User talk:Sharavanabhava/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Non-critical

It was a joke at my own expense. You'll survive. Vanished User ^talk 20:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about the summary. As for the edit - well, see the talk page. The source given isn't very good (in that it's rambling and frequently off-topic), so I think that's all we can say based on it. If there's other sources, of course we can say more. Vanished User ^talk 20:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Response re RDO on Dana's talk page

Hi Whig. I have responded to your comment on Dana's talk page. If you want to debate it with me, why not come over to my talk page or debate it here to save Dana from having to read it. We could then make Dana aware of our conclusions, if any. He can join in too of course - it's just getting cluttered over there! Thanks --DrEightyEight (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which comment in particular you are wanting to debate, and I'm not sure why we should be discussing Dana behind his back. If you want to discuss something with me that has nothing to do with Dana, then of course this is the talk page you should be coming to. I am not Dana's mentor and am not responsible for him, so if you have concerns of that nature you'd be better off talking to LaraLove. —Whig (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Whig, I wasn't offering to talk about Dana behind his back, just clarify any confusion you had over the astrology reference and avoid cluttering Dana's page. Either you can't comprehend English or you are deliberately misinterpreting things. I now see that you are a very uncivil person, so I will no longer have any discussions with you. Goodbye. --DrEightyEight (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should you be clarifying RDOlivaw's astrology reference? Let RDOlivaw come here and clarify him/herself. Nor have I been uncivil with you. —Whig (talk)

Whig, Dr88 has a clear MO: He feigns emotional rupture from the slightest remarks and calls people "uncivil" whether it exists or not. Then, any error that other people make are not just minor errors but evidence, according to him, of sheer ignorance. I don't live in that black and white world, and I hope that we all honor the world of rainbows. Dana Ullman ^Talk 03:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye to them "both", I guess. —Whig (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Vanished

What happened to Vanished? Anthon01 (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe he has left Wikipedia. —Whig (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I believe he was involved in having me banned. Anthon01 (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Involved or not, he didn't ban you. East718 did. —Whig (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that. See here. [1] Anthon01 (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Not my concern. I'm sure whatever East718 did was in good faith. —Whig (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You may get a kick out of this (kaneh bosem)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kabbalistic_tree_of_life_plus_hemp.png

Cheers, --TaylorOliphant (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but looks like original research. —Whig (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hoffman

He filed a complaint against Adam then vanished? That doesn't make any sense to me. Why file a complaint against someone then disappear? And why isn't more standing up for Adam then, sounds like bull to me! --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Charles Matthews filed the complaint. —Whig (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry got the wrong name but it still doesn't make sense to me.--CrohnieGal^Talk 21:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there was a lot more to it than you see on-Wiki. Some evidence was blanked, and there were e-mail communications, all of which means that I hope you will put some confidence in the ArbCom, as they are hard working editors too, and they have been elected by the whole community. —Whig (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I do but I have to say I am really concerned with how many editors, including administrators, who have left. Something needs to be done to give better balance IMO. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your concern, I know there are some editors who have been insisting that if their POV is not the only presented POV, they will leave Wikipedia, and I wish them safe voyage. NPOV means that all significant POVs must be included with reliable sources that are verifiable, and presented neutrally so that readers are able to form their own opinions. —Whig (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crohnie/Sandbox#Editors_who_recently_retired I have been trying to keep track of those who leave. I hope this explains. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

To me NPOV is that all sides get told just like you said. I am working the Crohn's disease article which of course I have a very strong POV about but I think I am working it for information so the average person understands what it is, I've even asked a few editors to check me to make sure I am improving and not using my POV. Not all of the editors that left because of their own POV they left because others were pushing their own and making it impossible to advance articles. Check out the Crohn's article and see what I am doing, and then give me an opinion. I am not afraid to have someone be honest with me so give it a try and see what I am doing. If you see something off, let me know please. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know all the editors you listed, my comment was more in regards to the so-called "expert rebellion" that some editors are engaging in. —Whig (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me? You do know that calling other editors trolls is uncivil right?

You do realize that calling me a troll[2] is highly uncivil and people have been in administrative trouble for such things.--Filll (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I humbly suggest you might want to reconsider.--Filll (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to your edits, which were trolling. —Whig (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I beg to differ. I want to reach an accommodation with you and an understanding of what NPOV is. I ask you to WP:AGF.--Filll (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I recommend reading WP:NPOV. —Whig (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read it several times. How do you explain or interpret:

• NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. from WP:UNDUE.
• When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. from WP:UNDUE
• Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. [3]
• Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing. from WP:FRINGE.--Filll (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  What is there to explain or interpret? It seems self-explanatory. —Whig (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  First of all WP:FRINGE is a content guideline. I am not disagreeing with it in saying this, but it is not equal to NPOV, and I have participated in changing guidelines which violated NPOV in the past. —Whig (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying WP:FRINGE has no bearing on homeopathy? Why is that? And what content guidelines did you change?--Filll (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not commented on WP:FRINGE except to note that it is not policy, it is a content guideline, and if guidelines violate NPOV they can be changed. At one time the manual of style content guideline for biographical entries allowed starting them with their manner of address, i.e., Pope Benedict XVI was begun "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI" in conformity to that guideline, which has since been changed. I have deleted your further comment as it begins with a personal attack claiming some agenda on my part. —Whig (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A third time you delete my attempt to engage you in a friendly manner as trolling? I will not try again. Oh well. You made your bed. And now you can lie in it. Sorry, but I will only try so hard and then I give up. --Filll (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can file another RfC against me. —Whig (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

[4] [5] Lara❤Love 08:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris Bennet

I checked out that article a bit. I've read a lot like it and I have a copy of the green gold book.

I actually started to call Chris to use as a reference but he's super busy and in all honesty, he's kind of a prick if you ask him to do something on the fly from what I've heard. (Understandable) I don't even know for sure that he is aware of the kabbalistic link, but I do believe he would put his name on the fact that tiferet's paths do look like a cananbis leaf if he was made aware. I am taking a bit of flack for not having a Chris Bennet-like name to back up my image's utility. I will probably call him when I get the time.

Feel free to let me know if you have any other comments or suggestions. =) --TaylorOliphant (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. You have irc? Maybe even email -Much better mode of communication for telling me to stfu. =) Much love bro --TaylorOliphant (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, feel free to express stfu'ness on wikipedia. That's why this is such a great resource, constructive criticism. Thanks again / God Bless--TaylorOliphant (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Update 2/13: I wrote a little summary of my wikiexperience for one of the admins. If you get a chance, check it out and tell me if you think I'm addressing the situation properly at this point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:B#Godislove.png

My first few moves on wikipedia weren't the biggest crowd pleasers, but I think everything has been correctd perfectly. =) --TaylorOliphant (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a learning curve to everything. :) —Whig (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Could you clarify what your post on VU talk page means? Anthon01 (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I would prefer that the matter be dropped at this point, per my comments on that page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do. —Whig (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Spicuzza article

Thanks for the comment. What did she talk to you about then? Griot (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Answer

Sorry, but I didn't get around to answering your question amidst all the inappropriate discussion and cross-commenting going on. That's the problem with disruptive editing. I'll try to get back to your question when I get a chance. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that comments like this are appropriate [6]? I do not. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that comment was appropriate. You still have not gotten around to answering my question, and I'm not interested in going round in circles again. —Whig (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You've not answered mine either. Should I accuse the same of you then? --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is disruptive. I believe it is time for an RfC. —Whig (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is disruptive. I'm asking for people to follow WP:TALK, and instead I get disruption. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not agreeing to disagree. If someone cannot follow WP:TALK, disruption results. I'm agreeing that there's disruption. I'm saying it is being caused by multiple editors, including yourself, who are repeatedly violating WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Top heading

For some reason, the automatic archiver may not want to archive this section. —Whig (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

John Roberts's education

Please provide a citation showing that Chief Justice John Roberts ever attended Sacred Heart. I am reasonably sure that he matriculated to Harvard after high school.

I have tagged it for citation. When you find facts in the encyclopedia you think may be wrong, placing a {{fact}} tag lets other editors know that a citation is necessary. This is preferable to deleting, unless the unverified fact is harmful. —Whig (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Sorry about that. I usually don't edit, but from now on, if I see something that's suspect, I'll do that. Take care.

