User talk:I'clast

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, I'clast! Thanks for the contributions over on the Joseph Mercola article. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

Take a look at the New contributors' help page, the Wikipedia Tutorial and the Manual of Style, and If you still need any help, you can always post your question at the Help Desk.
When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia and Assume good faith, but please keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Best of luck, I'clast, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 11:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WIACHR

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please don't vandalize the essays. Azmoc 17:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently suggestions about corrective & informative edits of "owned" pages weren't welcome by the above editor on "his" agenda driven essay that he severely criticizes Wikipedia in general and other editors broadly. Looks like an AfD candidate. Above editor's recent improvements: Agenda proposal, arguing with several admins, interaction with others. Another editor's assessment:[1]. --I'clast 19:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right. Azmoc is soleley a POV warrior who has yet to make a single useful contribution to the encyclopedia, which is the reason we are here, supposedly. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit about the retraction and 50K in Mercola and Barrett article

l'clast. I agree with you on this issue. Another editor, Fyslee, was bent on including it in the Barrett article as well with the same references even if the editors had clearly agreed that in legal matters, a high level of verifiability was required. Fyslee is an editor who is a self-proclaimed quackbuster as well as an Assistant Listmaster for Dr. Barrett and very actively involved in editing articles related to the subject at hand as well as to subjects posted on QW. NATTO 04:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent review of QW

I'clast. many thanks for the links to the independent review of QW. Very relevant and factual. Hopefully that will help focus on the real issues instead of having to deal with the specific worldview of some editors. :-) NATTO 09:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Since these links originated among several with AEL, User:Alan2012, also [2],[3] you might thank/encourage him also. I suspect that he may be able to source more, similar links.--I'clast 19:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to do so and have posted a message to that effect on his talk page :-) NATTO 11:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamation of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a lot of these have been merged eh? Like, even that Tim Bolen and Quackpotwatch articles were redirected to quackwatch. I guess it was decided that they didn't need articles? Tyciol 22:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All three articles were retained due to legal structure.--I'clast 22:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

/NCAHF_lg_archive

QW

I apologize if I removed any of your edits on that topic. I was trying to undo the edits of Travis who insist on putting a POV spin on the review section. You are more than welcome to re-insert your edits. NATTO 08:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. Can you please put the name of the editor you are addressing your comments in the talk page to avoid any confusion. Thanks :-) NATTO 08:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the edit as best I could determine. Please note that on the anti-skeptic issue. It appears that Kauffman is member of his local skeptic group so I thought best to have a neutral title , after his status as a skeptic is not the point, it is the content and quality of his review that is. :-) NATTO 08:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok

Kauffman's article assessed as a critical view User talk:I'clast/As-criticism-of-QW

Fyslee has replied in my place to your message on my talk page

I'Clast please see below:

I think if you could come up with 1-2 references that show QW attacking or unfairly characterizing Weil (or Pauling) and perhaps a 2-5 word phrase, that would be a better format.--I'clast 12:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Please do, since that will provide an opportunity to provide Quackwatch's arguments on those points. Just open that door.....;-) But, on second thought, we're trying to write an encyclopedia, not conduct a discussion group. The article is about Quackwatch. If you really want to do that, do it on their articles. That way, if you really want to invite Barrett et al into those articles, just do what you are suggesting. You'll get the whole scientific community on your backs, point-by-(excruciatingly revealing)-point. So far all the criticism you have provided on the various articles has only resulted in enlargening them and strenghtening them, for which we are actually grateful. Call it unintended "collateral benefit" to the cause of exposing quackery and fringe science...;-) Without it we might have settled for short and factual articles. (Maybe this is a result of too much mercury exposure? Dangerous stuff! It keeps one from seeing "the big picture." To see it, just look at the articles before and after you got involved.) Have a nice day. -- Fyslee 13:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Per the above, apparently bias, (in)accuracy, (im)balance are minor concerns once a certain POV is established. As for the "the whole scientific community", QW is already missing silent portions of the scientifc community, albeit many only express their opinion after retirement, if ever. The QW article before? the word hagiology comes to mind.--I'clast 13:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we wouldn't want that kind of thing. It's a controversial site, and it can't be any other way. Any website or anyone who has an opinion will risk getting involved in controversy, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. That's one of the ways we learn. Studying both sides of a controversy is stimulating and helps us to developed informed biases, rather than blind prejudices. (Read my introduction for more on that subject.) Controversies should be mentioned and linked, but the article isn't the place for editors to continue the discussion on their own account, or on the account of others. Doing that is unencyclopedic and would end up reproducing the website and portions of other websites, ending up with a long, rambling, and argumentative article. We need to stay on-topic. Mention the controversies, link to them and the subjects - including wikilinks - and then let readers do their own studying outside of the article itself. The article should just mention things. It plants the seeds, but it isn't our job to do the harvesting. (If you were a fundamentalist Christian - like I have been - you'd recognize that that is the work of the Holy Spirit....;-) -- Fyslee 14:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have indicated to User:Fyslee on his talk page that this is inappropriate and that in addition his comments were of a threatening nature. I am not sure if this is acceptable in WP ? NATTO 15:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to NATTO's comments and accusation are found here. -- Fyslee 19:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...Mention the controversies, link to them and the subjects - including wikilinks" this is similar to my thinking with the suggestion to Natto of 2-5 word phrases with 1-2 superscripted references to Natto earlier. I do like cleaner prose, but significant contention points need some kind of ' * '. In some cases I think that better examples could be given, e.g. I think Pauling is a poor example (i.e. QW bragging that it shot & skinned the rarest, largest of a protected species to both fed'l and state game agents after running the fleece up the flagpole would seem kind of ill advised, even in the most anti-govt woods). We've been working on this article hot & heavy for several weeks, things have been getting a little warm again this weekend. The QW article is in pretty good shape now, perhaps we should try to slow to small, occasional edits this week. Its still Sunday here, so let's think positive thoughts about our neighbors. Pace.--I'clast 23:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'Clast, Sound advice. Thank you and enjoy what is left of your week-end :-)NATTO 23:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Talk:The National Council Against Health Fraud

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

Remain polite per WP:Civility.
Solicit feedback and ask questions.
Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! [4] --Ronz 02:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.[5] --Ronz 16:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! [6] --Ronz 22:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask nicely and hope that others will see the positive, collaborative merits in my suggestions.--I'clast 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, your writing "you have pushed your point of view very hard here, let it go" comes across as a povpush accusation. Further, you say so in the midst of another's blatant povpush effort. However, I appreciate your notable difference in tone and approach. --Ronz 23:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffman

You make some interesting points, but either I have more knowledge of evidenced-based medicine than you or more hope in it. Kauffman appears completely unaware, but then he's a biochemist so why should he be? --Ronz 00:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More knowledge of evidence based medicine for you? There is little evidence regarding that, but you certainly must have more hope or belief in certain commercially influenced data sources. Kauffman is at scientific odds with a number of old medical saws & based on a current view of science, not the 1950s. I would say Kauffman might be hyperaware. His work is an independent analysis & synthesis of recent literature.--I'clast 10:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm just continuing what I found to be an interesting discussion which I felt would be inappropriate to continue on the article talk page. If you're not interested in continuing the conversation, just let me know. I won't be offeneded.)

