User talk:Levine2112/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] Newbie question

Thank you for your welcoming message. I have set up my first new Wikipedia page (for Robert weltsch), and now I notice that the capitalizaton of his name in the page title is wrong! It needs a capital "W." This doesn't seem to be editable. The edit advice tells me to rename the page by using a "Move" button, but I don't see it. Could you please help me out? Thanks. Boodleheimer 20:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All set. The move button is one of the tabs at the top of the page (between "history" and "watch"). Please feel free to ask any other questions. I am at your service. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WOW that was quick. Thank you so much. Unfortunately I've got no "move" tab...left to right the tabs read "user page," "discussion," "edit this page,"+" (plus sign), "history," and "watch." I'm on a Mac...could this be the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boodleheimer (talk • contribs)

You know, I never encountered that problem before, and I am not a Mac user. Hmm. Try asking around to see if anyone else has knowledge of this. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spring cleaning

A tad bit before Groundhog's Day, but I figured it was time to wipe the slate clean and start the archives going. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You know of course that I knew your discuss button does work, I was just kidding, of course.. what, you don't believe me>:/
BTW, When is groundhogs day in... japan? -- Dēmatt (chat) 23:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess they don't celebrate that here. But there are a lot of Japanese fans of the Bill Murray movie. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link farms

Since you seem to have an interest in link farms, here's a big one to work on:

It violates many policies here. -- Fyslee's (First law) 10:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow! What do you do in cases like these?! -- Levine2112 discuss 17:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I suppose you have to follow the rules. WP:EL -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I know those rules pretty well by now. I just need to muster up the stamina to jump in there. The issue for me is that I don't know most of those sites and for me to determine what is reliable, what is commercial, what is misleading is going to be tough. A lot of them seem like Health Freedom related organization... on first glance at least. I am going to take some time to think about this, but in the meantime, if Dematt and Fyslee want to chip away at it, go for it. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I can understand your consternation. I feel the same way, being the inclusionist that I am. I often delete commercial sites outright without blinking an eye, but sites that are clearly representative of a particular POV I am very hesitant to delete, since they are necessary to fulfill NPOV policy. The sites have been added hodgepodge, without much opposition. Some are likely vanity sites, others commercial, etc.. It's a hornet's nest. Several (if not most - it's the driving force behind the health freedom movement) are filled with conspiracy theories with no real proof.
Issues related to RS and V are involved. V is easily obtainable for practically any site. My main blog is very popular and is rated higher than Bolen's, and they are definitely V, but they are not RS at all, in the Wikipedia sense:
Here are statistics for those two V, but not RS, sites:
We're nowhere in the range of Quackwatch:
which is a V and often (but not always) RS.
So determining suitability for Wikipedia depends on the article (even shoddy vanity links (as long as they aren't libelous attack sites) are allowed on articles directly about the person or organization), the use as internal references, external links, or sources of opinion (with NPOV language). Not always an easy task, but this article needs attention. Right now it's a sales pitch.
I would rather you guys do it, so I don't get into (noncommercial) POV/COI dilemmas. I hope y'all understand what I mean. My biases could lead me to be too harsh on opposing POV, and that wouldn't be very Wikipedian, but very human....;-) -- Fyslee's (First law) 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
478,505! Not bad, Fyslee. Your ring must be working. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Webrings don't actually do much themselves, especially for large sites, but they do help to place one in proximity to like-minded sites, which gives exposure. That has the effect of one's site getting noticed, and if someone wants to link to your site, that always helps. When I started in 1999, I searched the internet for such sites and let them know I existed. Some actually linked to me! Wow! Now I don't even maintain my sites. They just sit there, with very little activity on my part. Wikipedia is more intersting. That's why my email archive for the Health Fraud list now has 4,365 unread messages. It was over 3,000 when I quit as assistant listmaster. I didn't read it or follow along with what was happening. Now I only post occasionally. I did it today. Between 1999 and 2004 I did it several times a day. -- Fyslee's (First law) 23:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't help notice this discussion. I'm conflicted about the link farm that is Occupational_hygiene, so am interested in others' approaches to similar problems (I started a discussion, since there was none yet). I was bold with Health freedom, but will probably revert it for more discussion. --Ronz 02:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I detect a link farm at Occupational hygiene. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I did say "conflicted". By the number of external links and their use, Occupational_hygiene#Professional_Societies could be considered a link farm. Hopefully, some good ideas on how to handle it will be posted in talk. --Ronz 02:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
On the surface, having links to notable professional societies that are directly about the subject (no tangents) seems fine. See how we handled it on Chiropractic. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That's helpful, thanks! --Ronz 03:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Levine, if you would like to chat, please enable your email. Mine is set up on the system. Shot info 12:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be. People email me once in awhile. I'll check just to make sure though. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, let me be a little clearer, if you wish to continue to chat about IEEE, PCs et.al, rather than doing it via our talk pages, feel free to email me :-) Shot info 00:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence

