User talk:Levine2112

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Levine2112 is currently wikibonked and is operating at a lower edit level than usual. Hitting the wall is a temporary condition, and the user should return to normal edit levels in time.

Archives
Archive 0 Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Contents 1 Starting fresh 2 Prominence 3 Categorical imperatives 4 Note 5 Article Probation (civility) 6 Notice 7 AN/I posting 8 Homeopathy article probation notification 9 Corrected _FD for Wikipedia:PROMINENCE 10 Edting Special pages 11 New Shortcut 12 Please do not wikistalk me 13 Note 14 unrelated 15 forked again 16 Reiki ‎ 17 Cute 18 Titorite 19 This is to inform you that your use of twinkle has been taken to the ANI board 20 Regarding Mc 21 chiro talk 22 Quackwatch: Please reconsider (2) 23 Re: Canvassed 24 Sorry 25 Please stop interfering with my attempts at dispute resolution 26 Thanks for the message 27 Warning / advice 28 Chiropractic - Translation 29 Stonewalling on Talk:Quackwatch 30 Disruption on Deadly Nightshade 31 disingenuous edit summary 32 AN/I 33 Edit warring 34 ANI vs Ronz 35 Barnstars survey 36 Thanx 37 Chiro 38 Please consider taking the AGF Challenge 39 "The Word" (Allo) 40 Health kinesiology 41 You are being discussed 42 Thanks 43 NAET 44 AE thread 45 Thank you 46 chiropractic resource link 47 A question 48 labeling HealthAngle as spam and deleting external links 49 Bates method 50 Edit warring 51 Thanks 52 Please 53 Feedback 54 Professor DJ Kalupahana 55 Thanks 56 Thanks2 57 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus 58 Copyvio bit 59 Russell's page 60 Talkback

[edit] Starting fresh

Time to archive. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prominence

I have nominated Wikipedia:PROMINENCE for deletion because it is an underhanded way to twist policy to suit one's own interpretation. Feel free to comment. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have. Thanks for that. Short of arguing it to death, what road would you suggest to solve the issue with ScienceApologist at both Deadly nightshade and Rue? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DR has many options, but I think these problems, and those related, have gotten to the point where mediation would probably be best. I suggest you work with the editors to create a request you all agree to. --Ronz (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive advice. Last time I tried a mediation I got burned by incivility. So forgive me if I am a bit cautious with that route. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm suggesting something slightly different that should avoid such problems. If you can all agree first to exactly what you want mediated, then you've already resolved the problem that you (and most others) encounter when trying mediation. --Ronz (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how that is any different from last time. I guess I want a response from other users besides you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categorical imperatives

Hi Levine2112... Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciated your supportive comments over the last couple weeks regarding the whole "category:pseudoscience" thing on WP. And it looks like reason (as outlined in NPOV) may even prevail! -- at least, outside homeopathy, where lawlessless and chaos rule.... btw, speaking of 2112, have you heard the 1974-ish bootleg of Rush in Cleveland? Damn fine show. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. It is much deserved. Have you considered adminship yet? I haven't heard the bootleg, but as you know I am a fan and now that I know it exists I shall track it down! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you can find that boot on one of those ok-by-artists, live-recording Bittorrent sites like Trader's Den or Dime-A-Dozen. I discovered it by surfing around about Larry Williams, whose songs the Beatles covered a bunch of; Rush does this crazy Zeppelin-esque cover of one of them. Adminhood: to the extent that I've decided to stick around and work to improve WP, sure; I guess I'm as qualified as anyone. No great rush though (totally unintended pun until I typed it :-) cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Adminship is supposed to be not that big a deal, but in practice seems to have become an hours-consuming stressful "hazing"-type deal, which I'm not sure is really worth it... just to get a set of sysop tools that should ideally be available to all, yet hardly ever used. ("Ideal" is a long way off, of course.) I think that energy may be better spent editing at Citizendium. That site like a nice next step, and growing. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the artist-friendly download sites. I am very sensitive to that as I have had friends lose their jobs as the record industry battled with pirates. And I hear you about adminship. I've seen it described as merely a software update. That said, I also feel that admins serve a greater purpose than policing. I feel they serve as interpreters of policies for the rest of the "civilian" editors because they are given a higher level of respect having earned their position. Generally, I agree with your perceptions into policy and therefore I feel that Wikipedia would be a better place with editors like you lending your view on policies to the hoi polloi. Whatever you decide to do, best of luck in all of your endeavors! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Why did you move my comment? Anthon01 (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mine was in direct response to OrangeMarlin's and therefore I wanted mine to follow his. All I did is change your indentations for ease of ready. Feel free to change it back if it is an issue. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's ok. You didn't think I was responding to his challenge? Anthon01 (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess not. I will reread. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please check the bottom of my talk page.[1] Anthon01 (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And this [2] Anthon01 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Were you reported by someone originally? Sorry you had to go through that 8 minutes of confusion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a result of this.[3] and the section below. There is also this, added to the policy page of NPOV, without any consensus or discussion on the talk page. [4]

Please note. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Probation (civility)

The article Deadly Nightshade is under article prohbation per Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Editors making disruptive edits 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. Your edit here could be considered a violation of civility. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What part? And considered by whom? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, me, for one. And I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the terms of the probation. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What part do you think is not civil? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"you are just trying to disrupt this process" - comment on the content, not the contributor. "This is disruptive to the process," would be acceptable. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I will change to what you suggest. Considering what he was doing, do you think he was being disruptive? Consider WP:SPADE. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think both of you are being disruptive. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How am I being disruptive? I am actively seeking dispute resolution and clarity while SA is muddying my attempts. Also, consider your comment about TDII's apology being "baseline". Was that not uncivil? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't stop responding. Every minute of every day you are constantly proclaiming you are right and he is wrong. You edit war.