I'm awaiting some reviews of his book by respectable sources. My point is that the valid issues Kauffman brings up should be solved by evidenced-based medicine. Of course, the political and financial issues are ultimately another matter altogether. Did I miss something in his book where he discusses evidenced-based medicine? --Ronz 21:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so, he takes the "evidence" and reruns it critically. That's the point of the analyses and his book. He doesn't have fresh data, he is using what others refused to properly assess (or design or run or report), sometimes rather blatantly. This approaches the heart of concerns about pervasive, multilevel systemic biases in a trillion+ $ industry. I start counting with the expurgated textbooks when one walks into medical school on day one. This article reflects my own (limited) experience with Harrison's. On finding contra reviewers, his statins part alone will gather Kauffman innumerable "respectable" critics. $25b+/yr buys lots of (camp)followers.--I'clast 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward to the reviews. I'll have to look through the book again too. --Ronz 23:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Ilena

I don't appreciate the harrassment by you against me on Ilena's talk page. If you have something to say about my behavior, do it here or on my talk page. --Ronz 01:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments primarily were for the benefit of Ilena and for various readers, even if phrased for you ( since you would be looking for responses). I am not harrassing anyone. Au contre, in fact every time you have pointed the finger at me or someone else, I have thought you should monitor closely where the other 4 fingers are pointing; I have. If I treated you, as you have me, this past ~10 days, I think you would be *extremely & noisily unhappy* - I have avoided constantly objecting and quoting dubiously interpreted policy[], rather discussing things as conversationally as possible. When I do quote policy, it is not for trival, inflated or imaginary reasons. I discuss & look for logical closure. Al Smith was known as the Happy Warrior. If we need to talk with the admins, I suspect that there will be an un-Al Smith.--I'clast 12:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I thought. Sorry that you don't like my interpretations of wiki guidelines and policies. --Ronz 15:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add tags rather than deleting statements

Please add {{citation needed}} or somesuch instead of deleting text. —Długosz

??? Pls add difs or [] to show where/what you want. If I deleted something, it means I thought that Jimbo's request to delete uncited material first or BLP was apprpriate.--I'clast 19:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

l'clast: Good call on "currently." I don't even know if I did that or not.. You are absolutely right - it is redundant. I have never liked the "is currently".... Jance 03:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mannaspam

Hi I'clast - any ideas on dealing with the mannatech vandal / spammer? Check out my user page to see what I mean... True manna 04:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biologically, chemically accurate descriptions are helpful.--I'clast (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NCAHF

WIll you add "agree" or "disagree" where others have, under Curtis' statement under "Protected" [7]. He is saying the only complaint about his very long long edits was that it was copyrighted. Not the case. WE all need to show this clearly. ThanksJance 00:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great...now just the paragraph above where you commented - "agree" or "disagree" to Curtis' statement. Now there are three "Disagree" - Ronz, someone I have not heard of, and me. Jance 00:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the cleanup after IR's attack on my talk page. Now if we could get her to cleanup her [...] sites, where many [...] interpretations and [...] ideas are prominent. It's irritating to find oneself [...] lumped together with others one doesn't even know. Thanks again. -- Fyslee 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand why you have revised my comments above, but NPOV only applies to articles, not to talk pages or user space. -- Fyslee 09:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I am trying to figure out how to reduce tensions between both of you, although I am not idlely counting on world peace. I figure there are things that I need to get clear on from Ilena, you, and the off premises baggage.--I'clast 15:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally gotten around to reading the last 11 hours on the Barrett talk page and have come away with a very positive impression of your mediative spirit. Thanks for trying. Regards. Fyslee 23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off the air for a while

Due to a family tragedy, I will be off the air (and WP) for a while. Just letting you know on your talk as we have had the most discussions. Shot info 22:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'Clast, please send me an email

Hi! I am Alan, or "alan2012", a sometime contributor to Wikipedia -- e.g. the Barrett/Quackwatch page and (last summer) the Orthomolecular Med page.

Actually I am a naive, inexperienced contributor who is still trying to figure things out around here. Lots to learn and I am not sure how much detail I want to try to absorb. Just figured out tonight (duhhhh) that I should SIGN IN before I do an edit! Ha. I'll get better at it.

Anyway, would you mind dropping me a line by email -- aelewis AT provide DOT net

I would appreciate it. There are several folk I would like to be able to communicate with, but the Wiki thing still feels like something of a maze to me.

Sincerely,

Alan Lewis

PS: Me: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Alan2012

3+ RR Warning

If I broke any rules then I challenge you to report me immediately. GigiButterfly 22:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rule does not apply to vandlism. GigiButterfly 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misapply the term. Please (re-)read WP:VANDAL. You are well over 3RR.--I'clast 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am itching to edit this again. Levine212 is right. This does constitute a OR violation. You asked me to write you before I edit. Well, here I am. GigiButterfly is confused about what constitutes vandalism, too. TheDoctorIsIn 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, I don't mind careful article edits but try to avoid entanglement with GB.--I'clast 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge you to report me right now. Tell me where to go and I will report me to the wikipolice. GigiButterfly 23:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: I'clast's recent edit

[8] do not tamper with the quotes everyone is watching —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GigiButterfly (talk • contribs) 23:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Tampering" implies a lack of good faith editing. I advise you to read WP:AGF. My edits are not "tampering".--I'clast 23:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove quotes made by Kauffman in his own words. stop.

At Wikipeida, editors edit; also read Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles. To quote, "...If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Welcome to Wikipedia.--I'clast 00:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not editing the material. You are censoring it. You removed it.

No. Pls see this response. Also please sign your posts.--I'clast 00:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes pls see my answer

?? No answer, posted yet--I'clast 01:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I did not break 3RR. My edits were in good faith and in consideration of the edit summaries. If you go through, you'll find that I only reverted to a previous version 3 times. Every other edit was a new attempt to reword the offending passage -- I never reverted to a previous version. Go ahead and report me if you think that's wrong, but I'll note that you are far from a clean conscience when it comes to these things, WP:POT. --ScienceApologist 00:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that informing SA of WP:3RR could be construed as an insult (much like informing Jimmy Wales of WP:V), even though I expect that it was not intended as such. I assure you that SA has quite a good knowledge of the 3RR policy. --Philosophus ^T 07:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3+ RR Warning

To be specific:

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits , as you are doing in Quackwatch. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. GigiButterfly 02:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see how much better you sign now ;->--I'clast 02:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 00:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Barrett related removals at GLA

Please discuss your removals of Quackwatch refs at Gamma-Linolenic acid on its talk page. David.Throop 14:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you for your participation and cooperation.--I'clast 11:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BvR Evidence

Could you please rewrite "I did not realize Ronz too, as an IP, went that far back until Levine's note above[115]" to clarify what you mean? It sounds like you are accusing me of being the ip in question when I believe you mean Fyslee. Please clarify. Thanks. --Ronz 16:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing it. I still think a clarification would be in order. In case you didnt notice, I brought up the issue in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal/Evidence#Can_anyone_clarify_a_statement_by_I.27clast.3F because you havent been editing much lately. --Ronz 21:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's deleted, I'm done. Least confusion might be to simply delete your request, it's not even a molehill.--I'clast 21:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly understandable. Thanks again. --Ronz 21:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Threatening to out someone (no, practically doing it!)

Wow! That's quite the charge. Now you've really raised my curiosity about their real identity.

This is doubly incriminating, since I am being accused of threatening to "out" Alan2012, when I'm actually protecting him. (You see, there's no rule that requires me to out someone, even when that protection risks allowing continued policy violations.) We both know who he is.... I'd rather collaborate, and I hope he's redeemable.