Your accusations against me that you posted in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal/Evidence are not factual. I'm pointing this out here as a gesture of good faith that it may be an honest mistake on your part, perhaps from writing it without taking the time to check what actually happened. I hope you'll be editing it further and will consider more closely what actually happened. Thanks. --Ronz 00:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. My bad. Please accept my apologies. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. --Ronz 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Deletions

I noticed that you tagged my wikipedia entry for deletion. Thank you for bringing to my attention that the page is not up to Wikipedia's standards. I will try to raise the scholarly level of the page. As a writer and software engineer, I definitely appreciate people who scurry through large amounts of text and offer improvements. I do the same in my day job.

That being said, I did notice some unusual things.

  1. You also flagged my wife's page for deletion. That in itself is not terribly unusual, but you also spent time to determine that user "djbwiki" is her husband.
  2. On your Talk page, you have a discussion about my father, Stephen Barrett, linking to a long discussions of litigations, cabals, and conspiracies.

This is creeping me out. Please explain your unusually high level of interest in my extended family. Djbwiki 19:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically, you can't create anb article about yourself (or your wife). Wait until someone else comes along and says that you are notable enough to create an article about you. This is a general rule of thumb at Wikipedia (or else everybody would create articles about themselves). Make sense?
I noticed that you stopped editing since last August. What (or who) brought you back here all of a sudden to notice that your articles had been tagged? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You shouldn't be surprised, since lots of people are watching your edits and your interest in Barrett and his family, so any one of a number of people could have alerted him before he reacted to it popping to the top of his watchlist. It is likely on many people's watchlists. If I were Daniel, I'd be freaked out too. It's not everyday that one gets such unwarranted attention just for contributing to an encyclopedia. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 20:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Since he started his own article about himself (and one about his wife), do you agree that it should be deleted? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand the guideline. Your motivation is another matter, but that's another issue....;-) Sleuthing around Wikipedia can be fun. You're dealing with inexperienced editors. I remember when I started here there were many policies and guidelines I didn't understand, and I've made my newbie mistakes. I suspect we all have, so go gently and judge accordingly. You wouldn't want to be judged by your early IP days now would you? -- Fyslee (collaborate) 20:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
So do you agree that the two articles should be deleted?
BTW, what is my motivation? I've nominated many articles for deletion in my time at Wikipedia (and many times because they violated the self-promotion policy). Are you now violating WP:AGF with me yet again? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, I understand the guideline, and I'm not questioning your interpretation at all. I am only referring to your current involvement in the COI speculations about Daniel's possible use of the Shot info user name. Your investigation of that matter is what most likely led you here. (I wasn't even aware of these articles or his user name.) I am still not questioning that -- no matter what led you here -- your interpretation of the guideline is accurate. I'm just not going to be the one to swing the axe. You found this situation and I'll let you deal with it. There is no assuming bad faith, just commenting on the current situation. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 21:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Levine2112, you didn't answer my question (why 3 members of my family are on your radar). But being a polite person, I will answer yours. I didn't know about the "don't author your own page" rule. And I found out about your deletion proposal simply because a wikipedia reader noticed it and emailed me. Now your turn. (1) Who are you in real life (I am not anonymous, no reason why you should be), and (2) why are 3 members of my family on your radar? Oh, and (3) which Rush album is your favorite? Mine is "Farewell to Kings." Djbwiki 22:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
(1) In real life, my name is Levine. No joke! I am not notable enough to warrant my own article... yet? My complete bio will have to wait until then. Anything you want to know about me, feel free to ask or email me directly using the "Email this user" link on this page. (2) The chain of sequences leading to your page was: I first started editing chiropractic then I learned about Quackwatch and your father Stephen Barrett and then I was led to your and your wife's page. I don't mean any ill-will (despite Fyslee's bad faith accusation above). I am only following the guidelines of Wikipedia and when I found your articles, I saw that they were in violation of a basic Wikipedia policy. (3) 2112. I should think that was obvious! Farewell to Kings rocks too! -- Levine2112 discuss 23:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
"bad faith accusation" ??? I thought we were agreed on your motivation. It looks like you just confirmed it, and it was nothing more than that. Perfectly natural situation in light of your interest in Barrett and his family. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 07:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
So we are clear, my motivation is following Wikipedia policy to make the best encyclopedia possible. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't try to put words in my mouth. Your motivation (that led you here) was your intense dislike of all things Barrett (and by extension using simple logic, your affection for that which he opposes, ie quackery). That of course led to some sleuthing, which, as I wrote, can be fun. Another very distinct motivation regarding how to deal with vanity articles, is another matter entirely. It just happens to be very convenient that you can legitimately use Wikipedia policy to justify your other motives, which are anti-Barrett and anti anti-quackery (see: double negative -- anti anti-q. = pro-q.). Danes have an expression for such simple logic: "Logik for høns" = "Logic for hens." (You can see by the similarity of words that Danish isn't all that hard to read, but the pronunciation is a doozy!) In this case it would be "logic for ducks." Enough on this matter. Deal with the articles as you please. You certainly won't get any opposition from me. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 08:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Your bad faith accusations are untrue and don't warrant any kind of response from me other that this message. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blog references