No. If I had said "TDII sucks at apologzing" or "TDII's apology was insincere" then that would have be incivil. The fact of the matter was that the apology as presented was the baseline of apologies. It was not directed at the target of the personal attack, it was no where near the attack itself, he did not withdraw the attack, it was after substantial prompting and it was two words. He didn't go to his targets talk page to apologize, and he didn't say anything substantial about his apology. That's why it was baseline. I make no assumption about motive or skill in saying this - the edit itself was nothing more than a baseline apology. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you are now being extremely uncivil with me with your characterization of my editing habits.

Second, I maintain that when someone swallows their pride and apologizes, it is a big step and we should encourage such behavior. Belittling TDII's apology as "baseline" is uncivil in my eyes. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

The way notice works, if somebody gives notice, they are also accepting notice. There is no need for reciprocal notification. I expect that every active editor within the homeopathy articles is going to be on notice shortly. Hopefully behavior will improve and no bans will be called for. Happy editing, Jehochman ^Talk 22:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I posting

So you are aware and may respond, you have been mentioned in a posting about ScienceApologist at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ScienceApologist. Vassyana (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy article probation notification

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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corrected _FD for Wikipedia:PROMINENCE

Sorry, working at home on a dial-up connection through a sticky-keys-laden craptop. The corrected deletion nomination page can be found here. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edting Special pages

Can special pages be changed...by anyone?--Angel David (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

See Special:Specialpages: Most of the content of these pages is automatically generated and cannot be edited. To suggest a change to the parts... -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• What?--Angel David (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Click on the Special:Specialpages link and read the opening paragraph. The answer seems to be "no". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Shortcut

You first introduced this policy to me. In my current holding pattern, I have created a link that I think you and others might find useful. WP:PSCI Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not wikistalk me

You are obviously wikistalking me. I'd appreciate it if you did not. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I have to look up wiki guidelines about "stalking" but I'd like to note here that I have myself included SA's Talk in my watchlist during periods of what I considered contentious editting. I don't mean to imply that SA has ever accused me of stalking, or that Levine is or is not doing anything similar; I just want that on the record as a concerned party. And it wasn't SA but his pal Ronz who stalked me, in the sense of spamming my talk after I had explicitly renounced further attempts to resolve our differences by direct conversation, and after I had explicitly asked him not to (the wikiquette item I introduced and following RfC were never addressed, and dropped for inactivity); however, at the time it certainly seemed that SA and Ronz had their metaphorical probosci deeply ensconced in each other's morphological tori. Pete St.John (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

and note, if watching your opponents' talk pages is a component of stalking in this venue, then Ronz apprarently is watching this, he just complained at my talk. Fruitlessly, I should think, as it appears nobody is willing to get in the middle. Pete St.John (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I find PeterStJohn's language about SA and Ronz here extremely incendiary, and clearly intended as such. In short, flame bait of the worst kind. PeterStJohn may want to remove it. Avb 23:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The "owner" of the Talk is welcome to remove it at his discretion. It may be removed as a result of an action from e.g. an RfC or an ANI. Meanwhile I'm standing by it and will defend myself at the Wikiquette or whatever open recourse any claimant seeks. Pete St.John (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I very definitely prefer open forums, such as a Wikiquette, to seeking help from allies individually, towards resolving disputes. I seek uninvolved 3rd parties. I don't expect to meet any but I seek them. Pete St.John (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, PSJ. I am just amazed that an editor who seems to go out of his way to be uncivil, who has been caught sock-puppeteering at least 6 5 times (Nrcprm2026, Nondistinguished, Fraudulent Ideas, Velikovsky, Mainstream astronomy, Joshuaschroeder), who is on ArbCom probation but constantly violates the terms of said probation, and who has a block log longer than many Wikipedia articles is defended so fervently here. I don't get it. Maybe you do? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you're welcome, but I'm not sure I did you any good. My main idea was to just broaden the front of that kind of attack (sprinkling vague policy warnings on Talk pages); step one, make sure everyone knows that you aren't alone, and that people who oppose you about content support you about ethical conduct. The bad thing is using your Talk to try User:WebHamster's methodology. But it seems to have some utility; they can't meaningfully do anything (other than drive-by insinuations at my Talk by friends of friends) without bringing attention they don't want to activity they work overtime to disguise (so as to evade action).

