This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 7
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Valjean. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Chiropractic article from Journal of Controversial Medicine
In 2002 the Journal of Controversial Medical Claims published a paper submitted by the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine entitled "NACM and its argument with mainstream chiropractic health care."[1]
Wowww!!!! Amazed at your article on Reindeer hunting in the cold north!!! I am astonished that wikipedia has developed to have an article so detailed as this on a topic nobody except one or two knows anything about!!! Thanks a mllion for sharing this with the world. I take it you are Danish and lived in Greenland for some time? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs17:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I have lived in Denmark for many years and in Greenland for 2½ years. During that time I enjoyed hunting and fishing, which in Greenland is a matter of subsistence. Keeping the freezers full is important. I hope the article will give people a glimpse into a very important part of Greenlandic and Inuit culture, as well as the beauty of the country. Glad you enjoyed the article Reindeer hunting in Greenland. Wikipedia is indeed vast. We are now approaching 2 million articles on nearly every conceivable subject, but the sky's the limit. -- Fyslee/talk06:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Lucilia, by Rambutan (talk·contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Lucilia seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Lucilia, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 212:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha! I just jumped in without knowing all the context. I usually stay out of the homeopathy discussions because they are so pointless. If you're interested, I can mail you some links to my stuff on the subject. -- Fyslee/talk20:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks your're the guy whose done the great work on Greenland aren't you. Fascinating the Arctic - I love the look of all those brightly colured huts!!!
I love monasteries!! Do you have my permission to use that superb Image of 2006? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs21:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you spent time in Mongolia or Tibet? Interesting articles about things far different than western culture! -- Fyslee/talk21:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I also love the names of those Inuit tribes and places. all those a's and q's . I've flown over Greenland several times and from the plane is looks absolutely freezing!!! I bet those huts are cosy. Is it a rumor but I heard that houses in the North Pole often have triple glazing windows -is this true?♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs21:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The coastal regions where people live really are Green and lush. Spectacular nature. I don't know about the triple-glazing, although double-glazing is standard in Denmark and Greenland. Maybe in the northern regions like Thule they use triple-glazing. -- Fyslee/talk21:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Spammer who doesn't learn
Yes this spammer and another IP address 203.218.138.106 (possibly the same person) are active again. I have blocked the first one for 24 hours at this time because it is somewhat problematic to block an IP for more than a few days. It also seems that this IP is working up a few spam links at a time and then moving to another computer or new IP. Please continue to let me know or for even quicker admin service post your request at WP:AIV. Best wishes. --VStalk21:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Ref testing
Barrett has criticized numerous topics, for example:
Hi Fyslee, a long time ago I tried to sort out this monster list into a colomn format. For me, at least, it is easier to parse the range of his activism in that format rather than in prose. What do you think?
With respect to all the links I'm not sure if that is necessary since one can link to quackwatch and find such pages. It looks a little link farmish and I think one could argue that the internal wiki links are proabbly enough. While a massive number of links is definitely more scholarly I have seen less get shot down as promotion/spam. David D.(Talk)14:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the column format is indeed much neater. That would be my preference, but I think it got overruled a long time ago, but I may not remember correctly. Regarding the references, there are a few points to mention:
This is what is required for inclusion (proof of his criticism and where it's located. So far, general and vague references are not considered sufficient documentation for inclusion of material in any article, especially specific and controversial matters. It's another story for common knowledge, where references are not required.
It would look better if it were itemized in columns. Right now the ref numbers do clutter it up a bit.
It may look link farmish, but links are not counted in search engine results, so they are simply a service to readers, showing whether the inclusion of the item is indeed justified, and leading to Barrett's actual words (even though many of the articles are prepared with the advice and input of many advisors and experts). Wikilinks are not sufficient (in any sense at all) as documentation for his criticism. They only lead to articles that tell about the subject, but not to his criticisms. This is his article, and thus inclusion of what he has written is specifically allowed. Right now we are providing a double service by including both, but it is only the references that are actually required, wikilinks being a matter of style and service, not documentation.
I think making columns would solve the problem of the appearance, as well as making it easier to edit individual items. I would certainly support that. -- Fyslee/talk17:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Levine2112's use of templates to warn me for pointing out what we think of his editing is an obnoxious tactic, and I have removed them from this spot. If he can't take the heat, he shoud stop carrying wood to the fire by constantly reverting other's edits and demeaning them and their POV. He is also using this tactic on other user talk pages and he should stop. -- Fyslee/talk18:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:WQA advice regarding dispute with Levine2112
Hi there. I am responding to a Wikiquette Alert filed by User:Levine2112 regarding some of your recent comments in various Talk pages that he perceives as personal attacks. I left a response to his WQA giving him some advice on how to proceed, and I mentioned that I would also give some advice to you. Please keep in mind that I am a neutral third party to this dispute, I do not have extensive knowledge of the full history in this situation, and I am not attempting to pass judgement on either of your viewpoints regarding article content. This is merely to address the personal dispute that has arisen between both of you.
I advised Levine that his practice of removing and editing your comments in Talk pages, regardless of WP:NPA, is probably only serving to inflame the situation more, rather than helping. I also mentioned to him that some editors tend to be more direct and blunt in their personal feedback than others. That said, I'd like to offer some advice to you as well with regards to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as I feel that your statements toward him are also likely inflaming the situation.
First off, please make sure you are familiar with the policies WP:NPA, WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS. Some recent statements you've made in the Stephen Barrett article talk went beyond making your case for inclusion of certain resources in the article and criticized the validity of Levine's points. This is not a good idea. However you may feel about another editor, you should refrain from making statements along the lines of "This editor's points are not valid" and "This editor is being 'contentious'". Please limit your statements and arguments to your own POV about the article content itself, and let the community form consensus based on the factual arguments.
Secondly, when giving feedback to an editor on his/her own talk page, please make sure that you do not attempt to speak on behalf of multiple editors unless you have their permission and support to do so. This can be a form of intimidation and is generally not well received, so saying things in the form of "we all don't appreciate your edits/attitude/whatever" and "you've driven away other editors" should be done with extreme caution - and generally probably not at all. I'd advise limiting your feedback to your own POV to ensure that the other editor understands that this feedback is coming from you. There are official avenues to seek comment from a larger community, such as User RfC, and these can provide a more neutral environment in which to provide feedback and resolve disputes.