Hi Levine,

I have seen that you have been removing certain references from Wikipedia. Though I agree that we can not have links to blog sites (there are some exceptions that are not likely relevant to the articles you edit), and that they generally should be removed, in certain cases though they should be replaced with the appropraite sources where possible. E.g. [1] should not have been removed but replaced with [2] as I have done. Thankyou for your time Cheers Lethaniol 14:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good. I figured since that particular one had two other references that replacing the third was unneccessary. However, what you have done is even better. Thank you for the support! -- Levine2112 discuss 16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Not certain, no. I've requested a check user, though it may be a moot point, given that Ilena is blocked anyway, and the other account hasn't protested. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My fear is that Fyslee is using it as evidence and outright stating that this is Ilena's sockpuppet rather than just a suspected sockpuppet. I don't think that is fair at this point. I also don't think it was very civil of him to create a Sockpuppets of Ilena category. The IP addresses list are hardly sockpuppets as Ilena made it clear in those edits with those IPs that it was her. There wasn't an attempt at deception on her part; just a failure to log in properly. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The account in question is tagged as a suspected sockpuppet, which it is at the moment. The bottom line is that this entire pro- and anti-Barrett situation has to stop. It's fine to oppose Quackwatch as a source (I'm not keen on using it myself), but that can't extend to mounting campaigns, or outing or harassing individuals. Similarly, support for Quackwatch also can't be raised to the level of a campaign, with attacks on individual opponents. Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, not a boxing ring, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112 is correct here. It was premature to state that the new account that made exactly the same complex deletion she had made multiple times was her sock puppet, but the suspicion is strong enough to label it as a suspected sock puppet. I didn't actually "create" that category, but I was the first to edit it. Now how can that be? Well, if you look at the second sock puppet bar (added by MastCell, and now removed by SlimVirgin), [3] it automatically has some links. One of them was red and I edited it, giving it content. I can now see that there is a problem there with the wording, because none of them have been or are used as actually socks, but are potential ones she could use. I wonder what the best way to deal with that would be? This is new territory for me. Should they be blocked, except the one used by others? Normally a blocked or banned user has their IP blocked, but she has used multiple IPs. It will be interesting to see what the checkuser turns up. SlimVirgin should be able to answer these questions.