Please enlighten me by my email. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 16:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not outing Alan2012's real id or profession, which Alan2012 clearly does not hide. Rather the problem is what might at first appear to be "friendly" advice reads as an implicit threat over Alan's profession as a severe, bannable COI in your statement. That is how it reads to me, additionally fueled by your various AN, etc filings and other edit actions (versus recent philosophical writings).

The oblique COI charge is not about you, but rather the problems Ilena had here, and will continue for the rest of us. It is a culmination of a series of my hints over the last month to an apparently real QW author/advisor/relative to back off the COI edits, not so subtle POV and provocations, if not totally refraining from such a trojan horse presence.--I'clast 16:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have woken up to a snow storm here in Denmark, and have checked your contributions and found this. This apparently involves more than I understand. Call me a naive idealist. So it looks like we both did the same thing, except that you are actually going to do it, while I really meant it as a friendly warning because I felt (as do you towards Shot info) that he was so qualified and knowledgeable a person that I was interested in seeing him succeed here, even when it would mean strengthening the alternative medicine side's POV. That shows my concern for NPOV, in spite of my own personal POV. I have a feeling we are very much like each other (except for your obviously greater talents and know how in some areas). While we have had our differences (in the past), I have come to appreciate your integrity, which I have previously doubted. (It can be hard to always AGF in a conflict situation. Fortunately I don't have the type of conspiracy theory mentality that prevents me from ever AGF. Sometimes one just has to give up on such persons.) Hmmm, I am indeed very curious where this is going. I have a feeling I'm in for a big shock! (If you would enable your email, you'd get the rest of this. Contact me.) -- Fyslee (collaborate) 11:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, I should receive WP email.--I'clast 15:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enabled. You need to go to the top of the page and do that in your "preferences". -- Fyslee (collaborate) 22:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your info per WP:AN

[[9]] Shot info 11:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Talk:Stephen Barrett

I think it would be best to keep discussions about editor's identies and your investigation into them ([10], [11]) off talk pages per WP:TALK#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. --Ronz

Right, I studiously avoided those issues, absolved certain parties on the identity issue (very, very important here), and constructively suggested a movement to his Talk page. He did imply that there is unfinished business and the cumulative effect of various editors' answers do not accurately represent me or my work on a serious issue. You might however consider discussing the issue with shot_info, he may be closer on several comments.--I'clast 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! After the Ilena/Fyslee Arb, I want to nip problems before they get out of hand. Thanks for the help. --Ronz 16:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I really want to nip the type of problems we had when Ilena was around. Your personal attacks on editors is definitely not helping the situation. --Ronz 15:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I think we should avoid the arguments of the sort "Editor A is a victim of Editor B's behavior (so we can ignore Editor A's own behavior)". Also, discussions of editors behavioral problems should be avoided on article Talk pages. --Ronz 16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We may disagree on a number of issues. A candid assessment of edit actions where I have supportable points is not a personal attack. Whether to use the User Talk page separately from the article Talk page can be difficult to separate out. I reject your WP:NPA accusation and insinuations that my editing is like Ilena's.--I'clast 00:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this very clear. I'm talking about your editing behavior, not Ilena's. I think we can all learn from the Ilena/Fyslee Arb, and I for one am working to prevent anything similar from occurring. You've used the "Editor A is a victim..." argument before. I'm letting you know that I'm calling you on it now. Editors are responsible for their own behavior. Encouraging them to act otherwise is detrimental to Wikipedia. --Ronz 00:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I particularly resent that I'clast has brought something that he thinks happened in the ArbCom case to a talk page where it's crystal clear that I had not interpreted any history. Not that interpreting history is wrong in an ArbCom case ; arbitrators do it all the time, Levine2112 had brought his interpretation, so I added mine, which was properly referenced with supporting diffs and acted on by several arbitrators. It's also an error to presume I did not know anything about that history; and that's just for starters. And what about WP:POT? Even if I did reinvent history (I don't believe I did) then at least I did so in the arbitration and not on the Barrett talk page, while I'clast comes crashing in there claiming I did so, all the time doing so himself, reinterpreting the entire discussion. I am quite incensed, I'clast. You're out of line in too many instances to list. Frankly, I have the feeling this was your intention. Your edits addressed to me are just so much bait. You can't get me to respond in anger. This is, however, the type of behavior that drives me away. It poisons the atmosphere. It has to stop. AvB ÷ talk 01:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am an eyewitness to contribution history where I am sure I had broader knowledge of the scattered edits in real time and AvB is a very latecoming participant that I never saw on a number of articles until the BvR RFAR. The most common points on articles that I was most concerned with were limited, so I left them alone to focus on other matters.

2. We all interpret history.

3. I was surprised that AvB was able to influence with secondary "witness" re-interpretations that struck me as special pleading that I felt the arbs should be able to balance differently. AvB has a right to his opinion, just I think that it is both a different pov as well as less familiar with the long & scattered contribution histories. AvB obviously made some kind of heroic effort to write and reference all that he did, I just do not consider it as a complete view in the areas that I am familliar.

4. I am sorry that we are having this conversation but it is best if you (all) analyze it for rational content. I am quite prepared to technically and rationally collaborate, but I will not easily be shouted down, flooded out or intimidated either. As for "crashing in" I am not a Johnny-come-lately to QW space. I in fact have recently stayed away because of some other problems that I saw at QW etc, but one can only hang back so long before some changes become too entrenched and difficult to correct.

If I seem out of line to you, you should know I am pretty straight forward and that simply means we are not yet well aligned on some crucial issues. Effective collaboration needs to start. As far as I can tell, the primary problem at hand is that a clear outline of Dr Barrett's credentials & background are one sentence short of being accurate and that Mr Bolen's view is not the only one concerned. Some editors seem to exclusively link the two. Since I view Bolen as a political creature, I don't think he & I have much in common. I am not thrilled when comments about "hate mail" etc are thrown out to disparage the precise credentials discussion.--I'clast 06:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dispute about bringing something you have against another editor to a different article/project page, and generally writing things about me that may tarnish my reputation as a good Wikipedian, wind me up, and push me into inappropriate behavior.

You are entitled to your opinion on what happened there, just as I am entitled to my opinion which vastly differs from yours. I am sure you believe your view is right so you are vehemently defending it here in vain. I am not even trying to prove you wrong (although I think you are but it's impossible to prove or disprove). I am trying to express my anger at your behavior. That anger is reinforced now that you're once again putting similar "newly arrived" nonsense on the Barrett talk page smack in the middle of an RfC. How do you think this will come across on any newly arriving uninvolved RfC respondents? You're also going against an admin who is doing his utmost to keep editors calm and reasonable and out of each other's hair. You are, however, not addressing his criticism of your behavior.

Heroic effort? I just unofficially assisted the arbitrators, and they were free to peruse or ignore.

You are using what you see as a fact (my being an uninvolved editor) against me. Being uninvolved is a Good Thing in the Ilena/Fyslee type of dispute.

Shouted down, flooded out or intimidated? Why are you broadcasting your personal beliefs about me, thus far on the Barrett article only I hope? You are claiming things about other people that cannot be proved or disproved. It is simply your personal view of me and I think it is both baiting me and disrupting the discussion.

As to a link between Bolen and Barrett: No one is suggesting the two are alike in any way. The link quite obviously is that Bolen accused, Barrett responded. Barrett's response did not come out of thin air. And you can't unlink the two; the information has always been put forward in response to the Bolen criticism. Especially when you're talking about primary sources not discussed in independent reliable third-party sources. All the more so in a BLP. I'm not trying to convince you, just bringing you up to date on this viewpoint should you have missed it. AvB ÷ talk 09:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear with me, we may be clearing up some miscommunications here, I am speaking frankly to try to help clear the air.