Third, it is all too easy to confuse criticism of an editor's opinions and viewpoints with criticism of the editor him/herself. Please remember that while you and Levine have different points of view on article content, in the majority of cases both of your viewpoints are equally valid. This does not mean that they are both necessarily correct, or that they both conform to consensus and WP policies. But they are worth considering and discussing, and WP encourages all editors to engage in open and fair discussion of all points of view. Please refrain from statements that invalidate other editors' points - instead, if you disagree with their points, argue against them in a civil, polite manner by presenting your own side, especially if you can back up your side with notable citations. When an argument is presented in a fair manner such as this, the community will be able to form a proper consensus for either side (or perhaps a combination of both, or neither).
I hope this will help defuse the situation and get you guys back on track. :) Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding, level-headedness, and good advice. I intend to try to better avoid these situations. It's been a long time since I have last had a dispute and I got sucked into this deeper than I foresaw. I guess I'm too sensitive, but not so much I can't settle my own disputes. (I don't normally use boards to report other users when I am a party to the dispute. I consider that to be quite unfair.) Actually pretty stupid of me! Thanks again. -- Fyslee/talk20:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to say, thank you so much for trusting in your son. Hopefully more and more parents will show this kind of genuine caring for their children, and there'll be less of the kind of horror stories i'm used to hearing from other AS people. Lucky number 4900:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Proposed article rewrite project for homeopathy and related articles
Hello, I noticed that you were an active editor in the homeopathy article and I'm leaving you this message asking you to add some input into a proposed article rewrite project I have planned for it and related articles. This means that I will rewrite the article, post a rough draft as a sub page of my username, then when I am done I will gather all major contributors to work on the article from there following specific rules. Anyone who has been in previous disputes concerning this or related articles should be able to come to a compromise if they are reasonable. This project will take several weeks and will probably involve several other articles. Hopefully we can turn homeopathy and related articles into Featured articles or at least Good articles. If you're willing to aid in such a project then please leave a note of support here Talk:Homeopathy#Proposed_article_rewrite_project and answer these simple questions here Talk:Homeopathy#Questions_for_editors. Thanks. Wikidudeman(talk)03:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Before making such a decision, I'd like to know what you specifically feel is wrong with the article and why it needs to be rewritten from scratch. Please feel free to email me. -- Fyslee/talk06:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Look at the article and it's history and you'll see why. My process will prevent edit warring and will clean the article up and make it more suitable for FA. Wikidudeman(talk)08:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless you can prevent (which would violate the rules and spirit here) editors from destroying your work here (the current rules can't prevent that), the article could easily revert to a bad state again quite quickly. It only takes a little group of POV warriors to undue lots of hard work. There is no permanency or protection for even FA, unlike at Citizendium. There will always be editors who will try to make the article a sales pitch for homeopathy and who will try to suppress opposing POV. Many editors (especially new ones, but some old ones as well) fail to understand NPOV and see Wikipedia as a place to present their favorite subject in the best light possible by preventing the inclusion of opposing POV that shows there is controversy about the subject. If such matters are well-sourced, they must be included. How will you deal with these realities? I'm not against your idea, per se, but am concerned about whether it will be a waste of time. Many such efforts have been tried before. They either violate policies here because of ownership issues, or they end up getting sabotaged and the good work turns out to have been wasted time. That's why I want to know exactly what specific reasons you have for starting this project. If it sounds realistic without violating any policies, I'll support it. -- Fyslee/talk09:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The more editors there are willing to work to support a single version and prevent it from getting destroyed, the less likely it will be destroyed. Just work with me and let's see how it works. No policy violations. Wikidudeman(talk)20:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The autism urban legend in particular is an extremely dangerous bit of misinformation that has the potential to kill many children and make a mockery of our legal system. It's currently covered in a cursory way, but both articles were so poorly written that they couldn't serve as a counter to the garbage online.
I leave it in your hands--I have no intention of staying involved. If I entered into every subject related discussion following an AfD, even the ones I actually care about, my head would spin in circles, so I stick to the ones that really need help to maintain balance. DGG (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The previous version of the article had neutrality, original research and unverified tags. But, all these tags were removed later. These tags have been put back, after scienceblogs.com post received widespread attention among the science bloggers, the Wikipedia critics and others.
The web page that the anonymous IP user cites "critical of the WP article" makes claims of its own that are unsupported excepting only speculation. Like "Rife" was possibly only "an optician?" There is rational skepticism, and then there other motivations involving inertia, reputations, and let us not forget money (on both sides of many issues).
A cured patient is "a customer lost." If "a cheap cure" works, then who is going to lose more money?
IP user, you should read all of the discussion on the page that you mention. Not all of it is in harmony with what Mark H has said.
Fyslee, please use fact-template tags on the specific parts of the section that remain disputed. This will make it easier for me to clean up the article.
The section is quite old. It existed prior to my having edited it. As such, I should not completely be blamed for "having ruined" the entire section since "some of it" is slightly changed from its original wording.
I have removed and rearranged part of the section that you have tagged as OR. Please have a look at the revised version, and see what you think of it.
The Jeff Rense site contained a transcript of a tape recording that I thought that I heard in a documentary film and so I believed that the site did not misrepresent any facts involved. The citation is in part for parabolic lens grinding, and Scottish ancestry.
You can't have spherical aberration if you are using parabolic mirrors. With statements involving parabolic lens included, there should be fewer critical statements made by scientific sources saying that the microscope claims are impossible since spherical aberration does not happen. Often aspherical lenses are used today in digital cameras to reduce color fringing effects.
The key scientific item that Mark H claims as the reason that Rife was a quack has to do with refraction limits of optical microscopes to be able to view viruses. Until someone does the math and determines that luminescence could not be elicited using Rife's "staining with light" a.k.a. heterodyning, I will keep an open mind to the possibility that it could have happened--that seems rational to me?
The dispute that Mark H has with Rife's Beam Ray device is that "energy levels are too low," but I have not found anything yet that has actually scientifically tested this. A blog commentator mentions MRI, but as mentioned in the existing and previous articles, the process was likened to NMR, not MRI. The power levels for many of these NMR machines may be high enough in order to have spectral energy levels at higher frequencies.
There are several web sites that state similar source-able things. That some reference cited sites seem to be untrustworthy by the critics just means that the references have to cite the same information as coming from sites that the critics like.