As far as Quackwatch goes, each instance should be examined, since the site contains extremely different types of content, some not available anywhere else. If the content is of good quality, then there is no reason to delete it. If it is being used as an expression of a skeptical POV, then it can also be used (if the text in the article is (re)worded in an NPOV manner). It is not to be used to tell the "truth" (nor is any other source), but to present a POV. If another, more official, source can be used to present the same POV or document the referenced text, then it can be used instead. I have no problem with such deletions. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 19:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please re-edit your evidence to reflect that HealthZealot is only a suspected sockpuppet of Ilena and that the IP address are not sockpuppets at all (as she never used them for deception of another account). You can't call them "potential" sockpuppets either. That doesn't assume good faith.
Your thinking about Quackwatch is very lucid. However, given your COI, you personally shouldn;t be adding any links to Quackwatch or it's affiliate site. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA exchange between us about points 3.x

...and besides, Levine, I can't even get in touch with you my email! As a recall, there was a reason for me to want to a couple of times several months ago. Do try it, as WP provides a buffer by not posting the email address itself. ... Kenosis 18:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried sending you a test. Let me know if you receive it. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Howdy Levine2112, over on the chiro page, a user is becoming disruptive. I checked and the ip their using 203.220.149.55 with various subnets comes from australia. I'm wondering if our old friend Mcready is back...What should I do? Report to AN/I? Check user? I'm not sure. Any help you can provide is appreciated. --Hughgr 20:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would post the incidents on the admin noticeboard with details. I wouldn't assume it is McCready yet... Australia is a big country. Continue the conversation with the user on the Chiropractic talk page for sure. Certainly, "premise" is a more accurate word than "belief". We are dealing with a scientific theory not a philosophy. "Premise" is a more scientific. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
We posted at the exact same time with the same thought! LOL--Hughgr 23:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checking in

What in G-d's name is going on? I take some time off and what happened to Wikipedia? Dematt is gone? He's a fantastic editor. Fyslee is on trial or whatever they call this here! He is definitely opinionated and disruptive and has declared open war on Chiropractic and has misused Wikipedia as his battleground. If he wants to smear chiros on his blog, fine. But Wikipedia is not the place for this! Should I say something on the trial page? TheDoctorIsIn 02:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish I would have gotten to you sooner. I would have told you not to use Fyslee's real name. He has become concerned about that lately. I am not sure what is going on with Dematt. He's probably as frustrated as all of us are now. Too much anti v. pro alt med disputes Your WP:COI statement about Fyslee is right on. I don't think that you being a chiropractor means you must recuse yourself from any editing of chiropractic articles. However, if you think your passions will get the better of your judgement then perhaps you should avoid it. I think that is sound rationale and I admire your honesty. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bolen