Great. I'll respond interspersed below:

defy an admin who does his utmost to keep editors calm and reasonable and out of each other's hair I did not realize I am defying an admin (no dif to it), are you saying you are an admin? I see on your User page, Vandal Proof and Counter-Vandalism Unit, are these admin only tools? (I previously replied to someone another time that appeared following up an AN presuming them an admin, turned out to be an "admin interested" User to mediate, so a clear admin advisory on the User page is helpful).

My mistake, I seemed to remember Ronz was one; his efforts here surely qualify as admin-grade but I stand corrected. As an aside, although in a number of areas my experience is nearing the point where I think I would acquire the mop if I tried, I have never felt the need to do so since it would be useless in the areas where I edit.

generally trying to wind me up and push me into inappropriate behavior Actually I've had lot of this feeling myself from a certain point in the BvR:RFAR from the combined effects of multiple new editors that I am encountering more challenges from, so let's work on that step back from the abyss together.

That shouldn't be too hard; I think in the arbitration I was following the lead of others to some extent (kind of "Well, if this is how these people communicate, I can do it too. Let it roll" - but I hoped it would be obvious that I started out from the diffs, not from opinion supported by selective diffs). It isn't really my style, it leads to tedious debates and I'm much stronger arguing facts and probabilities than opinion anyway.

Heroic effort? I just unofficially assisted... I literally have never seen that amount of verbiage churned out at WP, very impressive. In fact I feel you are implicitly criticizing the arbitrators here. No, more kicking myself for not diverting time to discuss several of your examples on articles and edits personally known to me that I signifcantly disagree and think I have greater depth of background on those specific articles. I viewed your RFAR participation as a previously unknown (to me) QW proponent & "secondary witness" rather than primary witness as being weaker, rather than as a neutral 3rd party (or admin?) with more standing for neutrality on analysis; in which case I severely erred in not spending more time addressing & adding difs on several of your analyses.

I started out pretty neutral but the more familiar I became with the situation the more I thought that Ilena should be put on probation and Fyslee and Levine sent off to mediation. But Ilena got herself an indef ban so this was only about Fyslee. His editing regarding QW had not been deemed worthy of a block and yet the ArbCom seemed headed for a topic ban. My editing experience with Fyslee, the looming ex de facto decision and my personal sense of justice were sufficient reason for me to dedicate some spare time to the matter. I would have appreciated a reasonable private conversation with you, but on the other hand I was not quite clueless.

since you mentioned that I was "crashing in" which carries some imputation of "new" as well as unexpected, I felt comment on relative "newly arrived" was a point that needed to be addressed.

I might have expected something in user space, but not in an article RfC. There it poisons the well.

We may both perceive the other louder and more aggressive than ourselves on issues that we think are clear enough but aren't.

You may well be right there.

...a kind of spin doctor or even a nutcase No, you come across as a outspoken, sincere supporter or proponent of QW that I can't get into technical focus with yet. You deleted my clearly (so I thought) sourced points on the limitations on some of Dr Barrett's articles[12]). I am hoping that was an oversight since it was paragraphs down rather than factored back in the original paragraph.

I'll check it out; the sources should be clickable from the content itself and reliable enough. When in doubt, remove.

"--> checked: with assertions that were incomplete per se, miscontrued, overstated and/or obsolete about 1/2 to 1/4 of a century ago" is mainly a WP:SYN problem even if we assume the sources you gave are reliable. We need the same information in a single reliable source (reliable in this context also means undisputed by others). "with opinion pages that have been confused many times as a reliable technical fact source at Wikipedia." is not available in reliable sources so it's WP:OR. Under normal circumstances other editors would probably alert you to this, but there would be no problem leaving it in. In biographic material, however, we can't let it stay.

In fact you are a better debater than me any day, thanks but I seem to not be communicating my points very well here and you beat the daylights out of me on writing capacity, I feel like I am drowning when I say "flood".

The feeling that points have not come across is mutual. And you write some very compact prose that needs a lot of attention if one has to cover all the bases.

And you can't unlink the two I think that it is true that Bolen most effectively raised the specific "board certified" issue to parts of the public and perhaps cannot be unlinked (unringing a bell?) in many people's minds in that aspect. However I separate the (sub)topic from the specific datum because WP:N previously addressed the (sub)topic's notability. Over the last 10 years or so, Dr Barrett has been much more challenged on scientifc credibility, subject expertise (competencies) and credentials than ever before, that is why the Time article's mention was notable and relevant to the (sub)topic not being OR (in my eyes, some particular policy quotes that apply [13]).

Well, this is a point where we differ. It's a finer point of NPOV interpretation based on Jimbo's insights. I am not surprised it is proving difficult for me to convey it to others, especially to those who feel it upsets their own interpretation of the rules. This type of debate tends to stretch across many articles and may or may not congeal into some dedicated policy language in the future. But others came up with other policies that apply and I still think the "reliable secondary sources" issue has not been settled. Your reasoning may well apply in less sensitive articles though.

The sourcing issue I will take back to the SBarrett Talk page, we seem to have disagreement on source text research explictly encouraged in WP:RS, the notability/OR/sourcing and BLP. I do think that there are some policies that I am going to have to pick through the quotes and diffs on the WP:RS, V, NOT policies with respect to SB's professional background/credentials to clarify why I think the one sentence applies and it will take time. Redone.

I'm always interested in the well-reasoned application of policy. But in the end it's something to be decided by the community I think (unless of course Barrett does write or phone the Foundation). AvB ÷ talk 14:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) OK, after calming myself down I just went through the recent discussions and RfC material, traced the to-and-fro of personal comments and removed them all as far as I could find. Take a look and let me know if this helps to start with a clean slate. Or revert at will. AvB ÷ talk 10:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I am quite willing to start over with a clean slate, I think we have identified a number of points of (mis)understanding and I will try hard to get into focus.--I'clast 11:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In natural speech, I am said to have a dry humor with lots of irony and sarcasm. The faster I have to write, the more it shows, so hopefully that will help interpret my writing and intent in a friendly way.--I'clast 12:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. For me it's simple, I tend to respond to the behavior of others and am known to mirror it occasionally, sometimes intentionally. In other words, when people are implying things, I tend to start writing between the lines, sarcasm breeds sarcasm, etc. I generally edit such stuff out before posting but lack of time can be a factor and sometimes I think it just isn't worth it to go for full political correctness. In natural speech I need to be careful not to be too outspoken unless I'm with friends. AvB ÷ talk 14:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Much appreciated. [14] Fyslee/talk 06:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--I'clast 06:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Talk:Stephen Barrett

I've refactored your remarks [15] [16] . I put the tag on the article for a reason. It's Levine2112 (and others) who are ignoring it. You're playing your diversion tactics again, the ones that allowed Ilena to get away with edit warring for months, accusing others of problems that are apparent and need to be dealt with. Please stop stop hindering others' efforts to address the real issues at hand. --Ronz 15:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you insist speaking for multiple editors (not a good idea from my perspective), make it clear who. --Ronz 15:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Mediation Cabal case

Good afternoon (GMT time); I have accepted a Mediation Cabal case - requested by Levine2112 - to which you are listed as a party. Mediation has commenced at the case talkpage, where you are invited to participate.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email, IRC or my talk page; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality.