Did Rife study where he said he did? I don't know. 1888 + 17 years old makes 1905 to 1906 the time frame that Rife claims he was attending Johns Hopkins. I don't know if JH has its records back to this time for a person who did not complete a degree there.
Regardless of educational qualifications, if the technology works, then it works. Reports at the time of the Franklin Institute article, and reputable doctors who actually went to visit the Rife labs said that it was all on the up and up and worked. Oldspammer22:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
"Most"
It's not just the amorphous nature of alternative medicine. The statement is absurd on its face; like saying that someone has critisized "most" forms of poetry or that they've contemplated "most" ideas. Such claims are too vague to verify, and they're probably impossible to achieve (because the number of concepts is boundless). Cool HandLuke19:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
LMAO. you should look back at the edit summaries when this was put in--the person who wrote was a crazy ass. i edited it back then and he/she came at me like a cat on catnip. after a whole bunch of crap and intervention, we left it at the state it was at. that's why i was upset that wikieuphoria just came along and deleted it. i think it's a good idea to have another side like that, but it didn't need to be as dramatic as it originally was. I don't think libel is good, but if one follows the link of the reference it's all there. However, some of it was inferred originally, and that's where we had problems. would it be ok to restore it and edit it? Bouncehoper19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless it is untrue, there is no risk of libel. It's more a question of trivia and BLP. We edit trivia on the side of fairness, if we include it at all. Everyone picks their nose, so why was precisely that detail picked out? (In anatomy we learn that the nostrils are the size of our index finger. If they were smaller we'd be in deep trouble!) It smacks of a cheap shot by an editor who chose that and ignored other and more interesting information. It's sensationalistic journalism. It would be an editorial POV nightmare to determine what is notable in that article, unless it really was something notable to him and his career. The website itself doesn't come across as a RS, but I am not familiar with it, so I'm not in a good position to judge it. -- Fyslee/talk19:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Homeopathy rough draft finished
I have finished my draft of the Homeopathy article. The draft is a rough approximation of what it should be like. It obviously has some flaws in it's format and wording right now but they will be kinked out within the next couple of days. Right now what I want is for you, if you're interested in helping to improve the article, to come to the articles talk page. There we will all discuss the article and how it could be improved before we replace the current homeopathy article with it. In order for this to work we need to follow a few rules. The first rule, the most important rule, is that no one but me can edit the rough draft. Do not edit the rough draft. This precaution is used to prevent edit warring and loss or addition of information that might not be up to consensus. Don't worry, It's just a draft and you'll have all the time you want to make changes after we've replaced it with the current article. The second rule is that all proposed changes in the rough draft must be made on the talk page of the rough draft and must be clear and concise. At that point anyone involved will discuss the proposed changes and if agreed by consensus they will be implemented. We will do that until there is no disputes or disagreements. After all disputes are hammered out, we will replace the homeopathy article with the rough draft. At that point there shouldn't be anyone needing to make huge edits, and if you do see an edit that you want to make, be sure to add a note on the talk page PRIOR to making the edit so that consensus can be reached and then you should make the edit. If you have any questions you can leave me a message on my talk page. Here is the link to the rough draft Link to rough draft. Wikidudeman(talk)13:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Furshpan articles & editors
I ran across some of your edits concerning these articles and editors. I'll help out when I have a bit more time, but it looks like some serious coi and promotional editing. I tagged the two user talk pages, but not sure if we'll hear from either again. Looks like most of the articles have notability problems, and some might even meet speedy deletion criteria. --Ronz21:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed this awhile back but never got back to it. This guy is misusing Wikipedia in a major way. Speedy might be the way to go, but I'm tired now. It's the middle of the night here. -- Fyslee/talk21:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Da nada! Looks like an interesting place. I'll have to visit it when I'm in the area. As a child I lived in the Philippines (first and second grades) where there are some pretty large varieties that are used for building purposes, furniture, bridges over rivers, as well as eating. The article could be developed even more, just as long as it doesn't get used for outright advertising. The homepage link is enough for that, but there's nothing wrong with making it looking like an interesting place to visit! -- Fyslee/talk06:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I want to visit also--I was in Monterey today, and I wish I had known about it. And, it's not nothing, all these little copyedits add up to a better quality article that I get partial credit in. Feel free to edit my prose any time. KP Botany07:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
history of medicine
did you not see the paragraph I placed on the homeopathy talk page about your question re history of medicine? it is there if you wish to reply. Peter morrell16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Here it is: Thanks. I will think this over rather than rule it out. Much depends on how much one has studied medical history in a truly neutral manner rather than through the reductionist lens that predominates with today's so-called scientific thinking. It is very difficult to get into the mindset of folks centuries ago without doing a grave injustice to their viewpoint and contaminating any interpretation with one's own modern-day ideas. This problem is the major obstacle, I would say, in reaching a sound evaluation of any aspect of past medical systems. It is very easy for us today to reach crass and simplistic interpretations that bear little relation to the reality as it was in those times. Learned physicians in past ages had their rationale and their tools; how we see them is another story. Maybe we can discuss this at some point. Peter morrell 06:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Peter morrell17:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Very true. If we can somehow present that understanding clearly (probably in the history of medicine article and wikilink to it, and then make it clear that modern medicine (and modern man) reject that as an outdated mode of thinking, it would be good. Probably not an easy task and certainly not appropriate for the homeopathy article to go into too much depth with it. -- Fyslee/talk17:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Discussion at the Quackery article
I'm trying to get a discussion going over at the Quackery article about the Notable People Accused of Quackery section of the article. The section keeps getting removed so I'm trying to get a dialogue going about the usefulness of this section. I figured you might be interested since you were involved with the original discussion on this section. Elhector21:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot23:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ruth Drown, by Skysmith (talk·contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ruth Drown fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:
Self-reference to the article, deserves her own article
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ruth Drown, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 208:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot08:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
josh groban
can't remember if i replied. i put the thing back because it was a different angle. it also got fixed cuz someone must have been tampering with it. urgh. no biggie dealie.
Bouncehoper18:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The morgellons discussion has moved to Thatcher's sandbox for now. Herd would like include the three letters to the editors written by dermatologists to a dermatology journal. I specifically remember your removing them from the article within the past two weeks -- you said that they were not appropriate. (At the time I was trying to add a letter to the editor and you said it could not be included, then I mentioned these other letters, and you took them out. Do you remember this? Would you be willing to comment on this in the sandbox? Thanks Pez110302:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I responded to your comments on my user page. It was a mix up. I hope my explanation makes sense. Thanks, Pez Pez110313:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot20:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Ironically...