Please before you dig yourself into a massive hole read Wikipedia:No legal threats. If you continue down this path, IMHO you will lose the respect not only of other editors but also the ArbCom. This might mean that your evidence and opinions will be discounted in the verdict against Fylsee and that I am sure is not your intention. Best to stick to the issues at hand instead of opening up new fronts/forks every few edits. Cheers Lethaniol 22:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You asked for more misbehavior on Fyslee's part since the Ilena ban. I was only pointing out this one. Even if it was a legal threat (which it isn't), Fyslee's COI should have prohibited him from removing this text. Honestly, I would have like to have had the opportunity to discuss the points Bolen was making. Maybe they were vaild, maybe they weren't. Thanks to Fyslee's POV supression, we won't know. I think he chased off newbie editor Bolen with his aggressive behavior. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Note COI never prohibits any user from removing BLP violations or legal threats, even if they are possibly wrong. The fact that the ArbCom has Bolen up for indef ban suggests that his actions are seen in a very poor light already - which has nothing to do with Fylsee's aggressive behaviour (I have seen no evidence of Fylsee biting Bolen).
You need to stand back and look at the way your actions are coming across Levine. The more you add to the ArbCom talk pages IMHO the more you are bringing yourself into disrepute - please note Durova's statement. You appear to be pushing the Quackwatch and Fylsee issue to near the point of vendetta, which I am sure you do not mean.
As an experienced Adopter, I suggest you take a break for 10mins, 1hour, 1day whatever you feel you need, and then come back and have a think about how others will perceive what you have written. Alternatively, stay away from the ArbCom talk page (for the same periods of time) and do some fun stuff - like editing non-controversial articles - and then come back.
Cheers Lethaniol 22:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a two-way street. I view what many editors are doing on that talk page as spinning. Spinning Fyslee's actions to not look so bad. Spinning Quackwatch to seem like a reliable source. I am just trying to keep it on the level. For instance, I think you have it wrong with calling what Bolen wrote a legal threat rather than legal advice. So I will stop setting the record straight when the spinning and mischaracterizations stop. Right now, I am still needed there.-- Levine2112 discuss 22:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, a lot of the current discussion is pretty neutral IMHO - and I should know as I am a neutral editor - e.g. no one is saying that Quackwacth is a totally reliable source and e.g. a compromise has been offered that Quackwatch only be used when it is needed for an sceptic opinion quote or to reference sources that can not be found elsewhere. You may think you are trying to "keep it on the level", but from the outside it looks like you are on a crusade, a crusade that might be very damaging to your reputation on Wikipedia. Again I urge you to take a break, cool down and then reassess. Cheers Lethaniol 23:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that I am a neutral editor. Don't foregt that the compromise on Quackwatch is something which I am pushing for too -- in the spirit of collaboration. You may think that I am on a crusade, but perhaps it only appears that way from your POV. I'm sure everyone thinks that they are neutral and that everyone else must be leaning toward a bias. I recognize that. That is why I feel I make for a excellent Wikipedian. I never get heated and thus I don't need to cool down. I appreaciate your concern though. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay these are my last words on this - and then I will leave you be. Yes it is my POV that you do not appear to be a neutral editor and that you do appear to be on a crusade. I suggest, quite strongly though (all the more so as I can not see many if any users defending your opinions on the ArbCom talk page) that most other editors will agree with my assessment, and have the same POV. An excellent wikipedian: your recent fork splitting and irrelevant discussion at the ArbCom talk page suggest otherwise. Please take a break and be more self-critical of your own conduct at the current time. Good luck - you will surely be needing it. Cheers Lethaniol 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
That is pretty harsh and abusive language. It is also entirely inaccurate. For the record, I don't appreciate it. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Sigh - you should WP:AGF - especially when I offer constructive criticism. Harsh maybe - but I see no abuse in my comments. These are my opinions, that I have brought here to try and help you become a better Wikipedian. By the way, I offer you good luck because on your current course you will surely end up at a WP:RFC before too long. Cheers Lethaniol 23:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You criticize me and threaten me with an RFC and then you tell me you are being my friend by doing so. There's an old saying which applicable here: You can piss on my back, but don't tell me it's raining. I tell you this because I want you to be a better Wikipedian: Your advice to me here is coming off as very condescending. If this isn't your intent, I apologize for saying so. But recognize that this is how I am perceiving it. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not threatening you with an RfC, as an involved party and Adopter of Fylsee things would have to be a lot worse for me to even consider this option. It is Durova who has made it clear that if you continue along your current path then Durova will " open[ing] these questions to the community for broader input" - this will generally mean a RfC. My advice, which though you may think is condescending, if taken is one way of dealing with situation. You ignore it, which I can understand considering you think you are an "excellent wikipedian". I will not offer you any advice again, as it is obviously wasting time for both of us. User:Lethaniol 00:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I gave you an apology. I would have at least expected a reciprocal gesture from you, not more insults. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between a spin doctor's empty threat intended to harass, tar and feather an opponent, and a dedicated Wikipedian's true warning intended to inform an editor of the fact that he is being disruptive. You may want to consider the possibility that it's the latter, but don't see it, perhaps due to a lack of WP:DR knowledge and experience. You may also want to consider another aspect of Durova's warning: in view of your behavior during the arbitration, an uninvolved editor might step in to block you. AvB ÷ talk 10:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If you feel I am being disruptive or that I am harrassing anyone, I would appreciate a diff example showing me this. Honestly (and I fully recognize that this is just my POV) it looks to me that by supplying contrary evidence, I am frustrating your attempts to spin Fyslee's wrong-doings in a more positive light. And thus, your reaction is to claim that I am being disruptive and to threaten me with getting blocked. I am open to the possibility that my assessment may be entirely incorrect, but this is currently how I am perceiving this discussion here. I let you know this because I want you to understand exactly where I am coming from in my heart of hearts. I wouldn't mind you reciprocating and explaining your perceptions honestly and openly here. Further, as you have seen previously, I have attested to not having any conflict of interest here with Quackwatch, NCAHF, Tim Bolen, Stephen Barrett, Ilena Rosenthal or Fyslee (real name removed by -- Fyslee (collaborate) 20:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)). I have attested that outside of Wikipedia, I have no contact with these people (aside from the occasional email from Fyslee and Ilena). I have attested that I never even heard of these people or organizations before arriving at Wikipedia late in 2005. I attested to this to let you know that this isn't about any external conflict or vendetta. I want the time I spend on Wikipedia to be most productive. This is my goal. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I simply reworded Durova's warning which you seem to have misunderstood. I have not, so far, warned you about disruption or threatened you with a block (I am not an admin and even if I were, I would not block someone for edits on pages I'm editing myself). You are now inventing explanations for something I did not do. I will not offer you any advice again, as it is obviously wasting time for both of us. AvB ÷ talk 19:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't find it to be a waste of time, for the record. I wish you could feel free to express your thoughts and feelings openly and honestly with me as I have done above with you. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)