Kind regards,

anthony^[review]
06:51, Friday November 29 2024 (UTC)

Even more Talk:Stephen Barrett

Don't you think you're exaggerating at least a bit here [17]? -- Ronz 01:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review

It seems you have overwritten RalphLender's responses on the Barrett talk page. AvB ÷ talk 17:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted my comments on the Barret Talk page. Why did that happen? Please restore my comments. RalphLender^talk 19:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies Ralph, thanks to Avb for the minder. It appears to be an edit conflict between when I scooped up the Q&A survey into Wordpad to edit full screen, added my interspersed comments and replaced them into the WP edit text. Ralph, thank you for taking time to fix it before I got back.--I'clast 01:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfM Stephen Barrett

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to comment on my incident report and offering some good advice. Much appreciated. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider

Please consider refactoring your comments: [18]. Let's all WP:KEEPCOOL rather than exasperating an already bad situation. Thanks. --Ronz 22:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may suggest

Please consider refactoring your comments:

"The choice of words and phrases like "innuendo", "sources...begging you please stop" and "...chiropractors-ear candlers-whatever" in your reply don't build communication and trust." [19] --Ronz 21:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just getting absurd: [20] "Previously the usual editors opposed to "not BC" wrote vigorously, but absent a real policy basis." I can name some editors that have done that, but curiously, none of them have taken the side you suggest. Please stop. --Ronz 15:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Can you say the same?" Really, stop this type of questioning, please! --Ronz 16:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat of important questions you seem to have missed

(Moved here from Talk:Stephen Barrett.)

Regarding your accusations made here two days ago: Please provide evidence (i.e. diffs) of the forum shopping or similar behavior you're alleging here. Please provide evidence (i.e. diffs) where I (or Fyslee) "insistently include Spiked!". Although I say "please," answering these questions is not optional, I'clast. Thanks in advance. Avb 10:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said ...actions similar to forum shopping. You guys are such prolific writers, it will be at least this weekend before I can go dig out the difs there. You guys did repeatedly insert [21][22][23][24] the Spiked! quote which is a lesser quality reference (less than your denial on the EXPLORE editorially) and gives too much space & voice to the subject's self-congratulatory opinions[25], subtlely sponsored with the Pfizer ad. This is still not a settled edit.--I'clast 11:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something here, or is it no longer a requirement that "repeated" insertions be preceded by "repeated" deletions, performed by ..... There are two sides to the story, so you aren't in a position to point fingers. -- Fyslee/talk 21:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

Please avoid misusing Wikipedia to make a point by disruptive editing: [26] -- Fyslee/talk 21:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PJ Reiter

On a more placid and congenial note (nice for once in this place!), you might be interested to know that I am a good friend of the nephew (who is about 63 now) of PJ Reiter. Reiter is mentioned in the Orthomolecular psychiatry article refs. My friend is a surveyor working for the government here in Denmark. The whole family is rather remarkable with many musicians, authors, and doctors in the family. He has told me quite a bit about his controversial and (in)famous psychiatrist uncle, whom he met many times. He was (as is often the case with geniuses - in this case practically the whole family are geniuses!!) quite unpredictable and unusual, with various affairs, illegitimate children, psychiatric and alcohol problems, forced and voluntary incarcerations in mental health facilities, etc.. He was a person who ignored conventions and went his own way, and he paid the price in loneliness and ruined friendships. He ended up in a monastary as a monk, having left his family and children behind. Much of his career was divided between Denmark and Germany. An interesting person. The nephew is also unusual and very intelligent, but fortunately not a psych case. -- Fyslee/talk 09:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Profound psych problems seem to be an associated background problem that lurks in many such prominent families according Abram Hoffer (and others), who is certainly interested in genetic and metabolic variances that, of course, remain much disagreed as well as uncharted. Hoffer's sin is, of course, that he has not established anything like a deficiency disease in Zyprexa or Lipitor ;->--11:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

True enough. What history does show us is that those who become notable (the others are forgotten) can in some way or other still contribute often great things in spite of their problems. Genius and insanity often are close bedfellows. Those at the better end of the Aspergers Syndrome scale do things like creating Microsoft and becoming the richest person, while those on the other end aren't heard from, or they end up in the history books for some famous crime. So just because someone is odd or even crazy isn't a reason to discount the good they might do, it's just a good reason to be cautious. -- Fyslee/talk 15:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Per WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, WP:NPA, WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:HARASS, etc., please stop this type of harassment. [27] --Ronz 18:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my asking you a question is ok with you.

Would you please tell me Kauffman's first name? I did a Google search and there are a lot of Kauffman's listed. I really would appreciate your help so I can research what you want added into the article. Thank you in advance,--CrohnieGal^Talk 20:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel M Kauffman, PhD (MIT), professor emeritus, USP. Kauffman has been vetted several times now, including showing MDs here in previous consensus that Kauffman is, and has been, in fact more current on research in areas that are mainstream in current medical school research & literature vs current pharma marketing literature that is not scientifically current but widely believed.

Understand, we are not "adding" the Kauffman material, it is restoring material surreptiously removed in a ceaseless, multipronged POV assualt, by an editor already cited by an experienced admin, whose natural predisoposition is favorable to QW, as having a WP:COI. The consensus required would be to remove or modify it.--I'clast 11:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the information. I will research him as soon as I am able to. Thanks again for taking the time to help me out with this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On footnote #30 you misspell available, I corrected it. I hope this is ok with you. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stephen Barrett. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. THF 12:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a war, I am the one getting bombarded by POV and traceable COIs, by editors bringing their work and their internet conflicts to WP. I make good use of edit summaries and the Talk page, I provide hard to find references and make careful policy and content positions, despite enduring some really unreasonable "stuff".--I'clast 11:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI accusations again? And you are "Bombarded by POV", as if you were innocent. This is rich. -- Fyslee/talk 08:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee, I am an independent SPOV who tries very hard to honestly develop & reconcile various sources from a broad view of hard science with various uncertainities in the mainstream literature. I have a far more extensive, conventional technical & experimental background than you do. You would really be surprised who has wanted my body. Here, at WP, I have been able to collaborate effectively with conventional MD editors that could look beyond their preconceptions at modern (and older) WP:V & WP:RS science/medical materials to reconcile science issues in the CAM related articles. At QW-WP space, this has totally broken down because of the cluster of "skeptical" internet warriors where extreme factional QW POV is trying to assert itself as mainstream and/or authority at all costs, WP:V, RS, fairness or accuracy be damned. You are a long time QW partisan that moved from one belief system to another without solid technical foundation, at least in the areas that concern me, and you have had great difficulty recognizing ground floor technical discussions where it throws less than favorable light on your passions. Although even biologically based CAM are always long, tough work, I have preferred collaborating with a number of strong conventional MDs, because those that are informed enough and intellectually honest have given careful consideration to my edits when they stare scientific illiteracy or scientific misconduct in the face with some nominally RS sources that turn out to not be WP:V, even though WP:RS. Such considerations have long flown out the window in the pro-QW edits that are not utterly praising of the article's subject. Your last comment is poor.--I'clast 11:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Very poor comment from Fyslee. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call by THF. Avb 00:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Much appreciated. This comes at an unfortunate time as I won't be on-line much for the next two weeks since I will be travelling. -- Fyslee/talk 21:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Per this policy, please refrain from making personal attacks when posting comments or don't post at all. Thanks.Shot info 08:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to discuss serious issues. I think that your opinion may be interfering with you perceptions or that substantially more detail is needed. Also see my answer above.--I'clast 12:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.[28][29] Agreed? Mr.Guru talk 00:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, my signing[29] fails your version of AGF? Frankly, you & your multitudinous, tenditious edits have *no* credibility on good faith.--I'clast 01:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please help me