Thanks

I actually have posted on WT:NPOV and RS/N and while the large majority of editors agreed with my understanding of NPOV, the pseudosacience crowd have persisted in pushing their version of NPOV and RS. Filll is always claiming he knows NPOV but I suspect his view is somewhat distorted.Anthon01 (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added this for discussion. Anthon01 (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't assume bad faith. I think Filll was being sincere. I just laughed when I saw the 98% comment, especially in light of he fact that he was lecturing me on NPOV. Anthon01 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had discussions with Filll about NPOV and I find his interpretations quite novel. However, we have had them and do not need to rehash them on WT:NPOV more than needed to allow neutral editors to comment. —Whig (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Bénard cells

Until I found your mention of Bénard cells on Talk:Water memory, I never knew that this phenomenon has a name. Thank you. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Accusations have been made...

Whig, I have asked you directly several times, particularly in the aftermath of your complaining about allegedly "uncivil" behaviour on my part whether you had instituted any action against user DanaUllman for effectively accusing me of lying about whether I was in possession of a journal article that was the subject of discussion. I would be grateful for an answer and you have not placed one on my Talk page whether the question was posed to you.OffTheFence (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How would I institute an action? —Whig (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. You're the expert. You did do this [7] but I didn't notice you citing any of DU's actions as part of that, though did say this of me "OffTheFence edits only one article and never provides any verifiable, reliable sources for anything he writes, nor will he agree to follow WP:DR". I don't see any criticisms placed on DU's Talk page equivalent to the ones you have made on mine. I would have thought that accusing another editor of lying was a fairly important breach of civility. Perhaps you think otherwise. OffTheFence (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I never observed DanaUllman to lie. If you'd like to post something yourself, you can do so without my help. —Whig (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I think you have seriously dropped the plot here. It is DU that accused me of lying and which you seem to have no problem with. He said "please do not allege that my quotes above are not "verifiable" just because you personally do not seem to have a copy of the article." I'm not offended, just observing the behaviour pattern. OffTheFence (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the quote you supplied. If you have a complaint, perhaps someone else might be interested. —Whig (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You are hardly one to try to get me to do anything...

Since you have been the victim of no less than three RfCs which you have ignored, I think you need to find someone else who hasn't been as sullied as you to ask me to be more civil. Lets say someone who has no prior history with these conflicts. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Help w dilutions

Help with this,[8]if you can. Anthon01 (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You know Filll better than I. What is he talking about? Anthon01 (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to psychoanalyze. —Whig (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I thought you might understand or have some inkling of his concern. Anthon01 (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he is unwilling to admit error, because then he might be confronted with more errors. —Whig (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you are both correct and you are sure you are correct, why not go ahead on that basis?--Filll (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am simply asking you to acknowledge your misstatement. —Whig (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not allowed to disagree with you since that is uncivil. So you can assume you are correct and act accordingly.--Filll (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to disagree civilly. —Whig (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. --Filll (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, okay. Please stop commenting here, in that case. We have nothing further to discuss. —Whig (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try to move the topic back and get it back on topic. I suggested that if Filll wants to continue discussing why things are so dangerous, then he do so on user talk pages and not in the NPOV page. I will not engage him there. Anthon01 (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no purpose discussing anything at all with Filll, since he makes false statements and does not care to correct them no matter what proof he is shown. —Whig (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I am dismayed. Anthon01 (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not dismayed, I am simply content to observe the lack of good faith that exists and not continue to engage with that person. —Whig (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to complete the conversation. You input would be appreciate. I think at some point you just have to ignore what appears to be Filll's baiting off topic discussion. Otherwise the conversation will get diverted like it did yesterday. Anthon01 (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I will ignore him unless he makes false statements. If he makes false statements, I will tell him that he is being inaccurate. —Whig (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can leave a short note that says "Answered on your talk page," and answer him there? Just a suggestion. Otherwise I think this will continue indefinitely. Is there a forum to handle this kind of behavior? Anthon01 (talk) 04:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I think to go to his talk page at this point would just be treated as an attack. We could give him a notice and an opportunity to correct the record and then go to RfC, perhaps. —Whig (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the RfC2 template, by the way, it's more civil I think. —Whig (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting an RfC on the topic or the editor? Anthon01 (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC2 would be a user RfC, if that becomes necessary to deal with ongoing disruption. —Whig (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Various substances on toast

Yeah, seems likely. I'm not sure the evidence is strong enough to make a sockpuppetry case though. It looks like Poupon might have quit Wikipedia, and these new socks are his/her revenge? Ah well, I'm just glad they finally blocked the IP! That was getting ugly for a minute! hehehe --Jaysweet (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin oversight

What needs deleting? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether it needs deleting or not, I don't know for sure. [9] is an unfounded accusation of sock puppetry and purports to out a user. —Whig (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dilutions

At 23:53, 5 March 2008, Vickers said, "To get a ten-fold dilution 10X you would need to add 9ml of water to 1 ml sample (10ml final)." Doesn't 9 ml dilutant to 1 ml mother tincture create 1x? Anthon01 (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Filll (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't his statement incorrect? Anthon01 (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

9:1 is a ten fold dilution. 99:1 is a hundred fold dilution. Homeopaths use C though (is that tincture?) and that is a different nomenclature. David D. (Talk) 16:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

9:1 is 1X. 10X is 9:1 repeated 10 times. Anthon01 (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it's a different nomenclature. The homeopaths don't use dilution terminology but a counting nomenclature. David D. (Talk) 17:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

X here means 10, like the Roman numeral. So 10X would actually mean 10^10. C means 100, and LM means 50,000. —Whig (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The homeopathic C, D and X scales are logarithmic scales, something like the pH scale for acidity, or the Richter scale for earthquakes, or the decibel scale for sound levels, etc. This will all be explained more carefully in the more advanced article I am writing with Peter Morrell. And the fact that so many are confused tells me that a more advanced article is needed. Even many of the sources on the internet including homeopathic sources are wrong, so we need to do this correctly and set things on the right path.--Filll (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

D and X are the same, incidentally. —Whig (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

MC

Point taken. Since it's good enough for User:Vanished user, it's good enough for MC. Dreadstar † 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't have said this, seeming to confirm it... Dreadstar † —Preceding comment was added at 00:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not confirming anything, I don't have any knowledge of his actual identity. —Whig (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. You may note that ScienceApologist has continued to revert edits of both MC and TT http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mpemba_effect&diff=196470536&oldid=195705703

and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water&diff=194271609&oldid=194242986 The Tutor (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's very interesting. I hope you will not be discouraged and will stick around, remember that no matter what edits others make to any articles, the histories are still preserved and can be restored. —Whig (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Don't ever edit my comments again.[10] You are being disruptive. Stop now before stronger measures are needed. Jehochman ^Talk 01:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Your comment was repeating an unproven sock puppet accusation and was an implicit accusation of bad faith against an editor and a named person. I hope you take strong enforcement action if you think it is correct, and we will have dispute resolution. —Whig (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser flagged the relationship as  Possible. I am citing that, nothing more. Jehochman ^Talk 01:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are repeating the accusation however. Please stop, this is bordering on defamation. —Whig (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Retract this statement immediately. Legal threats will get you blocked per WP:NLT. Will you retract? Lawrence § t/e 21:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, that's not a legal threat. Whig, please go about your business and stop trying to stir up a dispute over nothing. You're being disruptive, and I really wish you would just stop so we can all get back to work. Jehochman ^Talk 21:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, that wasn't a legal threat. Retract your accusations of bad faith against me and we can go about our business. I am not being disruptive. —Whig (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

When you have dug your own hole, it's recommended to stop digging. You should take a break. Lawrence § t/e 22:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not my hole, but thanks for the advice. —Whig (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll say this....

I have no idea what you guys are arguing about but if I happen to see any more veiled threats like this [11] I'll block you to prevent you from making any more. Try and cool it...that's all. RxS (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not wish to make any veiled threats. I have stated quite directly that I will appeal any block or ban resulting from that proceeding, and I was merely reiterating that fact. Perhaps I should have phrased myself better, and I will try to be more careful. —Whig (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

6 month topic ban on homeopathy and science articles

Sorry, Whig: This appears to be passed, starting today:

A 6-month ban on any and all interation on-Wiki, broadly interpreted, of any homeopathy or science articles, broadly interpreted. Any and all edits involving these articles, or discussions of issues with these articles, will result in escalating blocks from any non-involved admin. Simply put, that section of Wikipedia and discussion of it is off-limits to User:Whig under any username.