That really sums up what he thinks of BLP and NPOV [3]. The bottom line seems to be he doesn't care as long as he can get his personal viewpoint into the article. --Ronz04:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The article must be toned down and it lacks neutrality, furthermore lacks almost completely citations for the alleged frauds. I will restore some flags. Please do not remove until the article has been:
You'll find my reply on the article's talk page. You have some legitimate concerns. BTW, welcome to Wikipedia (although you may be an old timer who has just begun using your current user name.) -- Fyslee/talk18:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Homeopathy draft
The Homeopathy draft seems about ready to go live. I'll wait a few more days and see if any other people make proposed changes though, Tell me what you think of it currently and if you see a problem with it then please propose some changes on it's talk page for me to make. I want to make sure everyone agrees on the article before replacing it so that edit wars don't instantly begin. Give it a read through and just propose any changes you think should be made on it's talk page and then we can discuss them and make them if agreed upon. Thanks. Wikidudeman(talk)17:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot05:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot05:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.
Apologies to everyone for this notification being sent out so late, events in real life prevented me from distributing it at the time, and the Wine Project's had a bit of a lull during the Northern Hemsiphere summer. But as the nights draw in, activity should pick up again, and hopefully the next Newsletter will arrive a little more quickly....
It's about the only thing that's effective at all. I certainly don't think anything is going to come of an RFC/U. Besides, we all have better things to do with our time. --Ronz19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
No I do. Please ignore me, especially if you think I am a troll. There is a dialogue open on Talk:Quackwatch. I really like the way Hopping has presented his points and they are very much aligned with mine. I would enjoy further discussion there if there is anything else to say. -- Levine2112discuss21:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you were acting as a troll in this situation. It is indeed a series of misunderstandings that can be avoided in the future if you avoid using that type of wording in your replies. -- Fyslee/talk21:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually it looks like a repeat of "Are you Barrett's son", "No, really are you", "I must insist that you have to tell me that you are Barrett's son" etc. Shot info00:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but I agree with Dematt. Did you find out who this annonymous person is? Stay safe! Of course you can email me if you prefer. --CrohnieGalTalk11:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, was reading your sentiments on NPOV and agree with you. We could use your help at Anchor Baby in so much as a perusal of the discussion and any advice you might be able to give pertaining to the article's NPOV nature. --Northmeister02:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
TMS page
Hi Fyslee - thanks for your note on my talk page. I appreciate the acknowledgment. I'm an advocate of evidence-based science and skepticism too, and sometimes it's hard to reconcile that with Wikipedia polices. I hope the article does that now. It was a hard debate with so many sockpuppets or whatever those were, but it seems to have worked out OK. Thanks again and happy editing... --ParsifalHello07:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Then we share common interests. In this case I had to look away from any questionable or quackery related aspects and purely at the notability aspects. If a subject, even a nonsensical, quackery, or criminal subject is notable, then it should be included here. My own POV on any subject is not a legitimate reason for excluding it from Wikipedia. You did a good job of bringing the article up to a standard that meant it could withstand the AfD, and you convinced me and several others who had voted against it to change our minds. Kudos to you! -- Fyslee / talk08:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to organize my user page, esp. the boxes. Would you please help me? Once I see what you have done I am sure I will be able to do it myself. Thanks, if you don't have the time I totally understand. --CrohnieGalTalk13:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of having the boxes in rows along the top and the pictures I got below that. Is this duable? I need to keep the reminders here though. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk10:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Take a look here,here,here, and here. It can be done in many different ways. There are many examples on other user pages. We just need to find one and copy the code. Use Google toolbar to search Wikipedia user pages for the codes used. Try a search using "user boxes" as the search term. Take a look and find something you like. Then we can work with that. -- Fyslee / talk15:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I figured out how to give barnstars which I give to those who have been so very helpful to me and understanding. What I can't figure out is how does everyone put the box and stuff around it? Would you first correct the one I gave to you so it looks like the other one and second would you email how to do it in terms that I can understand then the programming stuff that does it? Sorry for being such an idiot but I am trying and I think I am doing better but that you and others would be a better judge of. Thanks for all of your help Fyslee, you've been a Godsend to me at times as has a few other editors.
I would like to recommend you for administration status, are you ready yet for this? I know in the past you said you weren't but time has passed and you, in my opinion, would make an excellent and fair administrator. Let me know, I won't be offended at all if you are not ready, as you should know me by now about these kinds of things. --CrohnieGalTalk12:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
There are many reasons to be an admin, and many more to not be. I've been opposing every nomination where I see an applicant who actually hasn't contributed to this project. You have Fyslee, and I'd love to see you think about it some day. Besides, I need help occasionally with the POV-warriors who drop by the various quackery articles (homeopathy, herbalism, etc.). Anyways, you'd have my support. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions23:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Well what I have seen lately I would understand why anyone wouldn't want the responsibility. Just my opinion but I have seen a lot of administrators under a microscrope lately. But that being said, if you are interested let me know as I would definitely recommend you. You have been so good to me and help me when I need it that I think your knowledge of policies and your behavior to editors like me would do you well. :) --CrohnieGalTalk13:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Coming from you, this is indeed an honor. To aspire to the Triple Crown would require much more than I am able to give, but definitely not more than I could give or would desire to give to this project if I were in other circumstances. It would just require that I neglect my dearest ones and my priorities are with them. Sometimes my reality gets in the way of cyberspace reality (although Wikipedia is a very real endeavor of great value). I am comforted by the knowledge that Wikipedia is not totally dependent on my contributions and that it is in good hands as long as people like you make their influence felt. -- Fyslee / talk05:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
TfD
I thank you for the excellent and nuanced explanation at the TfD on mind-body interactions. And I'll be glad to support if you ever do want to be an admin. DGG (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Kinesiology
Hi Fyslee,