Hello I'cast. I need some help understanding something. I saw another Wikipedian, as we are known, made a comment on the Stephen Barrett talk page. I read the comments made by TheNautilus who originally posted interesting commentary. However, later on, I noticed your signature their. This was quite odd to me. I first thought the comments were made by TheNautilus. I checked the history. I was right. It was TheNautilus. I do not understand this. Why oh why. Why did you, I'cast, replace TheNautilus signature with your own signature that were comments originally posted by TheNautilus. I am doing my best to understand. I am still learning. Thanks. Mr.Guru talk 17:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to talk to Fyslee about this for some guidance, as well as historical and cautionary insights, as a familiar editor in QW-SB-etc space. Perhaps having more political commonality with you, he is pretty well aware of the rules and ropes around here. He also recently has become more familiar with the concerns about privacy and stalking.--I'clast 13:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not understand. I'm having difficulty understanding your comments. I am asking you a simple question. TheNautilus made a comment but you deleted the TheNautilus signature and then replaced it with your signature. This is very weird. Frankly, I'm puzzled. Can you explain this. Are you friends with TheNautilus? Mr.Guru talk 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was an wee hours signing error, obvious & long known to most frequent editors here, and corrected.

As an uninvolved admin, I'd also like an explanation. JoshuaZ 18:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a signing convention finally adopted after several months of serious trolling last year, many editors (e.g. Fyslee, Ronz, Shot_info, Levine...), arbs & admins are already long informed of it. It has helped to identify and reduce stalking & trolling by transient trolls.--I'clast 11:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing someone else's signature with your own is a signing convention? You want to explain a little bit more? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been misled, it was the correction of an innocent mistake, where I have been hounded by several trolls, past and present, who try to silence any serious participation from outside a certain loose knit group of internet pov warriors. Some seem eager if not aggressive to silence a functioning SPOV that develops WP:V and WP:RS sources for *current science* that also show some serious shortcomings, including systematic bias and gross scientific error, in their favorite POV. Most long time correspondents, if not all, have long aware of my speed bump for trolls and respected it to varying degrees, although adversarial "outings" have been made, too, with resultant increases in harrassment.--I'clast

Let me get to the point. This is not about other editors. This is about you. Having more than one account such as to avoid public scrutiny is in violation of WP:SOCK. Are you and the account TheNautilus the same person. This is a simple question. Also, do you have anymore accounts out there. Please answer directly and honestly. Mr.Guru talk 22:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer has been stated for some time, with varying degrees of loudness, previously by Fyslee and now Shot_info, despite my expressed preferences, where I have previously seen strong warnings of administrative sanctions for User page displays similar to Shot_info's. I operate in good faith, segregate my activities, occasionally making errors, or in some cases, browser problems as to current status. There is no sockpuppetry going on and mistakes simply allow pretext for ridiculous exchanges such as this to distract passersby. This has long available to the interested. As I said, there are sr admins and arbs long aware of this particular precaution, some who do similar things, and they are quite aware of the need to slow down the hot edits, prevent stalking, and to separate legitimately interests of parties and merely new &/or ill-informed editors from trolls & disruptive editors.--I'clast 10:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there are important issues here that need to be clarified. I assume based on your above comments that you are in fact same person who has edited using TheNautilus account. Am I correct? Operating in good faith is having one account and to leave an audit trail for any editor to review, especially when making controversial edits that has lead to administrators protecting a small set of articles. You are using a WP:SPA that is making controversial edits to said Stephen Barrett as well as Quackwatch articles. Both articles are protected due to a content dispute on each article that your WP:SPA has been directly involved in. It has been noted that you have been edit warring using a WP:SPA. IMHO, this is not the purpose of having multiple accounts. With all due respect, I recommend you edit with only one account and agree that all other accounts should be blocked. Agreed? Mr.Guru talk 16:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'clast has answered the question. I completely understand. If you still don't, then please re-read with greater care. At this point, I can tell you that I'clast is not violating WP:SOCK, but QuackGuru, you are violating WP:HARASS. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24.5.26.32 18:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)== Ohhhhhhh, SNAP! == Check it out. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo doesn't know yet what a soul sucking, waste of time he is in for.--I'clast 13:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying this about QG or yourselves? If QG, it was both rude and incorrect. Avb 00:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAB

Check out CAB's page, please. 24.5.26.32 18:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re the Stephen Barrett article

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article must include proper sources. Thank you.[30] Mr.Guru talk 06:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edit draws directly on V RS articles, quoting specific text and words, from the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics as well as New York Times Magazine. Sorry if your preconceptions and POV are overwhelmed by such new, high quality, V RS material in a QW related article as well as the science criticism of prof Kauffman.--I'clast 06:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the current discussion.[31] At least ten editors believe the JSE ref does not belong in the article for various reasons. Do you understand this. Mr.Guru talk 07:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that I quoted this evening about Kauffman's article is quoted from within Hufford's peer reviewed paper in a quality mainstream journal, indisputably V RS. Yes, I do note that there are quite a few *long time* Quackwatch exponents and site linkers from the internet, some with impressive combat experience, as well as related "skeptic" site bloggers and competing professional/personal interests with CAM to ~~voice~~ provide support for Dr Barrett and Quackwatch related articles here. I think your haranguing, POV and edit war history w/o meritorious discussion are far more germane to the subject of policy understanding or conformance[32][33][34][35].--I'clast 07:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'clast has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to accept WP:CONSENSUS and abide by it, especially when it comes to the interpretation of our policies and community standards as explained to him by countless editors. Avb 00:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation required

You wrote on the VP abuse page "... is not a neutral party with respect to Levine or the article by a long, years long outside WP, shot" (diff). Please explain.

Also please explain your edit summary "IMHO harrassment". Who is harassing whom in your humble opinion? Note that I am a long time user of VP and quite aware of its rules.

Avb 22:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have criticized (erroneously IMHO) and tangled with Levine ever since Fyslee's RFAR. That's not a neutral position. You are not neutral to QW according material offsite, I can't of course go any further here. I am not a VP user. Simply within the context of "vandalism" as repetitious, specious, disruptive editing at WP, Levine's use would seem appropriate. Given your long record of criticism of Levine, which I don't agree with, where there is a generally dominant, highly partisan atmosphere concerning some articles, and my good faith assumptions have broken down repeatedly about those editors with regard to Levine, I would think a note & request to Levine *before* that report would be expected, especially with regard to the reverted editor involved. That's all.--I'clast 23:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not enough.