I have thought before that Ronz acts like a Markov-Chaining Bot, I'm pretty sure I could emulate him with a few hundred lines of C, but I only recently considered the possibility that he may be actually a manual implementation, e.g. someone just cutting and pasting canned insinuations into another window with another browser session through another account. But there's also the theory that Ronz, rather than being a behind-the-scenes instigator, is just a script-kiddie doing what he can for his cooler friends. Lots of possibilities. But your diff list astonishes me. I'll look at it. Unfortunately I don't have any experience hunting sockpuppets in this venue. But I think we all have to get better at it. Pete St.John (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But oops, question. In that first sockpuppet report, looks like someone put effort into it, but also looks like Dlabdot (whatever; he has seemed a bit of a twit, but...) was conspicuously exonerated, and I don't see the connection to either of the users in question? I'd never heard of Nrcprm2026 before, you maybe have to catch me up a bit. Pete St.John (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That said, the confirmed sockpuppetry (in the second item) surprises me, as so recent. Imaginably (just off the top of my head) SA may actually have been trying to lay low, by editting to strictly scientific matters thru the second account. But anyway this is a gem; he improves a reference, but in the comment writes: "Physics Essays and IEEE transactions are fringe journals and do not belong cited [sic]..." He found something in Physics Letters instead, which is fine, but calling IEEE Transactions' "fringe" is over-the-edge. Pete St.John (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Recap. So, all of those (five; Fraudulent Ideas, Nondistinguished, Velikovsky, Mainstream Astronomy, four confirmed, and the fifth JoshuaSchroeder, seems to be openly admitted anyway) are sockpuppets of SA, either confirmed or part of an ongoing investigation. Except for the first item, Nrcprm; I don't see any connection between that one and any of SA's? This certainly broadens the scope of the current conflict. BTW, this has Ronz spamming my talk page again, but better me than you. I don't think you want to try the WebHamster approach, it's just not you. Pete St.John (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait ... SA is using sockpuppets??? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, it was a surprise to me too. Just follow the links Levine provided above in the paragraph that begins "Thanks PSJ". The first link is odd, but the rest are to previous (and recent!) confirmations of sockpuppetry. Way strange. I'm definitely missing stuff. Pete St.John (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I just had this image of SA having the integrity to stand solely on the merits of science, so to hear that he's stooped to this gives me great pause in my presumptive respect for him. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And btw, can you explain Lisi's ToE as E8xE8xE8? :-) That article amuses me but it's over my head almost everywhere. Pete St.John (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Who, me? *clueless* - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Just wanted to inform you about the section.[6] Anthon01 (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unrelated

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=next&oldid=189243736 No edit summary. Pleas explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=next&oldid=189776784 Read my edit summary. Quack Guru 19:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] forked again

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Levine2112&diff=next&oldid=189654218 Please discuss your edit rather than deleting the discussion. You ca use the article talk page as another option.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_inquiries_into_chiropractic_care&diff=prev&oldid=189777377 Your edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Rracecarr; I'm not even sure why we are calling this section POV. using TW." If your not sure and you are not interesting in explaining your reason for forking content then you should consider not adding it to the article repeatedly. The content is originally disputed from the chiropractic article and you forked it to another article. Quack Guru 19:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reiki ‎

Could you discuss your recent edit to Reiki ‎on the article talk page? I don't think the edit summary suffices given recent edits and past discussions. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cute

I like the tense that the previous editor used in the ES, and which you then rightly rightly reverted..."was" in listed category. Yes, alt-med was in category:pseudoscience, and it is not anymore, per WP:PSCI. Funny how language is. cheers, Jim Butler (t) 06:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What can I say? It's a "tense" situation. ;-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed... as we speak, editors are sharpening their clause... Jim Butler (t) 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm good as long as I don't have to see their dangling participles. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Titorite

Despite my extreme ignorance on wikipedia I refer back to it more than anything else. I have altered articles to the most truthful ability for years from various computers and I shall continue to do so. To me wikipedia proves the ideal model of anarchy and how it functions. Anyone can edit but those with concern will see to it that the edits are fair and good...most of the time anyways.

Thank you wiki. I will always be a donater. And thank you for listining when I asked for the artical about the mormon war. To know who asked for that is to know who I am and how long I have been with yall. And I will stay with yall for as long as you allow anyone to edit. Yours is the prefect experiment and I love you for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.52.233 (talk • contribs)

[edit] This is to inform you that your use of twinkle has been taken to the ANI board

I just want to let you know it is located here [7]. Of course your response is more than welcomed. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Well I hope you learned something from it. Also, please note that you should feel free to install Twinkle as well. I wouldn't say that it gives anyone an unfair advantage, but I would say that it is advantageous (especially for fighting vandalism). It is pretty simple to use. Just follow the instructions. I find that it works best on Mozilla browsers (Firefox, Netscape, etc.) rather than Internet Explorer. If you have any problems installing or using it, feel free to ask. You may also want to look into WP:FRIENDLY; also very useful especially for greeting new users. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, how bad is it for explorer, that's what I use! Thanks for the links, I appreciate your help. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that it works at all on Internet Explorer. YOu may want to consider using FireFox at least just for Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Mc

You might want to chime in. Cheers.[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the info. I don't think there is a need for me to contribute there at this point. The situation seems to be moving forward without my input and I am fine with that. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] chiro talk

when I click on the plus button to add a new item to talk, the system puts it below the notes. Mccready (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just his the edit link corresponding to the thread just above the Reference section. Or do you not have those "edit" links at the start of each thread? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Let Mccready edit with the + tab. It is easy enough to change. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not teach him something better? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quackwatch: Please reconsider (2)

I regard to your edit, [9], I believe this topic has already been discussed at length and consensus is to keep it out. Please review past discussions and provide rationale as to what is different now. Otherwise, I think you should revert your edit.

In addition, I agree with the others that "Other than your own made-up beliefs" is inappropriate per WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL. Please consider refactoring it. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CCC and you should have that part of this conversation at Talk:Quackwatch.