Please avoid those topics or discussing them in Wikipedia space, to avoid being blocked. Thank you, and good luck. Lawrence § t/e 15:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of your decision. I will not agree to these terms. I will give some consideration on how to proceed in the best fashion from here. —Whig (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to file for arbitration; however, you should consider that the result of that process may be a much stronger sanction against you than the one currently in place. There are still millions of articles that you are free to edit. Jehochman ^Talk 17:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in your threats of further sanction since you began this proceeding as retaliation for me complaining of your behavior and requesting you to withdraw your accusation of bad faith against me. You are not an uninvolved administrator in this matter and there has been no evidence against me which is not trivially refuted and false. Moreover the terms of the homeopathy probation might give you some discretion to limit my participation in covered articles but do not extend to "all science articles" nor discussions of issues. This is a travesty and it was not a fair process. —Whig (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming participants for arbitration

I have never filed an arbitration case before (except by e-mail), and do not want to make mistakes that will confuse the arbitrators by failing to include the important details or going into more detail than necessary. Those who may be involved might benefit from helping to frame the presentation in advance. Presumably, I will be naming at least Jehochman and myself, along with Lawrence Cohen. I invite their participation here. Also, any other editor who has constructive advice is welcome to provide it. I am not interested in debating anything here only presenting this. —Whig (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration clerks help parties with these details. I suggest you file a simple statement of the dispute and your request. Any procedural deficiencies will be corrected. Jehochman ^Talk 17:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Should I provide reasons that this ban should be overturned, or is it sufficient to ask that it be appealed for review? —Whig (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If I were in your shoes, I would ask for the topic ban to be reviewed. It is implicit that the Committee will refactor a ban if they think it is improper. Also, you should state things in a matter of fact way, without reference to shrill or strident rhetoric. You actually do not need to name anybody except yourself. The remedy you seek is that your ban be lifted or shortened. You are not asking for sanctions against anybody else, presumably, because there are no grounds for that. Jehochman ^Talk 18:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not tell me what there are or are not grounds for. I said that I am not interested in debating anything here. In any case, I believe the arbcom can decide what they are interested in reviewing. I merely wish to bring this matter to their attention for now and the scope can be determined later. —Whig (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To bring this back to a constructive level: If I can simply ask them to review the topic ban, that is satisfactory as they will need to review the reasons for the topic ban in order for them to determine whether it is appropriate. Therefore I do not need to say more about the underlying issues at this time, is that fair? —Whig (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You may not believe me, but I am trying to help you. I would let the facts speak for themselves whenever possible. Link to the discussion and say you want to appeal the result because (drop in your reasons). Jehochman ^Talk 18:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, and it is helpful. I asked Thatcher also to take a look in here, s/he may not have anything to add however. There is no great rush to file this before I have input from others than you and Lawrence Cohen, however. —Whig (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What Jehochman said. You might want to talk to Thatcher for help. Have you and I ever interacted before this, by the way? I'm scratching my head and can't think of anything. Lawrence § t/e 17:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think we've interacted before this. Thank you for the suggestion. —Whig (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Current draft

I request review of a topic ban that was imposed upon me following a discussion on WP:AN which I had initiated regarding the actions of an administrator. [12] —Whig (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is probably as neutral as I can make it, if the ArbCom wants to review it we can discuss the details in depth. —Whig (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be taking an interest in this, if I have time, because I noticed this situation as it started to develop, it may have even been before the ANI report was filed. It seemed to me that, instead of a few calm words from a few wise or experienced users or administrators, gasoline was being poured on the fire. I had thought to intervene before, but these situations can get extraordinarily complex. One thing that I've seen happen more than once is that the reasons for an action can multiply like rabbits. I'll use an employment analogy. Employee A is charged with offense X. A manager fires him for that. Then it develops that X never happened. However, the manager now asserts that A didn't get along with other employees, came to work late, and, besides, was incompetent. Often the problem literally goes away because A simply finds another job, but sometimes, if A fights it, several year's salary is wasted on legal fees; and even if the company prevails (in the described circumstance that's pretty shaky), the legal fees aren't recovered. A little careful, polite, considerate handling of the situation in the first place could have avoided all that.

This comment shouldn't be construed as an opinion about who is "right." It's clear that, whatever the reason, a fair amount of administrative irritation was raised over this, and, just as I'm not thrilled when an administrator blocks someone for being rude to the administrator (as distinct from being a threat to the project), I'm also not thrilled at demands for apologies for alleged administrative incivility. Administrators shouldn't be rude, to be sure, but we have 1500 administrators, with varying degrees of skill at defusing situations, and, in my opinion, they are overworked and definitely underpaidl it seems they are burning out right and left, and as they burn out, they can get pretty testy. Administrators don't run Wikipedia, we do, and we should be considerate of them, and not expect them to be perfect.--Abd (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no real difference between an editor and an administrator. Administrators are just editors who have been around for a while and been granted access to a few extra tools. I was a non-administrator for 2.5 years and though I did not have access to the tools, I could still get somebody blocked or get a page protected whenever necessary simply by explaining the need on the appropriate noticeboard or administrator's talk page. Power around here comes from the respect of fellow editors, not the tools. Jehochman ^Talk 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That is all, of course, correct. However, those who do have this "power" should realize that some editors don't form those connections so easily. There are unspoken rules (or even spoken ones that some cannot constitutionally understand) that prevent some from connecting so easily. I must say that there is one situation, a blatant sock puppet or at least SPA, who has been disruptive since 2006 (first edit within minutes of registration: AfD of an obscure article that telegraphs his political agenda), I've called attention to him in numerous places, before quite a few administrators, -- or he has called attention to himself through some fairly outrageous actions -- and generally nothing happens. I find it kind of amazing, actually. I've only looked at the record in this case (Whig's topic ban) a little, and, definitely, Whig comes up as a problem. How much of this problem is purely him and how much is a result of, shall we say, defective interactions with the community, is hard to tell. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? In this case we have the vast benefit of a record that goes back to registration. I haven't looked at that yet. All I saw was a snippet, a snapshot of an interaction. Trying to form conclusions from that is like trying to judge who is right and who is wrong when a couple is arguing. At any given time, one of them can look practically insane! (or both....) In the ANI thread, a general picture was developed of a contentious editor; however, it's not clear that this picture was coming from someone truly uninvolved. As you may know Jehochman, I have some problems with Wikipedia process, it can get pretty ragged. Something is proposed, some !vote, then the proposal seems to shift, but is never formally restated, there are more !votes; are the original !votes still valid? There never is a review so that it is clear what, exactly, is being !voted on. There is a little discussion of this in my Talk today. ArbComm runs with much clearer process; but clarity of process isn't inefficient, such that it couldn't be used in lesser forums, it's actually easier and more efficient.... and less of a mob scene.--Abd (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There are about five months of back story here, not all of which involves Jehochman. I don't think it bears further explanation here. Perhaps I should just go ahead and post the request to RfAr. —Whig (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Having been around here since at least 2004, I'm not concerned with power or prestige particularly. However, I would be willing to apologize for my strong criticisms of Jehochman, and by way of explanation I will say that I was concerned at that time for the privacy of a new user and the reputation of a named person and was trying to act swiftly to prevent the situation from developing out of control. I may have been too critical and should have been more polite in phrasing myself. —Whig (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Without reviewing the ancient history, this rings true to me. That is exactly how it looked to me. It brings something up that might merit review: one user sees (or imagines, doesn't matter) harm being done to another user by a third user, considers it urgent. What should he or she do? Here, there is a privacy issue. In the Absidy affair, there was an SSP report that connected a vanished account with a current one, without cause. I did intervene, on ANI, and the SSP report was promptly deleted. Other stuff happened later, as you may recall. But I did treat it as an emergency, and did take it to AN/I. I took some flack for that, but, in fact the administrator who generated that flack ended up apologizing.

This has all gotten very complicated, not because of the AN/I report filed by Whig, but because of the subsequent !vote on sanctions against him. Users should generally be cut quite a bit of slack in filing AN/I reports; I'm a bit disturbed by what I saw happen there in this case. I've seen plenty of AN/I reports, not solidly founded, that simply wither away. Why didn't this one? Frankly, I don't understand it yet. I'm troubled, though, about certain things. Whig makes a complaint, he is threatened as a result, that it will be treated as a personal attack if he can't back it up with diffs, and he thinks he has. Whig indicates his intention to appeal to ArbComm if the ban is determined, and it seems to me he was threatened with sanctions because of that. I'm getting that there is a Rule 0 violation here. There is an alternate explanation, though. Perhaps Whig really is a Troll, and a very skillful one. Problem is this explanation requires abandoning WP:AGF, turning his civility into an offense, a clever trick, and it seems to me that AGF should not be abandoned in some narrow, rapid-response forum like AN/I, which seems mostly designed to deal with, relatively speaking, emergencies. Given that outcome, it may indeed be necessary to go to ArbComm. On the other hand, if Whig's apology is sincere, and I recommend taking it that way, perhaps the whole process can be much less acrimonious than sometimes happens. Or perhaps it could be avoided entirely. Time to sit down again over some tea, Jehochman? It worked before. Do you take cream with your tea? Where should we sit?--Abd (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's mighty kind of you, Whig. you have a lot going for you. You're obviously intelligent and are able to maintain civility even in stressful situations. You are willing to forgive and to use dispute resolution.