Yes, I have criticized certain aspects of Levine2112's behavior here on Wikipedia over the last six months or so. How does that make me a non-neutral party with respect to Levine (the editor)? Also note that my criticism of some of Levine's behavior has generally been accepted, supported and augmented by (by now dozens of) experienced Wikipedians and admins. Most of that criticism was in the form of talk page comments. I have been very patient with Levine when it comes to escalation, hoping he would listen and learn. Instead, you and he drove me away and I am no longer editing articles the two of you are editing.
"You are not neutral to QW according material offsite, I can't of course go any further here." --> Please email me anything you think you may have, or e-mail it to an admin of your choice for an external opinion. Until you have done so and this accusation has been corroborated, please remove it from your statement on the VP/abuse page. It may damage my reputation as an editor.
I interpret your answer to indicate that you intended to convey: "... is not a neutral party with respect to Levine by a long shot" and "is not a neutral party with respect to the article by a long, years long outside WP, shot", and NOT: "is not a neutral party with respect to Levine by a long, years long outside WP, shot". Is my interpretation correct? If so, please amend your statement on the VP/abuse page to make sure that others will not interpret it that way. If I'm wrong, I look forward to seeing you connect me with Levine in year-long interactions somewhere outside of WP, just like you've been doing with other good Wikipedians.
VP rules are very very clear on this. Warnings are not to be given by editors but by VP moderators. Also note that this was by no means the first time Levine abused Vandalproof this way. Repeated question: Please explain your edit summary "IMHO harrassment". Who is harassing whom in your humble opinion?

Avb 13:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for answers. I've (at least temporarily, until you have provided evidence) removed your VP/abuse post. It has been considered by the VP mod days ago and the case has already been closed, so its removal will have no consequences regarding the warning given to Levine. Your post is still available in that page's history but will no longer be indexed by Google or Wikipedia's own search engine. Avb 13:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I just saw you updated the VP/abuse page regarding item #3 above, so thank-you for solving that one. Avb 14:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outing users

Are you in communicating with Ilena Rosenthal regarding Wikipedia users? JoshuaZ 01:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no part of Crohnie's problem. I am investigating, I should have been doing other work, over two hours ago--I'clast 03:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how are you investigating without contacting her? You outed me once and you will not have that opportunity again. You are mean as far as I am concerned, you and all of you other ID's you use on Wikipedia. So have fun, Wikipedia is all yours. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "out" you. I have been far more polite & non-accusatory to you than vice versa, I have ignored numerous little subterfuges, games and gouges at the expense of select editors from a "neutral" not-so-uninvolved-editor after-all, hoping you would stop the games. After I minded you, as gently and positively as possible, that I was not a totally blind sucker to the outside agenda(s), you improved some for a while. It was not in my, or WP's, interest to blithely out you, rather to improve your edits. Fare thee well, again.--I'clast 13:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'clast said in part: I have collaborated with Ilena when she was here... I'clast also wrote: I have sometimes utilized Ilena's material and knowledge as a resource since she has significant background in USENET (ugh) but we are quite different. According to these statements you wrote it seems you have been communicating with Ilena. Is this true? Please elaborate. Thanks. Mr.Guru talk 16:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have taken my words out of context. ...as I have [collaborated] with Fyslee and other editors vigorously opposed to her.--I'clast 11:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding I'clast's outing of Crohnie: I found her real-life identity rather easily after I'clast had suggested (on a WP talk page) a connection between her and what turned out to be the name of one of Ilena Rosenthal's Usenet nemeses. I've emailed the diff to JoshuaZ. I also note that I'clast has not answered Joshua's question at the top of this section. Avb 13:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are tailgating too much, creating OR connections and creating scenes. It is not considered polite to read other people's "post cards" and yell out your original research to everyone else to hear. As I said, I was as polite as possible to someone, where a number of issues have to be addressed in as stilted, one sided an atmosphere as exists at "QW WP". As for explanations, I emailed uninvolved mgmt with my understanding and explanation. I had nothing to do with Ilena outing someone. As for truly identifying info, someone had blatantly, long posted a sizable "Jolly Roger" where Ilena would have immediately picked it up the first time she read WP, but most of us did not (soon) recognize it. I was as shocked as most to read the depth of some of the connections that Ilena made. As for why Ilena waited this long, who knows? Perhaps Ilena listened just a little when, much earlier, I suggested that she tone/slow things down. I don't know addressed mgmt's response. I am going to be mostly off air for the next several days.--I'clast 22:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'clast, please tell us who the "you" is you're addressing here. Also note that I'm referring to an edit you made months ago, making the connection before Ilena did. The point is not that someone else could have done that; the point is that you did, and that you did so on a Wikipedia talk page, for no visible reason other than what I think drives your incessant innuendos and accusations regarding Shot Info (and recently also the nonsense that, in your "humble" opinion, although you assert this as a fact this for everyone to hear, I have an off-WP history in favor of Stephen Barrett). You are ~~simply trying to stir up~~ causing problems for good editors, I'clast. You're into outing other editors, big time, and it's time for you to stop. Avb 23:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This statement, above, has numerous suppositions, speculation and errors with an interesting degree of fishing. As for innuendos, I filed administrative papers long ago, perhaps a moot point by that later time (too late & a pre-empted start too soon), no remotely neutral admin is going to say that those papers are insubstantial. Assuming an editor remains civil there is no reason to pursue it, in fact every reason to encourage well reasoned, well referenced, GF fairminded, counterpoints with gentle humor. Our definition of "good editors" may vary, mine does not include editors that repeatedly refuse legit, notable fact/science-based V RS references, those that bring their QW activism, POV & links from offsite as "neutrals", astroturfing, subversive COI, biting & swallowing newbies whole, or zealous POV site reconstructions at WP. I have bitten my tongue a lot, but after some very painful experiences from trolls, I track POV and COI. I do encourage those that get too far out, to return to AGF editing, some are quite resistant.

By the way, you should know, some critical editors that you approve quite so highly against me, are known to me under previous user accounts before they ceased active use of those accounts, presumably for administrative impatience & block, well known trolling according to their friends & internet associates, or perhaps simple self-embarrassment on handily *demonstrated* massive errors in their accusations.--I'clast 09:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer think you are trying to stir up trouble for good editors and accept that you believe you are simply denouncing undesirable activities/biases/etc of people you personally don't see as good Wikipedians. I, on the other hand, believe that your behavior is hurting other editors and ultimately the project itself, making this an unsafe place, especially for editors who (according to you) are not editing on your side of the debate. I view what you're doing as outing, threatening to out, spreading gossip, untruths and half-truths, etc., and certainly not as the corrective/educational interventions you think they are. See also WP:SOUP.

Tracking POV and COI, subjective as it may be, seems perfectly OK to me; I do the same. Trust but verify. For example, I noticed a long time ago that your I'clast and other identities did not exactly arrive here as tabulae rasae. I simply do not see the need to mention one's opinion/knowledge of other editors' POV or bias in every other post. All editors are biased. When it comes to editing Wikipedia, I truly don't care what people have done under different identities, real-life, usenet, Wikipedia, whatever, in the past. I prefer to discuss the edits, not the editor. I note that instead of stopping, you step up the accusations, which are already halfway "outing" more editors. Time to stop. Please. Avb 11:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the attacks

We've been over this far too many times [36]. Please refactor per WP:TALK. --Ronz 03:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an attack. That is criticism of your position trying to deny a legit, highly V RS edit, where you do not have a comparable academic source, by simple dismissal out of hand, taking a hike with the bogus BLP tree. *You've* been here far too many times, despite the admins' & arbs' warnings (elsewhere), as well as other editors, about some of your "policy interpretations" that you "decorate" me and other "favored" editors. Please cease.--I'clast 03:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree. How would you like to proceed with this dispute? --Ronz 04:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given your long history of this, and related disputes at the moment, any reason not to take it straight to ANI? --Ronz 16:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or RFC/U? --Ronz 15:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, I will support an RfC/U. In fact, in view of I'clast's unwillingness to listen to others when it comes to interpreting policies/community standards, as very clear from his response to you above, his preference for his own understanding of our modus operandi, his talk page edits that can be indistinguishable from throwing sand in the machinery, and his role as enabler in support of biased edits, I'd also second a WP:CN request. This simply can't go on. Avb 00:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

personal attack against QuackGuru

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.The editor that Levine reverted with VP, actually needs something stronger than VP and more frequent appliation. Please refrain from making a personal attack against me as you did. Happy editing. Mr.Guru talk 16:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing really could use an overhaul or magic clean up tool, lots of difs to support that.--I'clast 11:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but did you just say that QG's editing is worse than vandalism? If so, please read WP:Vandalism. Avb 00:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaken Baby