Do you have a kinesiology background? I recognized your name at the Kinesiology talk page, I'm looking for an opinion on this section from someone with a kin background. The guy I'm arguing with is approaching it from a physics standpoint, and I'm either too stupid to see his point or they're inappropriate. I don't know if you can actually help or not, but I thought I'd give it a shot. Please note that I'm also open to my opinion being wrong. WLU13:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
99.9999999% don't believe in precognition? Well, maybe precognition is an exception, but have you seen that Skeptical Enquirer article complaining that over 70% of people believe in some aspect of the paranormal? Maybe you're right, I'm not sure. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs)05:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually 100% of "those who believe that there is a lack of scientific evidence supporting the existence of precognition and who contend that examples of what are commonly thought to be precognition can be explained naturally without evoking supernatural abilities." No skeptics and few scientists believe in it, but what the population does generally proves the truth of the sayings "There's a sucker born every minute" and "Mankind's capacity for deception and self-deception knows no limits." -- Fyslee / talk05:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It's been awhile so I thought I would drop in and say hello! Real life has kept me busy but I have hopes and new articles to help with that are hopefully not as controversal. Feel free to email me anytime. --CrohnieGalTalk17:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, if you don't like the link I found then maybe we should look for others? Barrett was very actively against those who didn't like floride. Don't you think this part should be added? --CrohnieGalTalk13:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to be more active on a few different articles. This one, if I am not mistaken, was disputed by a anti-floride lady, Sheryl I believe but I could be wrong with the name! And why is the article protected again? I didn't think things were that bad to deserve protection or did I miss something? --CrohnieGalTalk13:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The article protection happened a bit fast. At least it means that the development of future content will have to get discussed first, instead of immediate revert wars ensuing. I think you are thinking of Darlene Sherrell, an anti-fluoridation activist whom Barrett sued for libel. She usually claims he sued her for writing that he didn't produce references to some research (which is obviously not something he would sue her for), but it was a whole lot of other things that he sued her for writing. He didn't succeed because he is a public figure and because he couldn't prove damages, which require an extremely high burden of proof for public figures and for matters which are deemed of public interest, and the fluoridation issue certainly is of public interest. The suit was a loss-loss situation for both of them, because some of her counter claims weren't proven either. She also got off because it couldn't be proven that she wrote what she did with malice. There isn't much serious doubt that what she wrote was indeed libelous and incorrect, but she was parroting the writings of others who have written such things (Carter's book, etc.), and it was found that she probably really believed what they wrote (even though it was lies and conspiracy theories designed to damage Barrett, without concern for provable truth). Now she would be even more protected because republishing lies on the internet is totally protected (remember BvR).
I really have no burden either way as to whether the article gets enlarged with sections dealing with Barrett's views and controversies on fluoridation. If it happens, then the door will be opened for inclusion of similar sections on vaccination, and also for expansion of his views on chiropractic, which is probably the area with the most documentation. He has been very active on that front and is probably best known for his opposition to quackery within chiropractic. I doubt the knowledgeable chiropractic editors would be happy for that to happen, because there are an extremely large number of RS from peer reviewed research, insurance agencies (regarding organized chiropractic scams), the BBB, FDA, FCC, and other governmental sources that back up his criticisms of a number of forms of quackery, misleading basic education, and various illegal and unethical practices that are common and quite normal within chiropractic. OTOH, chiropractic rebuttals are often from sources that are extremely biased and not RS, so they would get overwhelmed by the RS on Barrett's side of the story. If Levine2112 wants to open that can of worms, it will be a day that will go down in chiropractic history as the day the public got informed from Wikipedia, using RS, about a whole lot of things the profession would rather the public didn't know. Basically it would be a Pyhrric victory for chiropractic, but without the "victory" part. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes if it happens, because the profession won't be happy with him for opening that door. They will hunt him down and ask him why he didn't shut up and stop in time. It will be a PR disaster for them. It would be extremely damaging and would lay the groundwork for inclusion of much of the same content in the chiropractic article. I haven't pushed for inclusion of that subject in the article, but would be prepared to help in its preparation as I have loads of resources to use and make available, and there are probably other editors and many reform and former chiropractors who would love to help. It's a huge area that isn't covered at all in the chiropractic article, and it needs to be done some day. It would also be its own article as well, but of course briefly covered in the chiropractic article and linked to from it. Barrett is just a little brick in that controversy, as it is a historical fact that the whole establishment (governmental, medical, insurance, police, historical, etc..) has been opposed to the rampant quackery within chiropractic for ages. There are many sources to drawn on. -- Fyslee / talk17:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that your idea of just a sentence, maybe two, would be enough for me. But if it goes to opening a whole lot of things like vacinations etc. then, as I say on the talk page, forget my idea and archive the whole section. I just thought it was something new to add, but the last thing I want to see is another subject to get disputed and cause an edit war yet again. --CrohnieGalTalk14:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I want to leave this note to you. Please try to only discuss Martin at the arbitration and not get off topic and discuss the paranormal or anything else. I would suggest that you remove any off topic discussions from the arbitration so that we avoid it turning into a confusing mess of paranormal discussion which gets us off track from the actual point of the arbitration, martin. Thanks. Wikidudeman(talk)13:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I want to encourage you to comment on Martinphi, but I think that if we get sidetracked and start piling up pages of debate of parapsychology, paranormal, etc, then we decrease the likelihood of the arbitrators actually being able to make a good decision on the actual topic of the arbitration, I.E. martinphi's conduct. Wikidudeman(talk)14:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Very true. He first appeared on my radar because of the disputes he was always causing. I rarely actually edit paranormal topics, since I am more interested in alternative medicine subjects and know more about them. Upon examining his editing patterns, I detect that he has a subtle tendency (that probably flies under the radar of most people) to treat paranormal subjects as proven facts, but without openly displaying it. It's all in the choice of words which seem to admit that they are considered fringe topics, but at the same time using words that imply that they are real phenomena that just aren't accepted by the mainstream scientific community. He will even admit that what we say is true, but then edit as if he never read what we said, and obviously doesn't believe it. It's all very subtle. Any reader, especially those who already believe in the paranormal, could get the impression that the articles actually "tell it like it is" (from their POV), and would see the inclusion of skeptical and scientific criticisms as content that Wikipedia requires, but which just goes to show that there are a few nuts out there who still deny such obviously true phenomena. IOW there is a very subtle, pervasive, and common NPOV violation thread through all of his edits. He is a very big POV pusher, but not quite as uncivil as his now banned supporter, Profg. -- Fyslee / talk19:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot09:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