I will consider it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:CCC. I just think it would be best to acknowledge the past consensus and discussions in some fashion. Otherwise, this doesn't look like an attempt to change consensus at all. We've had this discussion before, so sorry if I'm abrupt about it. --Ronz (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall the past discussion but I believe you. Feel free to point to it at the current discussion. Apology accepted. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Did you ask for an apology? Did I give one? I'm glad you feel something has been settled though. --Ronz (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I assumed above you were apologizing for your abrupt tone. If you are not apologizing for it sincerely, perhaps you should consider it, but don't worry too much about it. I am not one of those people who go around demanding an apology every time someone is uncivil toward me. You should also consider commenting about content on the article talk page so everyone can more easily participate (rather than here, where it is just you and me). I would very much like to see that past discussion and consensus you keep referencing. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the refactoring. --Ronz (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Canvassed

Regarding your comments here, first let me thank you for your honesty. I have some follow-up questions which you should feel more than free to ignore if answering them makes you feel uncomfortable.

1. Was the email sent only to you individually or could there have been more recipients than yourself?
2. Was the email merely an invitation to participate in the AfD discussion or was it campaigning to get you to come and vote a certain way?

Again, please ignore either or both of these questions if answering them makes you feel leery at all. Alternatively, feel free to email me your response if that is more favorable. Thanks again for your candor. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to your questions:

1. I have no way of knowing. It was through Wikipedia e-mail, so I received it directly. These are one-at-a-time in any case. He might have asked others, but there's no way I could know that.
2. There was no explicit request for me to vote a certain way, but the way he described the AfD seemed to make it clear he expected me to support him. I probably shouldn't get anymore specific about the e-mail, as doing so would be a breach of privacy.

--Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks again for your candidness. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I got one, too. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh, there goes the conspiracy theory... :-) Shot info (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Dematt, when did you receive the email? (When was it sent to you?) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I am sorry if you are upset. I should have used the word "intention" or "promise" or "commitment" or "assurance". Having expressed my sorrow, I hope you can see it within yourself to provide an answer to my legitimate concerns about your understanding of wikipedia policy.[10] Mccready (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you will realize that I have already answered your legitimate question several times now. It may not be the answer you want to read, but rest assured that you need not be concerned about my understanding of Wikipedia policy. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing the discussion. Just to be clear would you mind answering with a yes or no (because I am not sure we are yet on the same page here). Did you revert my edit and not place the sources for your reversion in your edit? Mccready (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not continuing the discussion because your question has been answer several times now. Please move on. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Please move on" sounds decidedly police-like to me. Avb 03:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy to move on and will note your refusal to continue discussion. I do not feel you have acknowledged that your revert warring resulted in a less satisfactory article.Mccready (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This arguement is about using the plus button to edit? And taking it to the Village Pump would be ...? Pete St.John (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop interfering with my attempts at dispute resolution

I suggest you remove your comment from WP:THIRD this time. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's clear that WP:3PO is not set up to handle a content dispute amongst more than two editors. That is the situation we have here. I would suggest taking down the 3PO request (because it is pointless) and more on to an RFC. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove it. The dispute is between me and you. --Ronz (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why interfere with something if it is pointless anyway? Why not let others decide? Why not follow your own rationale? Avb 03:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me there is a dispute between two people over whether there is a dispute amongst more than two editors. Therefore, to be a bit pedantic but hopefully helpful, why not obtain a third opinion as Ronz wishes and that 3O can say whether the dispute seems to be broader. —Whig (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the message

HI. Thank you for the welcome on my talk page. I seem to have entered a war zone. I joined because I had been following Science Apologist's edits and admired his style. I knew he had been blocked last month but it seems to be happening again. The Rationalist (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't think of it as a war zone. Sure, there are few people who are unwilling to work cooperatively and make it tough for everyone else. They are easy to spot - they tend to get blocked or banned frequently. Just assume good faith and be as rationale as your name implies. Most of us are very good natured and are here to make an encyclopedia which is replete with information which is verified by reliable sources. Check out the links in the Welcome message I left you. They will help get you started (though you appear to be extremely well-versed in Wikipedia already). If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 09:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning / advice

This [11] was ill-judged. I recommend you remove it William M. Connolley (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I retooled it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe my action [12] was fair, civil, and actually recommended by Wikipedia consensus. I've asked for you to comment on what might be wrong with what I've done, and you've refused, rudely. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You are the master, Ronz. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chiropractic - Translation

Excuse my laziness, which consists of not registering, but why did you mark my corrected translaton of chiropracitc as vandalism (huh? you annotated in you changelog)? It doesnt make the now fawlty translation any bit more correct.....--85.72.225.1 (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If I called your edit "vandalism" I was wrong. Please accept my apologies. The traditional translation is "done by hand". That can be sourced to many textbooks. However, if what you are giving us is the literal translation, perhaps you have a good point. I don't know. It's all Greek to me. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stonewalling on Talk:Quackwatch

I have already left a comment on Ronz's talk, which s/he deleted [13], there is follow-up on my talk. —Whig (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And we both agreed that accusations of stonewalling are disruptive. Don't forget that part. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