From my heart of hearts? Your wish has been fulfilled a long time ago. Just read what I write and know that there is no agenda or goal other than what I've already written, no spin or ulterior motivation, just the facts as found in my own full-text investigation and my interpretation of those facts, right or wrong, offered without prejudice. I'm always open to constructive criticism. I wish you would believe that.

I believe that your intentions are what you say they are. I believe that you view yourself as a good Wikipedian. I believe that you believe you are fighting the good fight insofar as fighting is allowed here. I wish you would believe the same things about me.

However, as long as you call a revert an addition in ArbCom evidence I will feel free to consider you an incredible witness. As long as you call a deletion a reversion and file a 3RR report for it, call the consensus process a vote or do not even attempt WP:DR when you feel overwhelmed by what you consider POV warriors, I will not consider you an experienced or effective Wikipedian. And so on. I really mean it when I say you have a problem there. You do not seem to learn sufficiently from comments by other editors, instead explaining their behavior by assuming an ulterior motive. Thus you remain blind to some important aspects of how things are or should be done on Wikipedia. So I've come full circle once again: you do not believe me when I'm criticizing you and prefer to blame it on my wish to defend Fyslee. I do not have such a wish. It is my wish to prevent, as far as possible, that ArbCom will act on misleading evidence or rely on incredible witnesses. It is my wish to prevent, as far as possible, that ArbCom interferes in content disputes. It is also my wish to learn more about an area of Wikipedia where I do not have a lot of experience: the arbitration process. Hence I'm already following other arbitrations (but I have not seen anything like what happened here as yet).