Now, how can I help you further? My advice would be to spend a month or two editing in new areas, and generate a featured article or a couple good articles or did you knows. If you did that, it would be easy for me to go back to WP:AN and suggest that the topic ban be rescinded. Additionally, I recommend you read User:Durova/Recusal. Sometimes editors are so invested in a topic that it is better for them to avoid it. If you get away from all these conflicts and the people who are baiting you, I think it would really help. Jehochman ^Talk 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Whig, I think that is sincere advice from Jehochman. I've done a little review of the situations you have become involved in, and I find it difficult to untangle them. Few will have the patience for it, and when people don't have the patience for something, they make snap judgments; as you might have noticed, snap judgments don't seem to favor you much. I can't predict what will happen before ArbComm. From what I've seen so far, I can understand and sympathize with your frustration. However, this project -- like all human projects -- is a social one. That is, people work together, and people are, well, people. For better or worse. You may have all the reason in the world behind you, you may be right as rain, and yet, if your communication doesn't effectively connect with people, they won't understand you. ArbComm has a better process, you might stand a better chance there, but I wouldn't bet on it. They are people too. Rub them the wrong way, they won't hear a word you say. I don't know if you read the essay I cited above, Rule 0. It can be extraordinarily frustrating to be a Rule 0 violator, for nobody will tell you exactly what you are doing wrong. Instead, they will accuse you of stuff you know isn't true (as well as anything true they can dredge up). If you prove that they are wrong, they will call you contentious. If you stand up for your rights, you will be considered disruptive. I'd suggest you back up and consider why you are here. This is actually, for some of us, a very difficult environment. It's rife with contradictions, rules that are widely ignored, including very important rules such as WP:AGF. However, AGF bucks human nature. When we don't understand others, we suspect them of being up to no good; there are some very good reasons for this trait. However, it's also a killer. In my opinion, if this community doesn't find a way to more seriously enforce WP:AGF, it's going to die. Part of the problem, though, is that "enforce" cannot mean coerce. An assumption of good faith cannot be coerced; what happens if we try is that all we manage to enforce is pretense. And pretense cannot be maintained, not for long. There is another way, but it is going to take some major restructuring, not of the rules and policies, which are already amazingly good, for the most part, but in how we approach them and work with them.

Looking at your block log, I see you were twice blocked by "Vanished user," Took a little digging to find the actual name. Looks to me like you've been screwed over. If you do go to ArbComm, I'll try to help, because I think that it's important to see and name the rampant AGF failure that I think is tearing this place apart. Indeed, we need good processes that do try to resolve disputes instead of deciding who the malfactor is and punishing the miscreant.--Abd (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I did read your essay. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but appreciate the analysis. This is not a personal matter for me, at all. Rather, my primary concern is with NPOV. My involvement in this issue began because I perceived a serious NPOV conflict being suppressed. I have been willing to sacrifice a good bit of my own time and risk my reputation in behalf of this principle. However, I recognize that sometimes it helps to take a break. —Whig (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

While I am glad that we can be civil and perhaps even friendly, that in no way indicates that I have reconsidered my opinion of the ban or the charges that were made against me. You have not retracted your accusation of bad faith against me, and there is still an evident need for dispute resolution. —Whig (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I do not feel that you have acted in bad faith. You clearly care about the project and are doing what you think is right. However, I think you need to better understand how others perceive (or misperceive) your actions, and make adjustments to promote cooperation and minimize conflict. Jehochman ^Talk 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding the appeal of community sanctions

See Wikipedia talk: Requests for arbitration#Suggestion regarding the appeal of community sanctions for a thread I have initiated about making it easy for people to appeal community sanctions. Jehochman ^Talk 01:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How about I'll sit that discussion out and watch for a day or so, and if there is a consensus on how I should proceed then I will follow that. —Whig (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a very good idea, Whig. The question Jehochman raises is important and difficult, and has implications going far beyond your particular circumstances. Procedural fairness requires that you know the procedures and requirements before you act, and so your caution is sensible and appropriate. However, I suspect that the question Jehochman raises will take more than a day or two to resolve, and will likely involve off-wiki email discussion amongst ArbCom. I could be wrong, of course. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How about I'll wait a day or two and if it looks like it makes sense to wait longer, I may decide to do so? :) —Whig (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is, of course, your decision. In fact, I would have no problem with you participating the discussion, but I do strongly believe that the discussion needs to be directed towards the general issue that needs addressing, and not to your particular circumstance. There is real danger of such appeals becoming war grounds - a danger I believe is particularly high in your case, given the strong feelings on both sides in areas you have been contributing - and that is not good for the Committee or for the contributors. The danger may be even higher following any community sanction being imposed shortly after the MM case closes. In my view, it is far better for ArbCom to carefully consider the implications of the approach adopted than to adopt a procedure quickly and then try to modify it on the fly if a war breaks out. Jay*Jay (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If the community would like to establish a procedure that helps make things more orderly then all to the good, but the arbitration committee should be fully competent to establish an appropriate scope of review on their own, I think they are very cautious about the interests of the community and would not act to jeopardize it. —Whig (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Whig, do you feel that the process was unfair? If so, explain your reasoning and if it makes sense, I will request that this be looked at again. Is there any other remedy that you would suggest that might help alleviate the constant battling? Jehochman ^Talk 02:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do feel the process was unfair insofar as the diffs that were presented against me were falsely construed and anything I said was disregarded. I do not think that I require a remedy nor do I think I am doing something wrong by insisting that an NPOV dispute be respected. There are participants in the Homeopathy discussion who fabricate and do not provide sources, they are allowed to accuse others of bad faith and engage in original synthesis in the article but the admins do nothing. I am not withdrawing my concern with this area of Wikipedia. Therefore, I do not think there is much to be done but to proceed with an appeal, however it will be best if we can make it a civil and friendly one. —Whig (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have requested that expedited appeals be allowed. Do you want to spend two months at arbitration waiting for a decision, or would have rather get an answer in two days, most likely. The situation around homeopathy is still poisonous, and I am trying to separate the incorrigible from the otherwise good editors who fall victim to baiting. In any case, I recommend you stay out of the "hot zone" for a little while, even if your ban is lifted. Jehochman ^Talk 02:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm going to sit on the sidelines for a day or two and see what procedure seems to be most appropriate, or whether I should wait longer or follow an expedited approach. I'm not interested in making things more complicated than they need to be, but I'm not going to sit out the discussion for six months unless the arbitration committee thinks that I've done something to deserve that. That doesn't mean I need to rush back in to the "hot zone" though. I realize that even an expedited appeal is going to take some time, and the situation may change between now and whenever this process is completed. —Whig (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

see [13]. I have opened a pre-arbitration page in my user space. Please read it, and, if you wish to see this experimental process proceed, state a complaint or issue to be considered in the place noted for that. You will need to identify someone to second the "motion." I've seen enough to, without having come to any conclusions, consider the issue worth examining; however, I'm recusing myself, you will have to find someone else. The second will be consenting to the proposition that the situation is worth careful consideration, not necessarily to any particular outcome. Anyone else reading this may also list themselves as interested parties; however, they should not edit the page until a "petition" has been made and seconded and I have opened up with process for the gathering of evidence and then for deliberation.--Abd (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for setting this up. I've had a look and it may be worth a try, there are some things that may need to be clarified and I'm not sure how well this will work in practice. The very ad-hoc nature of it makes it less likely of success in my opinion, the fact that this is carrying on in user talk space will probably cause it to be ignored by all but the very committed (and some of those who want to ban me from Wikipedia have been very committed to doing so over many months now), while those who may support me may not feel confident that they can express themselves with safety in this forum free of retaliation. —Whig (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am probably most inclined to e-mail the ArbCom, to invite them to review the topic ban and the discussion leading up to it and determine what course of action is best, whether they wish to handle this in private or by opening a public arbitration case. I feel that the arbitration committee has the best interests of the community at heart and will make a proper determination with a minimum of disruption. I am concerned that any user space process will not be able to be done in a way that avoids the problems that I have identified above. I'm still open to suggestions however, and can wait a bit longer to hear other ideas. —Whig (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lots of things need to be clarified! Apparently you have never participated in an Arbitration, it can be exhausting. It brings all kinds of creatures out of the woodwork. For starters, everyone you have ever offended might show up. That may still happen with this ad-hoc process, but consider this:

• This is happening in my user space. I can delete any of it. It will still be in History, but 3RR rule does not apply to user space (for the user whose space it is).
• This happens in phases. The first phase -- after it's seconded -- is evidence gathering. You will need to do this for Arbitration anyway, so if, at any time, you aren't satisfied with how this is going, you can still go to ArbComm and you will have done your homework, and, quite possibly, with the help of some others.
• This isn't an RFC. The goal here is to find consensus among a self-defined set of interested parties. Those "enemies" above may join this, if they wish, but they -- and you -- will be expected to observe decorum. There really isn't much room for disagreement in the first phase. The diff content will be summarized, but in standard NPOV fashion: if disputes appear about that, I will rule quickly.
• Nothing in this process binds the participants unless the *facts* bind them. I do not expect any sanctions to result from this process; but it might uncover facts that suggest sanctions to others; because this is ad-hoc process, if anyone not participating is to be sanctioned, silence here will not be presumed to be a lack of defense. Facts and statements made here *might* be used later in an Arbitration, but the appropriateness of that will be decided at the time.
• I don't see that you have anything to lose by trying this. To get support from ArbComm, you will have to take the first steps involved here, and probably most of the rest, anyway.
• I'm trying to make this process more efficient and more likely to result in consensus. As I mentioned, I think this particular case may be a good test, because of your civility. This could work with uncivil participants, but it's more likely to fail to find consensus; on the other hand, in later process, that incivility will surely be noted, and is often a major factor in ArbComm decisions.
• Consider this as an opportunity to prepare and test an ArbComm presentation, before actually filing. It need not take long. And if it works, well, we just saved ArbComm and the community a big hassle. If not, this is not going to make things worse. At least I'll be surprised if it does.

--Abd (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are trying to make a good suggestion here and I'd like to work with you. Let's see if once a few things are clarified, whether it makes sense to proceed this way. I don't mind discussing alternatives before choosing the way to go. I'd like to hear some other opinions of this from people that might be or become involved in this. Rather than seeking out a second later, there should be a second before even going into this process that agrees this is a good way forward. As far as the other alternative of e-mailing ArbCom, they give plenty of time and opportunity to prepare evidence if they think a public case is needed. I don't know what is gained by preparing evidence that might not interest them in advance. To be very blunt, consider the possibility that my topic ban was well justified by the evidence and the discussion preceding it, then the ArbCom would presumably look at it and say so and reject an appeal anyhow; if otherwise, then why should it be upon me to go looking for a second to pursue an experimental alternative? —Whig (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a second?

If there is a second for the approach that Abd suggests, someone please let me know in the next 24 hours. That should give enough time to let us know if there's even anyone else interested in this approach. —Whig (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this depends on how many people are either reading your Talk page or perhaps mine or following your or my contributions. Small group, perhaps. Is there nobody who has supported you in the past? In any case, without a statement of the issue to be considered, what do you expect? There is something above, you could just copy it to the pre-arbitration page. Is it sufficient to convince anyone to get involved? If not, what makes you think that it will be any different with ArbComm? Yes, they are far more careful in their decisions, but they depend on the parties and the interested community to do the investigation, compile the evidence, make arguments, and to suggest remedies. If you go to ArbComm, it could be difficult to try anything else. You may have noticed that your stated intention to appeal was used against you. That's not against the "rules," but it can appear that the person isn't willing to listen to what others are saying, is digging in his heels. As I've said, and as I've seen in over twenty years of online conferencing, it can seem terribly unfair. I'm suggesting that we -- i.e., anyone sufficiently interested to participate in a nonbinding but formal facilitated inquiry -- explore what happened. The second, you know, might come from Jehochman, it would not surprise me. Consider this from above:

Whig, do you feel that the process was unfair? If so, explain your reasoning and if it makes sense, I will request that this be looked at again. Is there any other remedy that you would suggest that might help alleviate the constant battling? Jehochman ^Talk 02:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

He is suggesting that you do, more or less, what I've suggested that you do, only I'm suggesting that you do it before what might be called a "facilitator." It doesn't have to be me, I'm just here volunteering and I have a sense of how to go about it. If you plan to "appeal," as you have stated, you'll have to do the writing anyway. It seems you are waiting for a second when you have not, clearly, in a place designed for it, made the "motion" to be seconded, just a vague appeal to

ArbComm generally doesn't like to deal with cases that have not exhausted "lower courts." Which includes ad-hoc process like what I've suggested, starting with direct communication, attempting to find some mediator, and a whole panalopy of options. Prior attempts to resolve the dispute will be considered; if they haven't been made with sufficient effort, ArbComm is likely to deny the case, and if that happens, you are pretty much stuck with the status quo. One of the problems is that it seems, from what happened at ANI, that you have attracted enough enmity or dislike for your editing that you aren't doing well in the standard procedures, like RFCs. That can happen because of POV conflicts, or it can happen because an editor is contentious, or both. I'm suggesting an alternate forum because we might be able to tease all this out; then, even if we can't come to consensus in this ad-hoc process, there will then be a clear basis for going to ArbComm, I expect, if anyone is still interested in that. But, enough. I'm not going to waste more time trying to convince you, if what I've written isn't enough, maybe it is, indeed, a bad idea, at least in this case. --Abd (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not convinced by your proposal, but I will await a second to discuss it further. —Whig (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The time having elapsed without a second for the alternative dispute resolution proposal, I have sent my appeal by e-mail. —Whig (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I am not blocked from editing, I have been told that it is appropriate to present my appeal on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. —Whig (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now done so here. —Whig (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Serious question

Why are you editing Wikipedia? Is it really going to be such a bad thing to live stress-free from science and homeopathy articles for 6 months, with no RFCs, banning threats, fire fights, flame wars, and ANI threads to worry about? Or would it have been better had I never proposed the topic ban and you were in your second week of an indefinite block? You make no sense. Lawrence § t/e 20:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, Lawrence. If I didn't care about Wikipedia or NPOV, I suppose that's what I should do. —Whig (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

PR request

I have added some suggestions. The article needs a lot in terms in improvement so not done a through review, will do so when the article in better shape and previous comments are addressed. Just leave me a message then before a WP:GAN or so. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions and edits. Very helpful and appreciated. —Whig (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

marketing

Maybe I am missing verbals point (re knowing if a product is effective or not). i thought the point was that consumers are not really able to judge how effective any product is, or at least unable to distinguish the benefits from placebo. Even oscillococcinum, so effective it does not need individualised treatments, at its best is only claims to decrease the symptoms of flu by less than a day. Can customers really tell the difference? No , they buy it again because they did get better and the marketing was convincing. Those two in conjunction is all that is needed. As verbal says this is not specific to homeopathy it is standard practice. Another excellent example is toothpaste marketing and branding. David D. (Talk) 20:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understood his point because he was not providing examples of useless things that people buy repeatedly. Things that people get suckered into buying once without perceiving any benefit aren't really examples. But homeopathy does work from my own personal experience and I use it because it works. That isn't to say that it is always the correct or best treatment option for a given condition or symptom. If oscillococcinum (which I haven't personally used) reduces flu symptoms by a day and it's usually a self limiting condition anyhow, it's at least providing some benefit in that case. I'm not sure there is any benefit whatsoever to some of the OTC and prescription drugs for cold and flu symptoms. —Whig (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether there is benefit or not is not really the issue, it's can the consumer detect the difference. You say you can, which is why you buy it. But you don't have to be able to tell the difference to be loyal. i think the toothpaste example is relevant here. Why do consumers stick with particular brands? The distinctions are small and probably not noticeable. Humans are not logical at all when it comes to consuming and preferences. That's why marketing works. David D. (Talk) 20:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that brand loyalty is something that isn't entirely rational. I try to choose a toothpaste that is recommended by the ADA. I cannot tell the difference between one brand and another but dentists presumably can determine which are most effective. Apart from that there are matters of taste and things like whitening formulas that people might choose between. But surely you wouldn't say that toothpaste doesn't do anything?