 ? —Whig (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As discussed on your talk page. You accused me of stonewalling. I pointed out that what you're complaining about and labeling as "stonewalling" appears to be what you are doing yourself. We both agreed that such discussions are disruptive. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We do not agree. I believe you are stonewalling and disrupting. —Whig (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've answered your questions before you wrote the above. Sorry you feel the need to make continued accusations against me, rather than work to settle the dispute at hand. --Ronz (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should use the RfC2 template in order to minimize conflict and seek a resolution. —Whig (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of an RFC if the disruption doesn't end. Infophile has given a suggestion which I am willing to agree to. If others would like to give their opinion there, I would be interested in reading more thoughts. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is an example of how it can become difficult to distinguish stonewalling: after awhile, both sides are repeating the same things: "you didn't answer the question" being typical. I followed Whig's link above and it was the same kind of thing, I still don't know what the content issue is. I believe the solution is to keep our eye on the content, and the specifics. Which question did Ronz not answer? E.g. I'd prefer to repeat, over and over, "<user> opposed <content ammendation> with <this objection>; I asked what he meant by <this specific> and he never replied". We may be equally monotonous as the stonewallers, but it will be possible for outside editors to tell us apart. The stonewallers avoid specifics because that is essential to evading consensus. Pete St.John (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption on Deadly Nightshade

Your recent edit on Deadly Nightshade claimed false consensus and is disruptive. Please refrain from such editing.209.249.65.142 (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The indicated diff's comment claimed prominence and verifiability; not consensus. It may have been premature (not that the arguement will ever end), but even if it were disruptive, the claim above is flatly false. Who is this guy? Pete St.John (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I didn't think it warranted a response. There are at least two anonymous editors at Deadly nightshade right now (one on each "side" of the debate). My sockpuppet sensors are on high! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] disingenuous edit summary

The edit summary made by Levine2112 claimed: No recent discussion nor any consensus for any of this mass revert/change. There has been recent discussions. See serious NPOV issues (oh my). Levine2112 has not participated in the recent discussion and reverted a quality NPOV edit. Please consider NPOV. Hopefully you will refrain from making such edits in the future. Blindly reverting does not help improve the article. References were removed that were needed to verify the text among other problems with your edit. QuackGuru (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I took a look at the (large) diff, and I'll make a few observations. First, the revert was large but the edit was large; they would be quicker to reach stable consensus (if it can ever be reached at all) if the edits were smaller and more focused. Second, the differences while numerous tended to be small. I get about the same sense of chiropractic from both versions. In some cases Quackguru's version is a little better (it was not necessary or desirable to add a para-science citation for a fact that already had a science-citation) and in some cases Levine's is better (e.g. flogging a few points, such as the breadth of sources of controversy). Third, QG's objection would have more rhetorical impetus if someone other than himself objected to the revert on the grounds of consensus, that is, he allows himself to be seen as merely defending his own edit and not representing a consensus. Pete St.John (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also reverted quack guru's edit in question for the very same reasons as listed above; the few minor good contributions were completely engulfed in a sea of controversial editting which was not discussed on the talk page and there was definitely no consensus reached. Furthermore, between the 2 editors, QG has a history of disruptive edits and has been blocked already this month for questionable wikipedia etiquette which I consider this another example. EBDCM (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you all. This seems like a pretty bogus "warning" from a disruptive editor who is upset because his massive reverts keep getting reverted because they lack any consensus. That said, I believe that the method being used now - discussing the edits one section at a time - is much more responsible. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I

Take a look NPOV[14] AN/I[15] There is a discussion on banning. You name has been mentioned also. Fill insist I accept his interpretation of NPOV. I refused and so we are here. Anthon01 (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So give your own interpretation of NPOV. Come on. How many times do you have to be invited? Stop wasting time. And put out your proposal on the table for comment.--Filll (talk) 20:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ignore irrational editors with chips on their shoulder. Responding to groundless accusations at AN/I just pleasures the loonies even more. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Shoulders. Plural. Ugh. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a problem getting collapse to work around your name. I've placed a notice here.[16] Anthon01 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what is going on or what you are trying to attempt. If it ends up being a problem with my signature though, please let me know! Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Where Anthon copied L's sig at the link, the "discuss" box works (links to Levine's talk) but here, of all places, it does not. Odd. The syntax looks fine. I must be overlooking something. (Note: I just copied and pasted the two sigs side-by-side; they are identical. So it's the way some browsers interact with some difference in the pages? Pete St.John (talk) 17:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Since it would be a self-referential link, on your own talk page, your own "Talk" link in your signature (or in my custom case, "Discuss") is disabled. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

oh d'uh thanks. Pete St.John (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

I've blocked you both for the lame edit warring on Talk:Scientific investigation of chiropractic for 12 hours. Discuss rather than edit war after the block expires. Vsmith (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what this is regarding. Can you please explain? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. Um, I have discussed this issue, both today and previously (see the top of the talk page). It had been agreed upon that the template for the "homeopathy warning" had no place on the Talk:Scientific investigation of chiropractic as "homeopathy" was not being discussed on this page and is unrelated to the article subject. Abiding by the consensus, I removed the template twice. I don't think that 2 reverts constitutes edit warring per say - especially was I was in the midst of discussing it - but I bow to your superior judgment, Vsmith. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You and QG both had 3 reverts with no discussion and both know better than to edit that way - you were both gaming the 3rr rule. It appears that you added discussion of the template while I was reviewing and just prior to the blocks. Feel free to request an unblock. Vsmith (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. I have signed up just to avoid future confusion, but so that it is known: I am not the user who edited the "AIDS conspiracy theories" article. My IP is 131.216.102.(omitted), but I have never accessed that article nor have I left my laptop unattended for such a thing to occur. So it is with some confusion that I noticed the warning I received just a few minutes ago. I hope this clears up future confusion. The Chibi Kiriyama (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI vs Ronz