While your points are good, I think you should refactor your comments there. Yes, the repeated search-and-remove efforts are cases of pov-based vandalism. Yes, an RfCU is far past due. However, you're comments are outside WP:TALK and you know from experience that he takes such comments extremely poorly (evidence enough on the same talk page further up). --Ronz04:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
My comments are about his editing, and many editors, not the least of whom is you, can attest to the truth of what is happening. He has written worse about my editing. We are adults here and don't go complaining to mother when our feelings get hurt. We can talk about it. He knows perfectly well that this isn't the first time he has done this type of deletionist rampage and knows he is being watched, so it can be considered a conscious provocation on his part. After his false charges against me (about supposedly link-spamming Quackwatch) at the Barrett v Rosenthal RfArb were proven to be quite false, he is walking on very thin ice by a repetition of his deletionisms. They will only cause his agenda to be scrutinized even more. -- Fyslee / talk05:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, Levine2112 refused to stop, and has instead continued. Multiple editors involved. Multiple articles. This is exactly what RFC/U is for, though an ANI might be a better start considering the ArbComm and you're looking for help there. --Ronz22:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he's on a deletion rampage and deleting or changing any references from Quackwatch or Barrett whenever he can. -- Fyslee / talk03:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot14:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Levine2112 objects to this version in the NCAHF article:
The American Chiropractic Association (ACA) criticised the NCAHF for its involvement in the PBS broadcast of a 2002 episode on chiropractic. Daryl D. Wills, D.C.(ACA president) responded to PBS officials stating (in part): "I find it ironic that a program titled 'Scientific American Frontiers' would completely ignore the scientific foundation of the chiropractic profession. The chiropractic portion of the June 4 episode titled 'A Different Way to Heal?' irresponsibly characterized chiropractic care -- a legitimate, research-based form of health care -- as a fraudulent hoax." and that "[t]he producers of your program could not have expected objectivity" from the NCAHF.[1][2] The producer of the program replied in detail and explicitly denied these allegations: "The segment did not claim that chiropractic is fraudulent and did not attempt to prove or disprove that chiropractic "works," but it does state that chiropractic has no basis in science. This conclusion is entirely justified by both current research and generally accepted views of human anatomy."[3]
My attempt to create a version that doesn't swamp the whole article with the many criticisms and their very successful rebuttals, but still allows readers to read the sources for themselves:
In 2002, the president of the NCAHF was one of the participants in a PBS broadcast of Scientific American Frontiers[4][5][6] that was critical of chiropractic. The American Chiropractic Association (ACA) wrote to PBS and criticized PBS for the views presented in the show and complained about the use of the NCAHF. Both the producer[3] of the show and the NCAHF[7][8] responded to the criticisms with rebuttals.
ps In case you were not sure, "I didn't know it was loaded" was meant to be funny.
Yes, I understand the humor. Cheney will have to live with that for the rest of his life. I have a copy of MAD magazine right here entitled "The MAD War on Bush". Very amusing and with plenty of shots at Cheney (pun intended!). -- Fyslee / talk04:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot05:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Got it
I'm not totally convinced that these two are as separable as you make them out to be. For example, they seem to have given each other barnstars and I've been noticing a pattern of piggybacking in the talkpages. I do recognize that they have different styles when it comes to article editing, but I would be more comfortable if I saw some indication that Dematt was trying to distance himself from Levine2112.
I've known plenty of great chiropractors who got licensed simply because they could make more money than being massage therapists. That our society places chiropractor above massage therapists in pay-scale is definitely a big part of the problem, IMHO.
I too wish Dematt would distance himself more. Otherwise there is a simple explanation for their appearance around the same time, etc., and it also applies to others like myself - we watch our watchlists and have common interests. -- Fyslee / talk00:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting comment. I suppose when I wrote the article I wanted to give as much flavour of the album as possible, but you are not the first to assume the rendered spelling is incorrect. I take your point about the Wikilinking, but I guess I didn't want the article to lie about the album. I've no strong views either way, possibly because I've now been editing Wikipedia for too long. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You sent me an e-mail? It hasn't arrived. What I was mostly wondering is if you have had any problems with incivility, 3RR and the like. Your block log is clean (for 1 year) but I'm being cautious since you often work in quite contentious areas. Tim Vickers02:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It just took longer to prepare than expected. I screwed up a cut and paste and managed to delete something, so I had to start over again. -- Fyslee / talk04:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You'd have at least one vote for this, mine! ;) You were the first person, I think, to welcome me here to Wikipedia and have treated me with understanding, patience and respect never mind all the help you gave me to learn how to do things here. I think you would be a wonderful administrator and would do your best to be fair to all. You know policies and do try to adhere to them. When you are in error, you are also big enough to say 'I'm sorry' and try to fix the differences. I just wanted you both to know I would totally agree to the idea and think Fyslee would be a big asset to Wikipedia in this sense too. --CrohnieGalTalk13:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You would probably pass, as you have good work behind you, but I would oppose you because of your recent comments on the Whig debate, which were completely out of bounds. They demonstrate that you are not able to take a neutral impartial point of view, and will be prepared to block users based on your POV, not on their contributions. That bodes ill for Wikipedia, so I would suggest you took a look at that point, consider if what I say is correct (and you are free to disagree of course) and take action. You will be the better admin for that! Good luck with the attempt though! I wish you well. docboat (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I see that the essence of my response didn't make it here, so I should let you know here. I am not considering being an admin, and have politely drawn away from a number of such requests. I appreciate the thought, but my life is too full to handle it, at least right now. I am too controversial and have too many enemies here for it to be worth it. I think it is a very bad thing to block people because of their POV or their serious contributions. Both of those things are somewhat sacred. We all have a right to our POV, and we all have a right to make serious contributions which we hope will improve Wikipedia. It's when we deny others the same rights that there is a problem.
