwilling to support your edits and your claims but prefer to resort to name-calling and inappropriate reversion suggests that you're not up to the challenge. --Curtis Bledsoe 03:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are capable of doing so, you might try it - it relieves much tension. I agree tht it is better not to edit than to be condescending, combative and wrong. so I'm glad you have chosen to stay away from articles that you don't seem to understand. Thanks!Jance 07:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Breast implant

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Ronz 01:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't violated 3RR. It is true that I have made repeated edits to the article in question and they have been repeatedly thwarded by a users who clearly HAS violated 3RR but hasn't yet been blocked and, it doesn't look like he will be so I'm not sure what the point of the 3RR rule is. --Curtis Bledsoe 03:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I counted 4 reverts, myself.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show me. --Curtis Bledsoe 03:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show me. --Curtis Bledsoe 04:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2][3][4] -Wildnox (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. #4 is clearly not a revert. It was an attempt to approach the problem from a different direction and not a revert at all. Please do me a favor in future and try not to treat me like an idiot. It is rather insulting. --Curtis Bledsoe 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partial reverts are still reverts. --Wildnox (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a revert at all - partial or otherwise. It was an entirely fresh edit. Surely there's no rule against editing the same section more than three times. I do it all the time and so do lots of people here and no one says anything about it. I think it would really help if you believed me when I say that I'm not a moron. --Curtis Bledsoe 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether there are 3 or 4 reverts is a small matter. The 3rr rule is quite clear that the limit doesn't serve as a license, it serves as a flexible standard. Edit warring, which has clearly been happening, clogs history pages with the conflict and doesn't contribute anything to resolving it. Talk page discussion would do that. Curtis, can you agree to start discussing this on the talk page and cease the revert warring?--Kchase T 05:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the individual in question here, Jance, doesn't care much about what's said on the talk pages but rather seeks to impose his own POV on issues regardless of facts presented. In that case, I think I can be forgiven for reverting three times on the trot. However, since the 3RR wasn't enforced against Jance, even though he clearly reverted at least four times, I wonder what effect the rule should be expected to have. Why should anyone follow a rule that isn't enforced? --Curtis Bledsoe 05:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I wouldn't block either of you for 3rr because you both have quit reverting since getting warnings. Even if you both violated 3rr, I wouldn't block either of you if you quit after warnings, which both of you seem to have done. Blocks aren't for punishment of policy violations.--Kchase T 05:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed my warning) --Ronz 05:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(removed my indignation at unsubstantiated accusations) --Curtis Bledsoe 05:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, let's try not to escalate this any further, please.--Kchase T 05:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's certainly at liberty to withdraw his unsubstantiated allegations. I'm happy to drop it if he will, but I can't let such things stand. --Curtis Bledsoe 05:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both.--Kchase T 05:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please remove this [5] as a sign of good faith? The second part that is. Thanks. --Ronz 18:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a sign of good faith, I will remove my comment in anticipation of you removing the comment that lead to it. --Curtis Bledsoe 18:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since he has refused to demonstrate any good faith in this regard, including rudely removing two polite reminders from his own talk page, I'll just go ahead and remove them myself. --Curtis Bledsoe 21:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving this

OK, do you want to tell me what your view of the situation is (without any attacks or ad hominen stuff, please). How can we resolve this?--Kchase T 05:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and thank you for asking me. First, my view of the situation is that I'm trying to improve the NCAHF article and being continually thwarted in the attempts. I have made many good-faith attempts to add relevant and clearly-sourced material to the article only to have had those attempts thwarted at every turn. That's my view. As to the solution, I don't know what to say there. In my opinion, several editors here need to show a lot more humility and cooperation than they've shown to date. But that's just my opinion and even if it were objective fact, I wouldn't have any idea how to enforce it. I'm not sure I would enforce it even if I could. The way I see it, the greatest strength of wikipedia (that anyone can edit it) is also its greatest weakness. But in the end, I think the article will get better in spite of the inevitable squabbling because whatever short-term weaknesses the system may have, I believe its strength will win out in the end. --Curtis Bledsoe 05:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curtis, Thanks for your recent edits on NCAHF and related articles. I'm glad to see you working with other editors to resolve the current dispute. I notice that on your user profile that you mention you intend to declare open war on things that piss you off. The open stucture of Wikipedia is indeed a great strength, but the greatest strength of Wikipedia is the policy of civility and assumption of good faith, even when editors disagree with you or make changes you believe are in error. An aggressively confrontational style suggested by your profile doesn't really fit with the goals of the project. I agree with you that carefully sourced statements are necessary, but we also have to be mindful of copyright issues, which make it necessary in some cases to paraphrase rather than quoting extensively. At any rate, I am glad you are here and contributing, and I hope you'll continue to help us improve these articles! Passion and high standards are great, but I hope you will continue to work with good faith and civility as you have started to do todaay. Thanks! Jokestress 20:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I changed my profile page to make it clear that I have declared war on *things* but not people. You'll be glad to know, I'm sure, that there is no "copyright issue" with regard to the NCAHF page. There never was. It was simply a red-herring put forward by a now-departed (fortunately, in my view) user who had no other argument to make in opposition to my attempts to make the article in question clearer and more accurate. However, I have to reject your implication that I haven't shown good faith or civility before today. I have shown it from the beginning and I'll thank you to recognize that fact. --Curtis Bledsoe 20:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of User Talk Page comments