I've brought an ANI regarding Ronz (the WQA was judged as the wrong level of response, again; although I feel it was hasty) Pete St.John (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars survey

Hi Levine2112. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found here. Thank you! Bestchai (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanx

Some well-meaning editors on the homeopathy page sought to give a reference to Quackwatch, and you wisely alerted them to the fact that this is not a NPOV source.[17] While your statement is so obvious to those of us who are informed about them, it seems that not everyone is adequately informed. Because I know that you are a critic of homeopathy, I appreciate your efforts to maintain NPOV. Please also know that although I may have pro-homeopathy POV, I just want to have good, useful RS and NPOV info. I've made some efforts to do so [18] and am open to your input. DanaUllman^Talk 16:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chiro

I'm bringing this to your talk page since it's not relevant to the allopathic medicine talk page. I'm aware of many chiropractors who go by "chiropractic physician" or "doctor of chiropractic". However, I also know that lawsuits have previously forced DOs to use the full term "osteopathic physician" in their official documents, not simply "physician", in states such as Maryland. I'd guess that the same would probably be true of chiropractors - moreso, since they do not enjoy the same legal rights as MDs. That said, chiropractic is not a focus of mine, so there's not much more I can offer on the subject. Antelan^talk 06:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I always appreciate your insight, Antelan. You're an extremely good editor and if you are not already, you would make a terrific admin (if you have the time). Anyhow, I think I just added a response in our discussion which shows relevance to the "allopathic physician" issue. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [19] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The Word" (Allo)

Am wondering where you see this one heading. I'm not 100% sure of the purpose of our discussion, and my concern is that we're just devolving into argument without a content-purpose. A penny (well, your time is certainly worth more than that, so name your price) for your thoughts? Antelan^talk 02:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I first got involved on that page on a totally tangential issue. However, now that I have stuck around, I have noted an inaccuracy in the lead which I would like to work at amending. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Health kinesiology

Where is there no article on Health kinesiology ? [20]--Filll (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean: "Why is there no article on Health kinesiology?" My answer: "I have no idea." I am not familiar with the term. I guess if there is enough verifiable information out there and some editor had the drive to start it, then there could be. I just did a cursory search on the term and there doesn't seem like there is much out there other than a few practitioners and the site you mention above. I would surmise that this is a minor topic not notable enough to have its own article; although this is based only on about one minute of research into the matter. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What is "Health Kinesiology"? I'm a licensed kinesiologist with a BSc (Hons) in Kinesiology. I pretty much wrote up the whole Kinesiology article and would consider myself to have expertise in this topic. If I can be of assistance, please let me know on my talk page. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are being discussed

ScienceApologist is discussing you here.

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for doing this. Disgusting racists. At least you and I agree on that point! I would have said thanks before, but I never noticed vandalism is being reverted on my user page, until I was looking at the history. I appreciate it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As a comment, though Orangemarlin and I have significant professional disagreements; we wholeheartedly agree that racism has no place in society nor on Wikipedia. Good job, Levine. CorticoSpinal (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NAET

why do you keep deleting my entries on NAET? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Partyfernandez (talk • contribs) 21:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete it. But having reviewed your edit, there appears to be a lack of verifiability. I encourage you to read WP:V and WP:RS when you have a moment. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AE thread

I have closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Martinphi. Please note my closing comments. I am informing you because you posted in the discussion. Vassyana (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

for your warm welcome! --Zulux1 (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You got it. Look like you're off to a good start with Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani. Keep up the good work! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] chiropractic resource link

I commented on the talk page that the POV source links to a promotional advocacy group and is not WP:RS. It seems more like WP:SPAM than anything else. QuackGuru 17:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Merely hosting a widely published source isn't a RS or SPAM issue. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The original Manga report was never WP:RS to begin with. QuackGuru 17:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What is your opinion? QuackGuru 17:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Manga is a reliable source for the manner in which we are currently using it and if we want to revise that manner to give more of Manga's historical context and subsequent impact, then additional sources will be required. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The obsolete Manga report itself fails WP:RS and in the manner it is being used has no historical impact. QuackGuru 17:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, that's your opinion. For the one million-and-first time, if you have suggested rewording please bring it to Talk:Chiropractic and I will be happy to discuss. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The link to the promotional group does not have any historical context. You added an obsolete study. It will be deleted. Feel free to add a link and text that discussed the Manga report in a historical way. QuackGuru 17:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no link to a promotional group, rather a link to a historically important piece of research which happens to be hosted on a chiropractic resource website. Nothing wrong with that. There is no consensus to delete the study. You are the one who wishes to frame the study in its historical context, therefore you should be the one who first proposes the rewrite. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It is hosted on a chiropractic promotional website without any historical context. The original study being used is very old. Do you agree there should be a rewrite and the obsolete studies should therefore be deleted. QuackGuru 18:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical context is currently not being mentioned, so for the way we are using it currently, the source is fine. I tend to agree with you that we should work Manga and perhaps the Workmen's Comp studies into history a bit better to show their historically impact. That does not however necessarily mean that they will be deleted. What I would like to see happen next is for you to propose (since this is your proposal after all) initial text demonstrating the historical import of these studies using any/all of the sources already given and possibly some new ones. Then I (and I imagine others) with chime in with out two-cents about your proposed text. If we discuss the text rationally and with a sense of cooperativeness, I am sure that we can arrive at a consensual version in no time. Sound reasonable? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical context is not mentioned using the Manga report itself and it is unrelated to history section. The content is misplaced and is oudated. We have newer sources on Workmen's Comp but that would be for a new section under cost-benefit. I never agreed to work the Manga report itself or the obsolete studies into the history section. We should use the newer available sources. Agreed? QuackGuru 18:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Manga is too significant in chiropractic literature not to mention, even if only to describe its historical significance. I feel like we are in well-worn territory once again, traveling in circles, where you are wanting to do something against consensus. You haven't convinced me or anyone else using your current argumentation, so either change your tune or learn to live with the consensus. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said not to mention Manga in a historical way. The original Manga report has no historical context and is an obsolete study. Do you agree if the Manga report is mentioned in the history section we should use newer sources that describe it in a historical context? QuackGuru 18:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if the Manga report is mentioned in the history section, in addition to the source currently being use, we should use newer sources (such as the ACA Chiropractic History page) to describe the historical context. I have said this before, including just above in the very thread (see my third post). However, while this new text is being drafted and reaching consensus, the current text should not be removed in the interim (as it is likely that much of it - or at least some portion of it - will remain in tact). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The source currently being misused in the article adds no historical impact. The same goes for the workers' comp obsolete studies. QuackGuru 18:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that is my opinion. But what is your opinion? QuackGuru 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Go to my third response in this thread and begin the endless loop. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify your opinion. This was an interesting change to the header. QuackGuru 19:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