Shot Info has deleted twice a very important "Letter To The Editor" by Dr. F. Bandak that was published in response to another "Letter To The Editor". Dr. Bandak's results from his 2005 were challenged as being to high. This published letter gives a detailed explanation as the reasoning why he used the high velocity forces. There was great discussion and questioning in the SBS scientific community concerning the high levels and this was his explanation, and needs to be included. Thanks The Stroll 17:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QW

I think your '13:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)' edit in the 'WP:SYNTH violation' section may be missed by some editors. You might want to post it lower on the talk page. Anthon01 (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Quackwatch

Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the discussions in Talk:Quackwatch. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Quackwatch is a controversial article with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not. Thanks again! [37] --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today you suggested a Hufford sentence but appear to have shortened it with '...' Could you provide the whole sentence wherever you think it most appropriate? Anthon01 (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prior Hufford discussions QW; SJB, SJB archives - unending denial, and the Doomsday Defense...where no credible counterpoint to strident QW claims and attacks are allowed here despite QW having almost no academic coverage at all. Hufford, actually referenced by Quackwatch itself[38], pretty strongly criticizes both Quackwatch and Sci Review Alt Med, excepted below, as ...sources I primarily turn to in order to find further examples of systematic bias:

from Hufford D. "Evaluating complementary and alternative medicine: the limits of science and of scientists." (Ninth Annual Thomas A. Pitts Memorial Lectureship in Medical Ethics, Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston) J of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Summer, 2003

" THE "OBJECTIVITY" OR FAIRNESS LIMIT"...

"Example 3: The anti-CAM literature"

"I have said that Dr. Schneiderman is not alone in the approach I have criticized, and that these issues represent a systematic bias among the strongest critics of CAM. Dr. Schneiderman's recommendations of reliable information sources on CAM are useful in supporting my contention. Those that he says are "the best currently available sources for gaining accurate information about alternative medicine" are the website www.quackwatch.com and "publications like the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine and Alternative Medicine Alert." (52) 1 have often found Alternative Medicine Alert useful. The other two sources I primarily turn to in order to find further examples of systematic bias."

"For example, in 2002, Joel M. Kauffman, of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, published a website review of Quackwatch. (53) For the review, Kauffman, a self-proclaimed member of a "local skeptics group," used eight webpages on topics with which he was familiar, and these he "examined minutely.... to make generalizations about the website." (54) The topics were "Tips for Lowering Your Dietary Fat Content," "Low Carbohydrate Diets," "Chelation Therapy," "Glucosamine for Arthritis" "Magnet Therapy" "Homeopathy" "Dietary Supplements," and "Stanislaw Burzynski and Antineoplastons.'" Kauffman says that "[a]ll eight pages from www.quackwatch.com ... were found to be contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo.... Hostility to all alternatives was expected and observed from the website, but not repetition of groundless slogans from mainstream medicine...." (55) A good example was the website's use of a Danish study of chelation in which the investigators used a solution different from that used in chelation therapy--a dietary supplement including iron, the chelating properties of which "guaranteed a lesser effect"--and used a sample including 70 percent smokers "despite the fact that it has been shown that smoking will neutralize the effect of chelation." (56) When the study was investigated by the Danish Medical Society's Committee on Investigation into Scientific Dishonesty, it was found that "the double-blinding was broken," and that the investigators falsely claimed to be using the correct solution. (57) Additional flaws were cited from a variety of peer reviewed publications. (58)"

Even more Talk:QW

I've repeatedly warned you about your inappropriate remarks in Talk:Quackwatch. I believe it's time for admin intervention if you're unwilling to follow WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think your remarks are inappropriate. This is tiresome. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QW talk page

You said on QWTP "One might infer from SA's comments on Hufford's humanities studies, as anyone who ever goes to church or studies church-goers, is disqualified to say anything critical of QW." dose this mean One might infer from SA's comments on Hufford's humanities studies, as anyone who ever goes to church or studies church-goers, that he (hufford) is disqualified to say anything critical of QW. And what do church-goers have to do with Hufford? I assume a metaphor but I am not sure what you mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hufford, based on SA's comment and his bio, includes religious studies, and perhaps some psychoimmunoneurology component, a hot expansion area in some major medical schools.--I'clast (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy probation

Do not remove those tags, as that is a possible offense under the approved probation. Thank you. Please see Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents. Lawrence § t/e 07:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding such an aggressive expansion shopping of a POV on edits[39][40][41] should be considered disruption and bad faith by an all too common ill-informed, -ing anti-scientific POV (I mean that quite literally - rejection of science & its methodology in practice with concrete examples, all while loudly claiming (falsely) its mantle) into an unrelated topic. I do not edit the homeopathy or chiropractic articles - I simply see this as a disruptive extension of disputive POV pushing with clear features of initimidation, provocation and unfairness into an unrelated topic that needs to stop. Such "policy" intrepretations remind me all too much of 3rd world countries that claim a rule of law and wonder why they have negative growth and such a bad reputation.--I'clast (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what's it worth, I completely agree the tags shouldn't have been added to unrelated articles. That said, adding the tags wasn't vandalism, so I would suggest you don't edit war over this. However, I don't consider fixing this error is disruptive. Addhoc (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the agreement on the general inappropriateness of the mistagging. Hopefully my one Talk page edit in an area doesn't qualify as a war. I have been participating in discussions WP:AN, here and here. Actually I consider this particular mistagging incident much worse than vandalism, a form of POV pushing threat and intimidation by a known POV warrior.--I'clast (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the "known POV warrior" you are describing? Why do you think it was "much worse than vandalism." Please discuss. QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already discussed this. I do not wish to be harrassed or harangued by you further.--I'clast (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy article probation notification

I know you already read this, but officially I apparently have to put this block of text on your talk page:

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. QuackGuru (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited at "Homeopathy", etc. I consider this abusive and harrassing.--I'clast (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'clast, I've added a note to the probation page about this highly dubious notification. Addhoc (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. -- Fyslee / talk 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

Hello, I'clast. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sock_accounts_editing_on_alternative_medicine. Yours, --Tim Vickers (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet account?

Hi,

Could you provide me with an unambiguous answer to the following questions? I've been referred to a variety of venues with a lot of diffs, but I figure this is the easiest way to clarify.

Are you the same person as editor TheNautilus?

If so, are you aware of WP:SOCK?

If so, do you have a legitimate reason per Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses_of_alternative_accounts?

If so, do you have a reason for not placing a notice on both user and talk pages alerting other editors to these accounts? Would you object to placing such a notice prominently on your user page (such as {{Alternative account}}), or adding redirects to help others realize that the separate accounts are the same person?

If you are not TheNautilus, could you explain these two edits Original comment by TheNautilus and you replace the signature? Thanks, WLU (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is just the beltline treatment common on "skeptic" targeted editors and articles. Answered further--I'clast (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented further here. I have yet to receive from either yourself, or TheNautalis, confirmation that you are or are not the same person. Please provide an unequivocal response. WLU (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]