FYI: Deleting other users' comments for your Talk page (as you did with JzG's comment) is a bad practice, especially when it relates to current disputes.

In this situation it may give the appearance that you are trying to hide help or criticism, which (even though unintentional) can only complicate your situation.

Please understand that I mean this helpfully, and am not trying to get on your case. / edgarde 21:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to express your opinion, but as JzG's commentary was rude and unhelpful, I'll feel free to delete it (and anything else I like) from my own talk page. Especially as it contained a great deal of misinformation. --Curtis Bledsoe 21:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally a reply (Thanks, by the way!) is better than a deletion. A concise message like "That was unhelpful, and contained a great deal of misinformation" would suffice.

The same would be applicable to the current "Cleanup". You might want to revert those last couple changes just to ward off further trouble. If you feel your page is getting long, you might consider archiving it instead of deleting.

Following this suggestion might help keep you out of trouble. (Not a threat — said trouble wouldn't be coming from me.)

Hope this helps. / edgarde 21:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it helps, thank you. The problem with a reply to an unhelpful and deceptive post is that it tends to perpetuate the problem and even exacerbate it rather than resolving it. I don't always know how to reply to such things in a way that will make the situation better and not worse. In such cases, ignoring provocation is better than giving in to it. There have been enough baseless allegations of my incivility, I wouldn't want to provide anyone with a legitimate example to use against me later. --Curtis Bledsoe 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing NCAHF positions - RFC?

While I don't agree with your position, it doesn't look like you're going to back down from it [6]. Perhaps the best next step is for a WP:RFC on the matter. --Ronz 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is willing to give a better alternative then I'll be happy to support it. It would be wrong of me to support an inaccurate version of the article. --Curtis Bledsoe 23:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inexperienced with RFCs myself, but it appears the suggestions there on what to do before adding an entry have all been followed. You do make some interesting points that obviously aren't addressed in wiki policies and guidelines. --Ronz 23:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, including long quotes made the article extremely long. And Curtis has refused to state why any of the summaries were inaccurate, other than they were not the quotes he desired. That said, I think an RfC would be a good idea, since he does not seem willing to compromise. On a different note, Curtis' edits on Breast Implant were incorrect - even Droliver disagreed with them, and I don't think there is a breast implant he doesn't like.Jance 00:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion as to what is "long" is irrelevant. I find it interesting that someone is actually complaining about information being put *into* an article. That would seem to be the point of having an article in the first place - that it contain information. And in any case, didn't you say you weren't going to edit anymore? --Curtis Bledsoe 04:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis, a while ago someone pulled a clear POV fork on me, primarily used for, IMHO, conventional "proselytizing" purposes, a complaint that I think had a lot more merit than your gross recopying. Was I unhappy? yes. Did I bitch? yes. Was anything done? yes, another editor ran an unplanned AfD. Did I do anything about it? yes, I said my piece on the AfD. Outcome? At least I had a few editors that agreed with me, but got mobbed anyway. Did I carry on an edit war? no. I relinquished to a consensus, cleaned up text, and moved on. You're now down on several rules and isolated on consensus; high quality hot links are your friends, not grossly recopied material. What if the homeopaths decide to start recopying everything into WP, just like you, but for the last two centuries instead?