After a month of me and others trying to explain this to you, I really don't think I can get any clearer. I suggest going back and reading all of the discussions on this topic over again to better familiarize yourself with my opinion. I will be signing off soon for the night, so that should give you plenty of time. Let me know if you have any further questions in the morning. Good night! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Hello Levine2112, yes i´ve got a question, in the spanish wikipedia there are userboxes, is it the same name here? ByeMiniEnE (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes they should pretty much be the same here. I think the confusion was that you were using "usario" for your user page, rather than the English "user". Moreover, you may wish to read WP:Userboxes for some insight. My own user pages has some examples of using "userboxes". Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] labeling HealthAngle as spam and deleting external links

Hi. I added external links to several pages -- wisdom teeth, alternative medicine and root canal. These external links were to specific sections of the website HealthAngle, and provided information that was not already in the external links, information that was relevant to the specific page, information that was not commercial in nature or promotional, and information that was edited as per journalistic standards and reviewed by a medical doctor. These links seemed to exist within the standards established by Wikipedia. Additionally, they were in keeping with other external links on these pages, including information from WebMD and Yahoo Health. These links were added in good faith and to provide relevant and useful information to people. Would you help me understand why they were labeled as spam and removed? Thank you. Best, Ken Kenhw (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion - which certainly may be incorrect - the manner in which links to this site were added to several articles at once, seemed to violate WP:SPAM#LINK. It appeared that the repeated addition of links to this site was done so in order to promote this website in general. While HealthAngle looks like it may be a good resource in the future when it has more information; at this point in time, it looks pretty sparse and could use more people going there first. By posting links to the site at Wikipedia, ironically HealthAngle may garner the traffic it needs to turn it into a valuable resource. But there's the Catch-22 of it all. Further, I did a quick search around the web and I feel that you may be the founder of this website, which would mean that your adding of this link would also violate WP:COI which states: Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including... other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor... By all means, I may be wrong about all of this, so feel free to take this issue to WikiProject Spam and the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard where you can ask the editors what they think. And please let me know if I can be of any further assistance on this matter. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bates method

Hi Levine2112. We are again having problems at Bates method. One current dispute surrounds the "Further reading" section (again!), but there is a much larger background issue. In March, after a joint effort to organize and thereby balance the article, Ronz placed a massive warning at the top, which I (and apparently also Famousdog) felt exaggerated the remaining problems. But I then spent a lot of time finding independent sources, and adding more information from sources already referenced in the article. Recently Famousdog again objected to the warning tags. Ronz responded that independent sources were needed to show the importance of the topics being discussed. I then pointed out to Ronz that each section and subsection does now reference independent sources, and suggested that instead of going through the article and checking every reference, it might be easier to first read through four (relatively brief) skeptical sources, to see what subtopics they cover. I then decided that, since I had given that advice, it would be a good idea to link to three of them (which are fully available online) in the Further Reading section. I also took the opportunity to re-add a link to a collection of medical articles by Dr. Bates, most dealing with his approach to treating sight problems. Now, this link had been deleted before, but I thought other editors might not object to it if the section was balanced. Ronz then deleted all four links I had added, labeling them as "promotional". I thought maybe he just hadn't read my edit very carefully (as also seemed to be the case in the Eye exercises article), and reverted to it, briefly explaining myself in the edit summary. Subsequently, someone else added four book titles to the section as well. Ronz again reverted the section, with little more explanation. I then explained to him in the talk page why I had added those links, and asked him what his objection was. After a week without a response, I added them again, with a note to Ronz in the edit summary to please not revert without first responding to me on the talk page. Now he is accusing me of harassing him. I don't understand, and he has not explained, his objection to the skeptical links. I do understand his objection to the link to Bates' medical articles, but I think he is probably wrong there.