It would really help if you would test my opinion regarding the 3RR thing. It would be a start if you found out you're in the wrong there. From there you could try and check out my other insights one at a time and perhaps learn a couple of things. I think I've said it all before. But I will always remain open to other insights - should you find that I am in the wrong, just let me know. But just like you I can't be convinced by ex cathedra statements. Also please remember I have lots of experience in the areas where I've spoken out, including such simple things as reversions and 3RR both in practice and policy, and counterintuitive things like the ArbCom's willingness to propose findings of fact and remedies for editors that are not parties to the conflict. AvB ÷ talk 22:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your sincerity. See? I think it helps to be honest and to speak from your heart. Do you think you can make a similar attestation to the one I made above about having no COI with any of the involved parties? Specifically stating that you have no knowledge of or correspondence with any of the people or organization?
I understand your POV when it comes to the semantics of addition vs. revert. I view a revert that in effect adds (or re-adds, as it were) as an addition. Meaning, whatever was deleted wasn't there when the reversion was made and thus it was added. Apparently so did the admin who blocked Fyslee. Now then, Fyslee had a valid point about why he felt he was only at 3RR and not 4RR, but to my knowledge he was unable to convince the admin. The same applies for deletion vs. reversion. It the net effect of the reversion was to delete something, then it is a delete.
I think the main issue in the case of Fyslee 3RR violation block was the way he handled it. He tried to turn it on me. Exclaimed "Yipee!" literally. Very uncivil. All I did was follow the proper channels and report the instance to AN/3RR, just as any good Wikipedian should have done.
Remember, as I have repeatedly said, I have been at Wikipedia for a while now. I don't consider myself a perfect editor as there is always more to learn. I make a concerted effort to stay within and enforce Wikipedian guidelines to the best of my knowledge. Please don't turn this into an ego thing on me.
I guess that is where I feel most attacked here. I made a point of leaving personal insinuations out of the evidence page. The ArbCom isn't about me or you or anyone else posting evidence other than Fyslee and Ilena. What I saw in your evidence was you commenting on me and my lack of credibility rather than presenting evidence. If you wanted to comment on my evidence, you should have done so on that talk page. If you wanted to comment on me, you should have done so on my talk page. Instead - and mind you that this is how I interpret it and I know full-well that I may be wrong - you were trying to shift focus from Fyslee's wrongdoings onto me in the hopes that showing some impropriety on my part would discount all of my evidence. I too made the mistake of commenting on others not party to this ArbCom in the early stages of it. It was pointed out to me and I quickly reverted it and apologized profusely. The evidence page is for presenting evidence as it relates to the parties involved in the ArbCom; not to bash other witnesses and discount their "evidence" (by the way, when you put that word in quotes as in: Levine's "evidence", it belittles my contributions and I view it as a hostile action).
Again, I appreciate your sentiments and I will explore everything you have mentioned thoroughly. I am always seeking to improve. I hope you will make that attestation too, if you feel comfortable about it. That way, following the honor code, we all know that we are on a level playing field with regards to COI. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a long reply here. AvB ÷ talk 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi! About your "Tale of the Tape"

Hi there,

I'm an occasional wikipedian skeptic and secular humanist, and I'd like to add some of those boxes you have on your profile to mine. I could just cut and paste the HTML, but I'm guessing there's an easier way. Can you send me a link or some info on how to post that sort of thing? Thanks! Pschelden 20:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Talk:Stephen Barrett‎

It's been 5 days now of your arguing for a single statement. I agree with Jim Butler's comment [4]. Time to let it go. --Ronz 18:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But that wouldn't be accurate. All I am doing is discussing the issue. I am being civil and not edit warring. If you wish to withdraw from our discussion, that is fine by me. But I think we are getting somewhere and as of yesterday, I have found three new sources supporting the notability of this issue. Please help collaborate. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refactored Barrett talk page

Hi Levine2112, in an attempt to end my run-in with I'clast 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 see. Please take a look, since I also removed correspondence between you and me in the process. Feel free to revert in whole or in part or let me know and I will do it. But I think this clears the air. AvB ÷ talk 10:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what you did is fine and I appreciate it. I would like it noted here that while you did remove personal attack comments made by you and I'clast, that the comments made by me which you removed were not personal attacks, but rather responses to personal attacks made against me. I understand why you removed these response; as with the attack deleted, my response wouldn't have context. Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This response is much appreciated. This was, indeed, my reasoning. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:User talk:Warrior Poet

Please retract your accusations against me, specifically you write, "He should not have assumed that you didn't read any of the guidelines or policies involved in our discussion over at Talk:Stephen_Barrett." [5]