If it were in my powers, I would prefer to block people based on their disruptive and POV-pushing attitudes, regardless of their POV, and especially when those tendencies lead to repeated personal attacks or a refusal to accept a consensus that goes against them. If you knew my history here, better, you would know that I have supported the blocking of some of the most skeptical editors here (IOW my potential allies), precisely because they were POV warriors who refused to accept consensus. Collaboration wasn't their thing. (KrishnaVindaloo and Mccready are two that come to mind.) Some editors seem to think that if their will doesn't get pushed into an article already yesterday or last week, then the world is coming to an end. They forget that articles are never finished, consensus changes, the article is here tomorrow, and if they were successful in making articles represent their POV or what they believe to be the truth, then something would be wrong with Wikipedia, and the articles would be missing something, namely exactly the same things they wish, but from the opposite POV. It all has to be presented in articles. Many of us have websites, and that's the place to write one-sided articles covered from our POV. That's where we can write the truth as we see it, keep out deceptive ideas, and provide our readers with the unvarnished truth. Wikipedia isn't the place to do that. Here we present truth and error side by side. It's frustrating, but this is an encyclopedia, and writing for the enemy is sometimes painful, but it must be done, or at least enabled and not opposed. -- Fyslee / talk03:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
OK - you have the same sort of approach as I do then. Cool. Reconsider your admin role later then - you would do well. docboat (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Brian. I am not excluding the possibility at some time in the future, but just not now. As you have discovered, editing here is complicated because we are (properly so) prevented from editing according to our personal whims. There are editors who represent other POV, and we must cooperate with them. It ain't easy, but it is interesting and develops character....;-) One of the most pleasant experiences of this type that I have had here is cooperation with Dematt, a chiropractor who holds some beliefs which I consider fallacious, (like vertebral subluxation), but who really understands NPOV, is cooperative, never sinks to making personal attacks, and does enable the inclusion of criticisms of his profession, as long as they are properly sourced. That takes a great deal of self-confidence, genuine goodness, and diplomacy. Working together with such people ensures that we produce much better articles than if we worked alone or only with editors who shared our POV. It also makes editing here a rewarding and learning experience. -- Fyslee / talk17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Silly question
Just a question, did you 'steal' this box from my user page? If so, I'm flattered! If not, I'm narcissistic. Or forgetful. WLU15:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't remember where I got it, but I didn't create it myself (except for some tweaking to make it personal), so consider yourself flattered....-;) -- Fyslee / talk15:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
My ego just got a little bigger, yay for me! Consider this my release of the userbox under GNU license :) Let me know if you do go for adminship BTW, I'd actually have things to say. Good things too... WLU16:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have noticed it, but in light of current developments (see recent my edit history) I should watch it more closely. -- Fyslee / talk19:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I think we all are interested in keeping disruptive persons from creating havoc by their total disregard for the congenial editing climate we wish we had. If they could only stick to editing articles using notable and V & RS we would have no problem, but these types of people insist on rejecting advice and continually misusing Wikipedia to attack other editors and try to force their POV on articles. Keep up the good work. -- Fyslee / talk18:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
On my talk page you will see that the picture was put in the Crohn's disease article with explanation), [6] and [7] which is the Spanish article. Now if I remember correctly you speak other languages. If this is true would you mind adding this photo to what other languages you know? I would appreciate it. I don't have time right now but there are a couple of other articles I think the picture is appropriate for. The Spanish Wiki was done by the editor on my talk page as was the rest of it. I am trying to find other editors who know other languages to have it be assessable in those articles. Please let me know when you have time either here or via email. Also, if you know any other editors who can help with this please post to my talk page or email. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk00:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Your false "incivility warning" is more evidence of your failure to understand Wikipedia. It is a form of harassment, as well as being yet another personal attack. The link you provide points to even more evidence against your behavior. -- Fyslee / talk17:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I wish we had some special rules for editing controversial articles. I have dreamed about it for some time and have occasionally written about it. Articles on topics that are recognized as very controversial, such as alternative medicine, politics, religion, and nationalism, should be more tightly controlled. Only experienced editors should be allowed to edit them, and their edits overseen by an admin (preferably with knowledge of the subject matter) who functions as a referee. Editors are allowed to edit after declaring their POV, any possible COI issues, and stating their willingness not to oppose the inclusion of opposing POV. (This does not preclude the possibility of other editors providing input.) Then they all "sit down at the same table" (the talk page) and work out their changes to the article. When the changes have achieved consensus, then the admin gives permission for inclusion, or does it themselves. The referee will enforce a very high standard for what is allowed on the talk page, such as staying on-topic, and no personal attacks, etc.. Such articles would obviously be protected and would have the possibility of moving directly up the quality scale from GA to FA. Once they have achieved FA they should be placed under even more protection. This way we would begin to have articles that are considered more or less "finished" and truly reliable sources, in the normal sense. Only correction of significant errors or the making of important changes, possibly in keeping with newer information, discoveries, or sources, should be allowed after that. That's basically what they do at Citizendium. Right now articles are constantly in a state of flux, under attack, vandalized, never stable, and definitely not considered as reliable sources off-wiki, and even by Wikipedia itself. That's a scandal.
Godformiddag, hvordan går det? I moved that comment about Peter to Peter's talk page. I'm trying to focus on the text of the lead in that section and fear that if we move off-topic the consensus I'm slowly bringing together will fly apart. Hej Tim Vickers (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Nah, du taler dansk meget fint! Jeg er amerikaner, så dansk er mit andet sprog. You are quite right about moving my comments. While my comments might have been placed in the right physical space in the thread, they did risk creating a diversion. Sorry about that. Otherwise I think you are doing an excellent job. You are actually doing part of what I envisage above in the previous section, i.e. acting as a referee. Wikidudeman also did this and it worked quite well. (That was what ended Peter's ownership of the article, and he started accusing Wikidudeman of ownership!) By thoroughly discussing things and arriving at a consensus, he could then add stuff to the article and avoid edit wars. The article then progressed by leaps and bounds. That's what we need more on controversial articles. -- Fyslee / talk21:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Fyslee. For what it's worth, others have called Peter on his incivil behaviour in the past, including just in the last few days. I warned him once ([8]) following his rudeness on Talk:Homeopathy, and also advised him that hounding Adam Cuerden was not acceptable conduct ([9]). I have warned him that any further comment from him on the subject of Adam is likely to draw a block, as will any personal attacks or gross lapses of civility. You may not have seen the warnings, however, as Peter removed them from his talk page almost immediately after they were posted.
For context, the warning to stay away from Adam isn't based solely on Peter's recent actions; I blocked him ([10]) back in July after he failed to heed my warning ([11]) to cease making personal attacks on Adam.