Btw, Curtis, we don't discourage good editors from contributing, either.--I'clast 06:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't discourage anyone from contributing - though I see lots of other people here don't think twice about blocking input that goes against their personal POVs. And I have no trouble standing up to the mob if the mob is wrong. Arguments from consensus don't impress me much. I'd much rather listen to a single person making a reasoned argument than a mob of people agreeing with each other. As Robert Heinlein once pointed out: "a committee is a life form with three or more legs and no brain". Wikipedia needs more editors who will stand up to the mob. That's why wikipedia is a joke now. Too many articles are lowest-common-denominator rubbish while too many admins are here to indulge their power fantasies and too few are actually being good admins. I've actually had two admins threaten to block me permanently for having the "nerve" to make factual observations. They still might go through with it. If they do, they'll simply be demonstrating their own pettiness and incompetence. In the meantime, I'll keep trying to improve articles here until either I succeed or the some wikithug pushed the "eject" button. --Curtis Bledsoe 04:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a committee, we are all acting individually here. Interesting that you bring up "...demonstrating their own pettiness and incompetence..." Curtis, the primary benefit to your edits seems that you have enabled very disparate editors to come to agreement about something for a Chrismas truce. I suggest that you lose the "thug" part and learn more Wikietiquette. Two admins? I think you missed one or two.--I'clast 05:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a lot of insults packed into a short section, Curtis. Were you only to be so concise in your article edits. And l'clast, i agree with you - only two admins? :-) Jance 08:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis said, They still might go through with it.

I can tell you that I will not hesitate to block you if you continue to violate our policies and harass other editors. That is not being a "wikithug" or engaging in admin abuse; it's doing my job. You either need to follow our policies and guidelines or find somewhere else to edit. Attempting to ram your preferred version of articles down our throats will never work. Sorry.

I'clast said, Curtis, the primary benefit to your edits seems that you have enabled very disparate editors to come to agreement about something for a Chrismas truce.

Indeed. I was one of the admins who certified Jance's RfC! Sarah 17:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged copyright violations

Jance

Curtis, I'm not sure what you're up to here, but I've reviewed your contribs and comments like this and this make it look like you're deliberately and blatantly stalking, baiting and harassing Jance. Wikipedia is a community of volunteers who are trying to write a free encyclopedia. You are most welcome if you are here for the same purpose, but if you're just here to stir up problems, harass other editors, edit war and push your own biased version of these articles, you are going to find your editing privileges are very quickly revoked. Please stop poking Jance. If you continue stalking her edits, harassing her or baiting her, I will block you for disruption without further warning. Sarah 17:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second. How is observing that he has been blocked before for gross incivility supposed to equate to "stalking"? And I'd like to point that I am one of those volunteers who, in the course of trying to improve an article here has been subjected to a barrage of abuse and hostility by this Jance person who has been given the boot before for just exactly that sort of conduct. Now, all of a sudden I'm supposed to be the problem? Why don't you explain how that works? --Curtis Bledsoe 03:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Curtis I reviewed (skimmed) Jance's edit contributions at length, both sets. In one particular area, she has had minority problems from an invigorated consumer's point of view against insular, smarmy annointed experts that continually brushed her off, as well as being outnumbered by a certain group of "high status" editors that include some of the worst economic conflict of interest problems that I have seen at Wikipedia. And yes, she's made WP mistakes where experience in careful escalation, other policy knowledge and certain practices help. Jance's experience has nothing to do with your edits, your behavior, or our collective criticism of them. Curtis, my assessment is that your editing is close to the point where even some of your "natural allies" may (need to) repudiate you, not a good situation in an RfC. I would also invite you to re-read & re-consider JzG/Guy's pearls of advice[7] and wisdom. He is a very experienced admin.--I'clast 06:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop referring to Jance as "he". It is quite obvious that she is a female and it is offensive of you to continue referring to her with a male pronoun. I'm going to assume good faith and choose to believe that you aren't doing this deliberately and that you sincerely did not know that Jance is female (in spite of the fact everyone else refers to her with female pronouns) . Whether you are doing it deliberately or not, I suggest you knock it off immediately.

Observing that someone has previously been blocked is not what constitutes stalking. What constitutes stalking, harassment and baiting is you following her around, making deliberately provocative comments that can serve no purpose whatsoever except to escalate conflict. And then running off to report her, ask for her to be blocked and expect that you yourself won't be blocked for breaching 3RR and baiting her into edit warring. [8] Administrators aren't completely stupid, you know. When we investigate a report, we look at the involvement of both parties, not just the one being reported.

Regarding your attempt to use tu quoque as a defence for your own behaviour, it's just not going to fly here. No matter what Jance's history is, it does not give you a right (or excuse) to stalk, harass and bait her. Instead of worrying about Jance and whether or not she should be blocked, I think you ought to be worrying about yourself and your own status here.

Please consider this: So far, at least four independent administrators have reviewed your edits and objected to your behaviour. Perhaps, instead of dismissing this as "nasty admin bullies", you should consider the possibility that there is, in fact, a problem with your behaviour. Sarah 16:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Curtis Bledsoe 2

Is this you? If not, you might want to get it blocked. If it is you, I suggest you put a note on both user pages to that effect. Contributions here. Tyrenius 04:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computerized nutrition deficiency tests

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Computerized nutrition deficiency tests, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Chunky Rice 21:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Reams test

A tag has been placed on Reams test, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion A7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]