I made no such assumption. Please retract your statement. --Ronz 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, I am going to quote you here and let you explain what you meant:
In light of your comments and infrequent editing, you should probably read WP:Consensus, not to mention the many other guidelines and policies that have been pointed out in the discussion. Your ignoring them, along with much of the discussion that you responded to, could come across as purposeful to those who don't realize that you're don't edit here much.
Perhaps I am misreading this. Perhaps Warrior Poet misread it as well. But both us read it and came to the same conclusion: You are telling him that he ignored (perhaps purposefully) WP:Consensus and "many other Wikipedia guidelines and policies" relevant to the discussion. You didn't know that he ignored these policies, and in fact as it turns out, he did not. He said that he actually did read them. So yes, IMHO, you did make an assumption and I stand by what I wrote. You should have not made that assumption. Especially with a newbie. I understand your concern, but you could have phrased it more kindly. I don't know Warrior Poet, but I would assume that he wouldn't have been on the defensive if your comments were more constructive and less assuming. Anyhow, I don't want Warrior Poet's experience at Wikipedia to get soured and therefore, I offered an apology to him for you. I suggest you offer him an apology as well and be done with it. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
PS - It appears you are making the same assumption with another editor here. Again, the editor reacts defensively to your bad faith assumption. This may illustrate a pattern which you may want to consider in the future. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Now you're accusing me of bad faith? You do realize that you're assuming bad faith on my part in order to do so don't you?
I think I know how to clarify my position. --Ronz 17:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It shows bad faith to assume that someone who has commented on a topic has purposefully ignored Wikipedia policy. So no, I am not assuming bad faith when I say that you assumed bad faith. Your bad faith assumptions are entirely evident in your discussions with these two editors. I hope I have helped you see how to clarify your position and perhaps how to be more gentle with fellow editors (especially newbies) in the future. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I've rewritten my original comment to Warrior Poet, and provided additional explanation. I'm asking you to consider changing your comments here and on User talk:Warrior Poet to reflect that. --Ronz 17:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
"Your appearance of ignoring them" is still rather hostile language. Even if it qualifies your assumption with the "appearance", I personally believe that it still won't go down easily with editors and you'd probably still be putting them on the defensive. I would like to leave my note to Warrior Poet still. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Fine. I'll seek moderation in your harassment and repeated assumptions of bad faith on my part. --Ronz 17:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
What harrassment? This is exactly the kind of dialogue which would put most editors on the defensive. I am trying to help you see that. Please ignore my advice and go on with your day if you don't think it to be constructive. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I will continue to refactor out your personal attacks against me. --Ronz 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You can help by settling the discussion above. Apologize for assuming bad faith above and on User talk:Warrior Poet. --Ronz 18:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What assumption of bad faith? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
(removed my comment - see my clarification above) --Ronz 17:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I wish I had some idea of what you are talking about. Please explain. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
(removed my comment - see my clarification above) --Ronz 17:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I am so confused right now. Honestly. You say that I should apologize, but I don't know for what. When I ask you what, you tell me that I am not being helpful and am wasting your time. Now you tell me I am playing stupid. Huh? If you have a point or request, please just come out a state it clearly. Your cryptic writing is hard to follow and is turning pretty sour in nature. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that I assumed bad faith with regards to your hostile comments on Warrior Poet's and TheDoctorIsIn's talk pages. Your comments caused Warrior Poet to act defensively and TheDoctorIsIn to quit Wikipedia entirely. So while I know this show that I didn't act in bad faith when I stated that you in fact did, I also would hope that this experience would shed some light on how you sometimes gruffly handle editors (newbies and veterans alike). From my point of view, I consider this matter closed. I sincerely hope that you take from it a sense of how to improve your relations with your fellow editors in the future. If you have anything else to discuss with me, I am always here for you. Cheers and happy editing! -- Levine2112 discuss 18:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recovering from your archiving

If you don't want to continue the discussion, I won't press it. I only wanted to add the following:

As long as you refuse to assume good faith, and use assumptions of bad faith to support your arguments, you're wasting others' time with your offers to help. You've made additional assumptions of bad faith on my part in your recent comments. I don't expect you to do so, but it would be a sign of good faith for you to remove them. Please note that one of the requirements of seeking mediation as you've done is being able to assume good faith. You've repeatedly shown here that you will not. --Ronz 18:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)