As far as his most recent comments on Talk:Homeopathy go, he's been fairly moderate, with the exception of his "uninformed fools" and "crazy nonsense" diatribe. I'm hoping that since it was both angry and nonspecific, most editors will just ignore him and that no further action on that point will be necessary. If he repeats the behaviour, or returns to attacking specific other editors, then I will almost certainly block him until he gets the point. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the "happenings" on his talk page and find his actions to be provocative and definitely not conciliatory, repentant, or otherwise in good faith, especially towards you. They were proper warnings. I understand the newer rules allow removal of stuff from user pages by the users themselves, but your "You're welcome to delete this warning from your talk page if you want to,..." wasn't really necessary. He removes the warnings, not because he has read them and acknowledges the correctness of them, but to bury them and ignore them, which his actions clearly show. Such bad faith refusal to abide by proper warnings aren't a good sign, and I believe that removal of legitimate warnings should not be allowed, which was the previous policy. He, Whig, and QuackGuru all do it, and it's problematic. They thus hide their problems from other users, which is a form of forbidden attempts to "avoid scrutiny." That's my personal opinion. Otherwise I definitely approve of your actions. -- Fyslee / talk21:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, please take a peek at my user page. I have been practicing a lot more to be able to understand and keep the editing in my head to be a better editor. I worked all day at trying to make my page look less like a dump and look cleaner. I have to say I am pleased with what I have done so far and I didn't have to look things up as reminders too often. I would appreciate your opinions on how it looks now. Thanks,--CrohnieGalTalk18:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a peek, I was very pleased with myself when I finished and saw how it looked. It only took me 11 months to get to this point! ;) Darn bot got to you too, quick isn't it? :)--CrohnieGalTalk13:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot09:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I really dislike off-wiki discussions of run-of-the-mill on-wiki matters so I will reply here. I would appreciate it if you would keep the discussion on wiki as well.
Y'know I actually thought the collection of quotations was admiring, but I see how it might actually be the reverse. In any case, I am pretty laissez faire about what happens in the user space. Even if that wasn't the case, I would be uncomfortable with admin actions in this situation as I am already involved. (Not that I would stand for a second for edit warring over removal of cited content in an article.) Other admins may feel differently and you are welcome to describe the situation and seek a remedy in WP:AN or its relevant subpages. - BanyanTree12:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Is this comment regarding my notable quotes section on my talk page? If this unacceptable please let me know and I will remove it. As a more experienced Wikipedian, is it generally considered ok to revert someones talk page like you did with mine? Is it required that such comments remain on the page? You seem to assume that my deletion means I will not heed it? Why so? Anthon01 (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The rules now are different than when I began at Wikipedia. Back then it was considered highly improper to delete legitimate warnings from one's own talk page, since that was viewed as a sign that the receiver was refusing to take the advice and was trying to hide evidence (to "avoid the scrutiny of other editors", which is still not allowed) that made them look bad, and that was actually often the case. That policy is now changed and you are allowed to delete comments. Whether you are reading them and learning from them, or are trying to hide evidence and deleting something you don't like will be revealed by your actions. I am hoping that you will learn from it. Leaving them there and responding properly will be very good evidence of a positive learning curve. A negative learning curve is a factor that other users and admins factor into how they deal with you. Likewise a positive learning curve....;-) If you will look through my talk pages, you will see that I don't normally delete comments, including those that might reflect negatively on me. That's the way I do things. -- Fyslee / talk03:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. You didn't mention anything about the notable quotes. Seems that you had a problem with that?
I would appreciate in the future that you don't revert what I delete from my own pages. You can leave me a note instead. Anthon01 (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
On another matter, you edited my talk page on "06:46, December 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Anthon01 (→Topics - neutralize category so this talk page doesn't get listed.)" How is nowiki used? Anthon01 (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, yes. That is routine maintenance. I noticed that you had a functioning category tag in your user space, which is not allowed. By using the <{nowiki> code, I neutralized it, which means that the user page won't be listed in that category. A category tag is an active thing that automatically places the page in the category, and only articles are allowed in such categories. There was nothing personal involved. I've had the same thing happen to me when I was new here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyslee (talk • contribs)
Back in black...or rather wine stain burgundy Yes, the newsletter is back and we catch up with the some of the great work being done by Wine Project members like Kharker, VirginiaProp, BodegasAmbite and more!
Updates on Operation Stubkiller, GAs, and DYKs As well as advice and links for finding photos and illustrations for our wine articles
This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Misrepresentations appearing out of thin air apparently
Seems that a new editor is under the impression that Arbcom ruled something it did not: [12]. I wonder how he could have come to such an incorrect conclusion? --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Birds of a feather learn from each other, or look too deeply in their socks. BTW, it's interesting to notice that Chris didn't totally fall for their deceptive nonsense. He reveals his ignorance of the issues and shouldn't be faulted for that, but in spite of that, he sees through some of the twisted arguments and doesn't cave in. There is no need to comment there unless the deception is bought. You really do need to activate your email. -- Fyslee / talk05:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Did I say anything to you? BTW, you and your friends also live in glass houses, in fact we all do, so it would be best to only deal with very direct and obvious types of personal attacks and incivility. Keep in mind that I have to live with such all the time. -- Fyslee / talk16:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
No you didn't say anything to me. However the section is about something I referred to and you respond with "Chris didn't totally fall for their deceptive nonsense." Anthon01 (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, he didn't fall for it. It was deceptive because it repeated false claims and included some issues that are being misunderstood and/or misrepresented. You are probably not aware of just how complicated that ArbCom was, but some of the statements made and findings of fact were based on wordings proposed long before any finding of facts and the wording was never changed, even though the facts did not support the wordings. It was a mess and still is being misused by some of your allies here. I suggest you be careful with whom you associate or you will be considered guilty by association, and that wouldn't be totally fair. -- Fyslee / talk23:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not accusing you of anything deliberate, but the statements that have been made by some people ("their") can be misleading. It may just be a matter of semantics which word is used, but intention isn't necessary for the result to be the same. Needless to say I'm not going to name anyone. Just be observant and see who is always drawing fire. Unfortunately things can get hot around here and it's not always a collaborative spirit that reigns. No one is innocent either, so we shouldn't always be too hard on each other. We need to learn that the best articles are the result of a teamwork between editors who are coming from different angles. You, for example, are an experienced AK practitioner, and you know the subject well, and you may know some V & RS that others may not be familiar with. Those sources might be useful in articles. Such sources are always welcome if other editors can be convinced that they really are V & RS. It may take some discussion, and only if all parties agree can they end up being used, but when done diplomatically there may be a good chance. I have no problem with POV that I find disagreeable to my personal POV being included, as long as it is done in an encyclopedic (as opposed to a personal website form) manner and backed by good sources. Good luck. -- Fyslee / talk07:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