I have tested the effects of homeopathic medicines upon myself very carefully. That doesn't mean I distinguish between brands of homeopathic medicine, however. Choosing Boiron or WHP or Hahnemann Labs is a matter of which is most convenient and has the medicine I need in the potency that I am looking for.

I'm not deceiving myself or stupid. I pay attention. And for what it's worth, the most powerful psychedelic I've ever experienced was Hydrogen 200C. —Whig (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Cavity QED from homeopathy page

Regarding your last post on the homeopathy thread, cavity QED and sonoluminescence are two different phenomena. Sonoluminescence requires degassing of a sample of water and application of sonic waves to generate bubbles (or a bubble) with diameters on the micrometer scale. The light emitted in such situations is thermal in origin, resulting from the rapid compression of appropriate gas molecules upon collapse of the bubble. There is no evidence that these bubbles can be generated without ultrasonic excitation, or that the behavior is observed in samples which have simply been shaken. Cavity QED deals with the altered relaxation of excited molecules when they are enclosed in a cavity. Agin, there is no evidence, nor theoretically plausible mechanism, for suggesting that simple shaking of water will lead to these excited states, nor that shaking leads to altered cavitation, not that delayed photon emission would have any pharmacological effect upon drinking of the shaken water. Your proposition requires that a lot of remarkably unlikely and unfounded "what ifs" were all to happen. I'm still baffled at how, instead of simply acknowledging that homeopathy doesn't work (as has been thoroughly demonstrated), every imaginable esoteric physical process is invoked as the mechanism by which this non-observable phenomenon occurs.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Succussion is not shaking, it is forceful striking. Just as striking a rod of iron induces magnetic effects, but shaking a rod of iron does nothing. You do not have to tell me that cavity QED and sonoluminescence are two things. You need to learn more about both. —Whig (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

O.K., so you've redefined succession for me. But if you are going to make these claims about how your definition of succession should lead to a transfer of information to the solvent, you need to come up with a realistic theory as to how this happens. You're suggesting cavity QED or sonoluminescence, but have not shown any evidence to suggest that either should come into play from "forceful striking" of water. My reading more into these two phenomena will not change the fact that you have quite arbitrarily thrown them out there without any justification for why they should be considered as playing any role in this whole process. There is sound experimental evidence and theory which explains why struck iron rods or vibrating guitar strings generate magnetic fields, There is none to suggest that succession will lead to either excited state chemistry or sonoluminescence. Don't tell me to read more about these topics, give me a reason (references) why I should even consider that they would be involved in this process. Puddin'head Wilson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

I haven't redefined a thing. Nothing I have said is arbitrary. Your denialism of homeopathy is obvious, and you are not willing to be convinced of effectiveness, therefore any physical mechanism will be rejected by you out of hand. —Whig (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Convince me. Without any supporting evidence, everything you have claimed herein is arbitrary. You may as well have said that Leprechauns are responsible for homeopathic activity, because you would have been able to offer just as much evidence for it, which of course is no evidence at all. You suggest that, because I refute your unfounded arguments that I will clearly not accept any argument and that my criticism should therefor be dismissed. I'm certain there is a logical fallacy in there. Thanks for wasting my time.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Convince you of effectiveness? You are welcome to be convinced yourself, would you like me to suggest a remedy? If you are asking to be convinced of the physical mechanism when you deny the possibility of any physical mechanism, in spite of clear physical proof of sonoluminescence in cavitation and cavity QED photon binding occurring in laboratory apparatus, perhaps you can explain why photon binding would not occur in cavitating by succussion. —Whig (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Proper controlled studies offer evidence of effectiveness, one person deluding himself does not. I'm not asking for evidence of sonoluminescence as a real phenomenon, but evidence that this effect can be observed from succession. The onus is not mine to suggest why photon binding does not occur during succession, You are making the claim and therefor need to support it with evidence. Show me a paper in a reputable journal that suggests that succession leads to cavitation and that it also causes excited state molecules to exist in these cavities. I don't understand why you're having such a hard time comprehending how this whole "burden of proof" thing works.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating that you have no interest in being convinced of anything. As I have said before I don't know of papers which discuss homeopathy in these terms, therefore I cannot provide you with the only thing that apparently will convince you of the fact that the same laws of physics apply in cavitation cavities as in artificially created cavities.

By the way, please have at least the seriousness to learn how to spell succussion when discussing this topic in the future. Thanks. —Whig (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have every interest in being convinced by appropriate evidence, but in every response you have posted, you have offered no supporting evidence but simply tell me that I don't want to hear your evidence. Let me see it and I'll let you know if it impresses me.

First, the origin of the cavities is not my concern, although you have repeatedly made the unsupported assertion that succession has some effect on cavity formation, and I would like to see references for any of these statements. Hell, I'm even willing to concede that this *might* be possible, but only if there is experimental evidence to support it. Second, I do not need references about cavity QED and how it relates to homeopathy. What I want is a reference which suggests that vigorous shaking of water will lead to the excited electronic states that the cavity QED phenomenon requires.

http://www.google.com.ag/search?hl=en&q=homeopathy+succession&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

Follow the above link to a google search based on the words "homeopathy and succession'. Many, many homeopathy proponents use the term "succession". If the field were to normalize its jargon, I might be able to keep up on what is the preferred spelling.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Google searches for ignorance are not evidence of correct spelling, and you persist in referring to shaking when that is not what succussion is. That succussion causes cavitation is uncontroversial. That cavitation causes photons to be emitted is uncontroversial. That cavity QED applies in all cavity domains is uncontroversial. That you refuse to observe the evidence for yourself by simply perceiving the effect of the remedy is the reason you cannot see it. You are not engaging in any attempt to learn, but to lecture on things you clearly refuse to learn anything about. Go away. Thanks. —Whig (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Snap!

jokes and stuff

I removed NRen2k5's comment and your reply. He was just making a parody of Dr.Jhingaadey, not a serious affirmation that he believed in homeopathy (that winking smiley at the end was a good clue that he didn't mean what he said). My excuses I my removal was rough, it's just that article talk pages shouldn't be used to make jokes about banned users, and the whole thing was off-topic anyways, since, as you pointed out yourself, it had nothing to do with improving the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I recognized he was trying to mock, but tried to get things back on track. I do not disagree with removing his comment and therefore my reply. —Whig (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Trolls and email

Re [14] – I know what you mean; I was going to comment per email, but you don't have it enabled. So let me just say without presenting any evidence or other background information that I am 100 % sure the user is genuine. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll look into re-enabling e-mail. I don't really know what you mean to say the user is genuine, or do you mean you are certain the new unnamed IP user is not DrJ? —Whig (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. He really believes it and has his own practice. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We cannot know what he believes, and have no way to verify his claim. —Whig (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But we can. He left his email and website many times. He's no troll, if you mean someone "pretending" to be a believer in homeopathy. No, he is a real homeopath and he doesn't intend disruption, but intends to make Wikipedia stop including content that demeans homeopathy. That ends up being disruptive because it violates our policies in several ways. He has a website and presence on the internet as a homeopath, and he linkspammed it many times, which is what got him one of his first blocks. IOW, he's not faking it. He doesn't understand Wikipedia and doesn't seem capable of doing so, as it's been explained to him many times. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well as long as all sides in a dispute are fairly represented in the article then it is totally appropriate and necessary that content be included that expresses negative views of homeopathy. If he is a "professional" homeopath as he claims he should not be making such irresponsible claims as no professional homeopathic association would allow. I do not believe he is real just because he has a website but it does not matter. He has used deception as well in claiming not to be the user he clearly is, so why should I believe anything he says? Anyhow he is a disruption and I think we are all in agreement on that. —Whig (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. He is a disgrace to homeopathy in much the same way (yet totally different...) that SA and QG are a disgrace to skepticism, if you get my point. All of them have behavioral issues. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, without wanting to criticize individuals with whom I've had interactions in the past, I would certainly agree that true skepticism requires a certain amount of open mindedness. —Whig (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Whig if you would like to enable email for a few hours or just contact me by email (my homepage is linked from my user page), I can give you further information that I don't want to appear on-wiki. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sent you an e-mail, look forward to hearing from you. —Whig (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

information storage

"Does succussion cause cavitation cavity quantum electrodynamic information storage as bound photons?" <-- what do you mean by "cavity" in this context? How long would this "information storage" be expected to last? Just what information would be stored?
ps: blast from the past...I was just reading that you "obviously have no intention of contributing constructively here". Thanks for making the point about succussion, it is an aspect of homeopathy I never understood previously. I think it is great that you can bring a perspective to Wikipedia that allows clueless folks like me to learn about homeopathy. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your blast from the past, it seems to expose the name of a vanished user by the way.