More generally, Ronz seems to object to "unreliable sources" for statements which don't need anything more (references to opinions of Bates proponents). I also feel that the Bates method article is now not too far from being an exemplary treatment of a Fringe theory, despite the outdated tags. I admit I have probably used sources inappropriately in a few past instances, and maybe I am wrong in some respects now. When you have time could you take a look and give your opinion on all of this? You were helpful back in late January when Ronz and I had our initial clash. Thank you. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My advice would be to look at the various dispute resolution mechanisms which Wikipedia offers. Consider posting your questions about sourcing at WP:RSN so you can get third party opinions on the matter. I will take a look at the article myself soon, as well. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit hesitant to ask for help from someone who may not be at all familiar with the subject matter. I guess the best option is to notify editors who have previously been involved in the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are dealing with an editor who - in my experience - has difficulty backing up his arguments. IMHO, he likes to list out various policies and accuse others of violating them, but when he is asked for specifics, his arguments typically whither on the vine. If you can't come to some consensus regarding the policies and the article content (and you feel it is because of a direct result of editor behavior, etc.), I would recommend a WP:RFCU. That may bring some resolve to the editor issues and consequently the article issues. As for me, I really don't know much about Bates at all - only what I have seen here at Wikipedia. If you have specific policy issues that need a third-party opinion, I will be more than happy to offer my own. Just let me know how I can help and I will be at your service. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least you have seen the article before. That is my main concern about asking for help. Someone who had never heard of the Bates method might, for example, think it is not notable and doesn't merit a Wikipedia article (there is a recent example of that on the talk page, though it was not the result of any request for assistance.) PSWG1920 (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me the specific issue you want me to look at? Is it about the list of external sources (books)? Something else? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Further Reading section for now. If at some point you could review the entire article to determine whether the tags should be removed, that would be helpful, but that would take some time. Fyi I only added the links; the book titles were added by someone else, which is the reason there are two different sections on the talk page discussing this. And note that most recently, it was not the book titles he had just removed which I re-added, but rather links which he had deleted a week before, and he had not responded when I asked him about it in the talk page. The short Eye exercises article is also worth checking, mainly for perspective. I believe there are two examples there of Ronz carelessly reverting my edits, especially when he deleted an "unsourced" statement which was in fact sourced. Which is why I figured he wasn't carefully reading my edits before reverting them, and thus I asked him in a Bates method edit summary not to revert me without first responding on the talk page, which seemed to trigger his accusations of harassment. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Further, my reason for adding the links, as discussed here, is to highlight that there are independent sources and they do discuss the subtopics in the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

Please cease edit warring on Veterinary chiropractic.[21] I requesting for the article remain as the previous standing version. Involved parties should seek further input from third opinions, appeals for community input or perhaps the assistance of informal mediation. Further disruption will result in administrative intervention (via blocks, article protection, topic bans, etc, as appropriate). Thanks for understanding. Vassyana (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Understand. Thanks for stepping in, Vassyana. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for making some attempt to be civil. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But please watch your edit summaries. --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please

Please avoid leaving comments like this. I can understand if you are getting frustrated or upset, but I'm sure you understand that taking such a tone and tack is not going to help the situation or anyone involved. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that pointing the blame finger isn't necessarily the best tactic at this point. Please understand though the source of my frustration and perhaps extend a little guidance that way. Thanks for all of your help thus far! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to drop a line to me by email if you need to vent. Also feel free to drop a line on my talk page if you're looking for any particular advice. Thanks, honestly, for understanding. Vassyana (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated. I may very well be venting to you via email very soon. ;-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

Would you mind giving me your $0.02 on this? Talk:Veterinary_chiropractic#Candidate_for_Insertion:_Safety DigitalC (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Professor DJ Kalupahana

No problem, I've done pretty much the same thing before. Guest9999 (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I can hardly believe that you tagged my new page for deletion without even reading it! If you'd read further than the first few words it would have been totally obvious that it was not about the Disk Jockey kind of DJ, it's just his initials. I'm sorry it was so short and scrappy at first, it was late and I just thought I'd make a start because I was suprised there wasn't already a page on him. --Kester ratcliff (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry dude. It was late here too. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for the monitoring of my User Talk page. Wjhonson (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks²

Thanks for the welcome message on my Talk page. That was kind of you. Valravn (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus

I'd appreciate your input on this, since you are familiar with the contributions of this user's other account. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio bit

Hi - the article, Site effect, which you worked on has been deleted as it was originally a direct WP:COPYVIO from http://www.grif.umontreal.ca/pages/i-rec%20papers/philipros.PDF - Thanks for your efforts at wikification, but the content was in violation of copyright policy. Vsmith (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, you did nothing wrong here and the subject could support a valid article, just that the material you worked to improve was a direct copy/paste violation. Just wanted you to know and I was not implying wrongdoing on your part. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I thought the article had potential; I just didn't realize that it had the CopyVio issue. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russell's page

Can you please specify why my edit of Russell Simmon's page was removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namaste108 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that the notability of the band has yet to be demonstrated, and that the information at to Russell Simmons was not supported by a source which reliably demonstrates the significance of this information, and further that the information was "sourced" to a promotional link (Amazon sales page) - well the sum total of this look like self-promotion or shameless promotion by a party with a conflict of interest pf a non-notable subject. I apologize if I am misinterpreting this and this band is actually extremely notable in a music world in which I am regrettably ignorant. (On a personal note, I did sample a few tracks and I definitely dug it!) Anyhow all of this can easily be cleared up if you could provide a third-party source which establishes notability of the band and/or album. Again, a notable music publication reviewing the subject would be of the caliber of sources required. Hope this helps. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 09:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talkback