In cavitation nanobubbles form in which photons may be trapped. EM information is bound by cavitation during preparation of the remedy (cQED), and remains entangled in the medium upon cavity collapse. Coherence may then be restored by microtubules or some other structure. There is no reason to expect information to be lost in nature, it appears that information is always conserved. That being said decoherence can make information unobtainable. —Whig (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Mr. "Vanished user" had a special interest in you. Anyhow, exactly what type of information do you think could be restored by microtubules? How would the body make use of such information to regulate physiological processes? --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Vanished user and I had an extensive relationship which I won't discuss now, much of it is probably still possible to find in the histories but some elements have been removed which may make it hard to figure out what went on completely.

Microtubules may restore coherence which means that the detection of photon information may be possible, it is in effect a cavity domain which allows the information which was "written" to be "read" as in cQED-based quantum computation. I am not going to make a strong case for microtubules as the particular structure but I believe Stuart Hameroff has made some investigation of their properties. It isn't really that strange we would have structures to detect photons, that's how all of our sensory organs work. As for how the body would make use of this information, it would react as to anything, this amounting to a reaction against a remedy that is like the symptoms being addressed. —Whig (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My knowledge of homeopathic remedies is VERY limited, but I've been looking into why Dana Ulman was banned from Wikipedia and I looked into one of his books where aconite was the first remedy discussed (in an alphabetical list). I was amused to find that mention of homeopathic aconite had been removed from Aconitum napellus with the comment "homeopathic use is not" documented. In my investigation of ScienceApologist's claim, it did not take me long to find Aconite: a case study in doctrinal conflict and the meaning of scientific medicine and other sources (example) that document the medical use of homeopathic aconite. In any case, it is the one homeopathic remedy I have read about, so I want to use it as an example. Specifically, Dana Ulman's book says that homeopathic aconite is used to treat infections when there are symptoms like "the beginning of a high fever". Would you say that the information carried by the photons would produce the same physiological effects as elevated body temperature? For example, the temperature sensitive neurons of the hypothalamus would be activated by homeopathic aconite? If so, that seems like a prediction that could be tested experimentally. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't actually read Dana's book nor have I used or given Aconite, but it is absolutely possible to experimentally test the effects of homeopathic medicine by proving it on yourself even if you have no diseased state. I recommend doing so, in fact.

It is not possible to predict the physical symptoms that a particular person will exhibit in response to a remedy, as a given remedy may produce a very wide range of symptoms depending on individual sensitivity.

Having said that it may be possible to induce an effect which is a signature of a remedy and demonstrate a statistical probability of that occurring in people given it in a proving study. —Whig (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"depending on individual sensitivity" <-- is this individual sensitivity something that is constant through time? If a test subject had increased body temperature after a dose of homeopathic aconite would they reproducibly do so? Or is "sensitivity" something that changes in an individual over time? --JWSchmidt (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can reliably expect to produce a specific symptom in a specific person by giving a homeopathic medicine to which that person may have insensitivity or some other reaction, but I don't know if research has been done to establish this. It would probably be malpractice to do so at least because you are likely to produce a lot of other symptoms to which that person is more susceptible in the course of trying to produce one specific symptom. —Whig (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I think I misunderstood your question. No, sensitivity does change over time, and taking a second dose of the same medicine does not necessarily produce the same effect, as your body has already responded to it once. I believe that it is generally the case that if you don't vary the potency, taking additional doses will eventually have no effect.

Think of it like ringing a doorbell. You can keep ringing the doorbell but eventually it gets ignored. —Whig (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comments

You may want to read and add your comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Homeopathy_2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.59.100 (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey -- Brangifer (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

FYI

You are being discussed here. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not anymore. Hans wanted to discuss you, but I have archived it. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Very disappointing. —Whig (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

AN thread started on User:Dr.Jhingaadey

A thread has been started to discuss this whole matter:

• Appropriateness of allowing multiple banned sockmaster Dr.Jhingaadey to return

If you have any interest in the matter, you are welcome to participate. The wider the community input, the better. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Marijuana cultivation

For me it's not that important a matter. However, since there is an entry in Britannica with the title "Marijuana", the term is official enough. Anyway, either way is good for me change it back if you wish.

How do you feel regarding the completeness and structure of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickproser (talk • contribs) 23:08, 23 June 2009

I haven't given the article a detailed review in some time and I am not an experienced cultivator myself for what it's worth. Would Cannabis (medicine) cultivation be better? Cannabis cultivation is a disambiguation page, and this would be preferable to using slang or derogatory reference in the title. —Whig (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis (medicine) cultivation is not proper (excludes spiritual-recreational use). "Marijuana" not derogatory. Let's leave it as it is for a while and get some feedback from other users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickproser (talk • contribs) 10:33, 24 June 2009

We are using the word "Cannabis" for all of our other cannabis-related articles on Wikipedia. I don't agree with leaving it as it is, but there is no urgency to changing it. —Whig (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Canabis (medicine) cultivation" does not seem most appropriate, since cannabis can be and often is grown for non-medical purposes. I think "Cannabis cultivation" would be most appropriate. Where can a more extensive debate about this occur? On the article's talk page? --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's continue this conversation at Talk:Marijuana cultivation as currently named. Oh never mind, it appears already to have been renamed to Cultivation of cannabis. —Whig (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Cannabis

By the way, I appreciate your contributions to the project and several of the articles. Taking the time to assess article is tedious, and I appreciate your assistance. A few I rated have already been changed by other users, which I have no problem with, but hopefully I am doing an okay job. Once they have all been given a Quality and Importance rating, it will certainly be easier to update ones here and there as needed. Keep up the great work, and I look forward to watching the project expand even more. We are certainly off to a great start, and hopefully we can get Recent Changes, Collaborations, and Recent Talk pages working soon as well. Talk to you soon! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you put in a request to merge the Outdoor, Indoor, and Alternative cultivation talk pages with the Cannabis cultivation talk page? Just wondering, since I believe you took care of the article merge. Also, I set up a collaboration page, so be sure to check it out. Hopefully other members will choose to watch the collaboration page and take part in the task. I figure it's a great way to work together to focus attention on a single article and greatly improve it. Technically, the first collaboration is complete (grading all articles on the Quality scale), but I am waiting to see if Kpstewart can assist with rating some of them on the Importance scale (see Collaboration talk page) before checking the task off as "complete". --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to put in any kind of request to do that merge, if we can do it by hand. I haven't done so yet. It's good to use the collaboration page for discussing changes that affect multiple articles, when a single article or merge target is being discussed it is best to keep it on that article's talk pages since not everyone who may be editing is a member of the WikiProject. —Whig (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrongly quoted

Here [[15]], you misquoted me. If you're going to put quotes on words, please make certain that they are from that person. My words were: "I wish to assume good faith..." but I was simply confused by what Enric had written. Perhaps you are trying to show objectivity (and that is appreciated), but you're doing so at the expense of truth and accuracy. DanaUllman^Talk 03:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not misquote you, I quoted you exactly. —Whig (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight

There's an idea on Wikipedia called "undue weight" - see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. Friday (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that. What is your point? —Whig (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are way too many studies relevant to homeopathy to include them all in the article, right? Thus, it's appropriate to generalize about the collective weight of the evidence. It's probably reasonable to refer to the few that supporters tend to mention, but we should also make it clear that these are outliers and the majority of the evidence paints a different picture. Friday (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting otherwise. —Whig (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy arbitration case

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary_sanctions. Because of past problems with this article, editors try to keep a close eye on it. In particular, I have to warn you that your latest comments at [16] are completely at odds with reality. If this continues, such behavior could be considered disruptive, and could lead to you being topic banned. Please take care to be neutral and accurate. Friday (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Completely at odds with reality? How so? —Whig (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Of course there is a plausible mechanism" is extremely dubious. You're apparently taking something for granted that is unknown to the rest of the world. Friday (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to a prior conversation, Friday. If you want to see the context, read the archives. Cavitation binds photons to atoms, unless you think cQED photon binding experiments don't apply in natural phenomena. I'd say that's more than plausible. —Whig (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_39? I've read it. And I don't see where you've given any indication that this hypothesis of yours is anything but your own idea. You're not a new editor, so I assume you know that original research does not belong here. It's hard enough keeping the homeopathy article in reasonable shape. Please don't go around making it harder. Friday (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice that I'm not discussing original research, but the claim of implausibility. Perhaps it would be better to refer to "no plausible published mechanism" but it is false to say there is no plausible mechanism. —Whig (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What this comes down to is your use of the word "plausible". To a scientist and scientific skeptic, nothing is plausible unless there is some convincing evidence for it, and for them "convincing evidence" is far more than personal belief, anecdotes, thousands of years of use (acupuncture), millions of users (homeopathy), etc.. The following quotes illustrate the point, and you would be wise to incorporate them into your way of thinking:

• "The brightest flashes in the world of thought are incomplete until they have been proven to have their counterparts in the world of fact." - John Tyndall (1820-1893), physicist

• "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - William Kingdon Clifford

Whether you agree or not, I hope that helps you to understand how we think, and why you have little success in getting your arguments accepted. They are faulty in a very basic manner. Brangifer (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Insofar as you are rejecting cavity quantum electrodynamics as a plausible mechanism, not personal belief, anecdotes, duration of use, number of users, etc., your reply is completely beside the point. I would suggest to you that it is implausible to imagine that cQED photon binding does not occur in cavitation, when it occurs in artificial cavity domains. —Whig (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not so. Until mainstream science has accepted that as a plausible mechanism for homeopathy, it is speculative and thus not accepted. There will be no doubt at all when such acceptance happens. It will be front page news in the biggest newspapers and in the most prestigious medical and scientific journals. That has not happened. Brangifer (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your point is relevant to what we can say on Wikipedia, but not whether the mechanism is plausible. There is nothing speculative about cQED photon binding. Nobody has claimed general acceptance of this mechanism for homeopathy, but acceptance and plausibility are not the same. —Whig (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Linking cQED to homeopathy without evidence or strong scientific reasoning leads to a theory that is implausible. The bigger problem for homeopathy is the lack of effect. I would postulate, and the evidence supports this view, that there is no plausible mechanism because the effect doesn't exist; it is placebo, regression to the mean, etc. Verbal chat 10:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't regard that as a serious refutation, Verbal. Blind dismissal because you don't believe in the possibility that homeopathy is effective does not change the fact that cQED photon binding is real and demonstrated. You have not refuted this, nor that the effect must also occur in cavitation. Calling a theory implausible without some basis is pure denialism. Very disappointing. "There is no plausible mechanism because the effect doesn't exist." - Fail. —Whig (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing cQED here, what I'm disputing is any link to homeopathy. I've yet to see any theory to deny. Your assertion that cQED is a plausible mechanism isn't enough. However, without any effect to explain this is all rather moot. There is nothing for me to refute. Verbal chat 13:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

More disingenuousness. Are you disputing that photon binding occurs in cavitation? Here is the circular reasoning: Homeopathy cannot have effects because it lacks a plausible mechanism, and no mechanism needs to be considered for plausibility because it lacks effect. Does that summarize your view? —Whig (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't be rude. Homeopathy has no effect as no meaningful, reliable, reproducible effects have been recorded in multiple, large, well run studies. Whether cQED exists or not is beside the point, as you've shown no link to homeopathy - a mechanism by which cQED could produce the purported homeopathic effect. Verbal chat 16:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't rude to point out the fact that you are evading the question. I never asked whether cQED exists. If you said it didn't, I'd call you something other than disingenuous. You are changing the question in order to answer something other than I asked. Does cQED photon binding occur in cavitation? Your refusal to address this is disingenuous. —Whig (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The quick and dirty explanation is that the human body is warm, wet, and noisy - far from ideal conditions for observing quantum coherence. Our bodies also lack any mechanism for reading out such information in a meaningful way. For a proposal to be plausible, it should at the very least correspond to theories based on prior observations within their realm of applicability. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The biological side is beyond the scope of the physical model, but warmth and wetness seem to be irrelevant objections. I suggest that microtubules are capable of restoring coherence. Whether this is the relevant structure, I don't claim certainty, but Penrose and Hameroff seem to think they are important. —Whig (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Warm is important, as it's hard to keep states coherent at high (low on the human scale) temperatures. Verbal chat 16:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the Penrose and Hameroff article? —Whig (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy Politics

A community consensus on whether to permanently ban DanaUllman is being recommended by certain members of the Homeopathy editing community here. If you have any interest in the matter, you are welcome to participate. The wider the community input, the better. Dbrisinda (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, I oppose such a ban, and have stated my opinion there. —Whig (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I'm here due to your post[17] on ANI. If you agree why did you post here? I was only explaining that censorship does not apply. You agree. Are you trying to argue a case? There is a discussion section above, where you can make your points without cluttering up the Options section. I would very much appreciate it if you would remove this, as this kind of threaded conversation will make the weight of various views hard to read. I realize this may seem a bit nitpicky, but IMO it was due to this type of vectored threaded discussion that the previous efforts had become bogged down and non productive. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No intention to clutter the conversation, and I have removed this comment. —Whig (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI on DanaUllman

As you have participated at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Choices, this is to notify you that I've added 2 more choices. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. —Whig (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving pages

Hi. Just so you know for the future, you can move a page over an existing redirect, providing the redirect has only one line in its edit history (in other words the page was either previously moved from the redirect's title, or someone created a redirect pointing to the current article and no one else has touched it). It's only when the redirect has been edited since its creation (i.e., more than one line in its edit history), that you need to get an admin involved. In those cases, you can either go to WP:RM or put a {{db-move}} tag on the redirect with your reason if it's uncontroversial. Station1 (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I guess I should have just tried moving the article first. :) —Whig (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP Cannabis collaboration

Yes, I thought there would be more substance behind the US Marijuana Party. Was hoping it would make for an interesting read, but it turns out there isn't too much out there to research. Since the project is so new, I am picking collaborations from a variety of fields to determine which ones might actually generate interest and encourage other members to participate. So far, no luck, as I don't think anyone has helped with any of the collaborations. Hopefully, over time, members will see the potential of a collaboration and come together to improve articles. While no one else has voted in the poll, I suggested that we have 2 collaborations per month, where any member can update the collaboration page on the appropriate day and pick a new collaboration. You are more than welcome to do that on September 1. I am trying to get other members involved, so be my guest! :) --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should be focusing our collaboration on the most important articles, and making them the best they can be. There isn't going to be a lot of interest in collaborating on articles that don't have a lot of intrinsic interest to readers and editors. But it looks like Cannabis and Medical cannabis are the two articles currently nominated for collaboration which are high importance. I don't mean to discourage you just explaining why I think the US Marijuana Party didn't get a lot of participation. Btw, I just added the Guns and Dope Party to WP:420 as well. —Sharavanabhava (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom GA review

A review to see if Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria has started, and has been put on hold. Suggestions for improvement are at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA2, and are mainly to do with coverage and neutrality, and building the lead section. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is one of our most high profile and popular articles, attracting an average of over 11,000 readers every day. You have made more than 20 edits to the article, and so you might be interested in helping to make the improvements needed to get it listed as a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 12:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 15:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sharavanabhava

Its About The Very Old Controversial homeopathy Page

i saw your talks in the long archives and a big credit goes to you for that. So, i would again like you to join the recent discussions on talks page to give a proper guide, if you feel its okay.

im new to wikipedia and would really like to have your view point on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy#.27Quackery.27_in_lead.27

Shivang Tyagi (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I have chosen to abstain from stacked conversations on Wikipedia. There are areas where I still feel I can contribute a bit, where a presumptive consensus does not exist in opposition to the inclusion of other perspectives in what should be a NPOV encyclopedia, but is more governed by AGF where such is the rule of politeness over truth. I remain interested in pursuing truth and helping to increase that understanding through whatever appropriate means. —Sharavanabhava (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Oil cleansing method

Hello Sharavanabhava. I have recently nominated Oil cleansing method, an article on which you have worked, for deletion. I request your input here. Thanks! - Sweet Nightmares 05:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should a separate article on the dried flowers and leaves variant of the Cannabis plant be made?

Talk:Cannabis (drug)#RFC: Should the section about the dried whole-flower-and-leaf preparation have its own article? If you have the time, would you please analyse my request, as you interested in our Cannabis project. Do you think there should be a separate section for this topic? მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 21:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Separate section and separate article are two different things. I favor this section being part of Cannabis cultivation. —Sharavanabhava (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Cannabis!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Cannabis! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 559 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in the subject of cannabis.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)