User talk:Levine2112/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Starting fresh

New archive created. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i will read it. Especially the overruling purpose and how ranges of distinction play exist, in case some procedures, operations, and actionisms are in violation of this overruling purpose. And how escalation processes are structured and performed. Thanks for the rebel support. The five Wiki pillars sound great, but your German Wiki counterparts are far way from heeding to them operationally at the same German article in question, indeed. May I position this here as a quality complaint that needs escalated Wiki peer attention. I do not get an adequate response from my various German complaints. So I have focussed on compiling English sources, which now far exceed the German version, as you may check. Yet being multilingual, I would like to edit the German article in a parallel fashion. As a cross-cultural trainer and expatriate, I am well-aware of ethnocentric and cross-cultural shock issues. Your pillars do not point to these areas specifically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.174.104.67 (talk • contribs)

I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about. I'm saying I don't know what you're talking about. Please clarify. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barrett litigation

How about describing your edits on the talk page? --Ronz 03:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quackwatch:Criticism

"issues addressed thoroughly, please move on. thanks." No they're not. Please participate in the discussion. Thanks. --Ronz 02:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Round in circles you go... -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I really hate giving you these reminders. Why is it that you have to be reminded of basic policies and guidelines? I certainly have better things to do with my time. --Ronz 03:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The go do it. I really hate you stalking my every move; telling me to give a response minutes after my post, while - in fact - I am in the midst of crafting said response. Respectfully, back off. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Why didnt you say that the first time? As for "stalking" do you need another reminder about WP:NPA? As long as you are unable to follow basic policies and guidelines, you will be reminded of them. Either get used to it, or stop violating them. --Ronz 21:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way. You did not address the edit in question with your comments on the talk page. --Ronz 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You come to my page minutes after my edit and gripe at me to participate in the discussion only to find out that you were premature in griping and now you are telling me that I am violing WP policies and guidelines. Get a grip on reality and then try to be civil or say nothing at all. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please "Get a grip on reality and then try to be civil or say nothing at all". --Ronz 06:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I take that to mean that you understand and accept my message. I look forward to more civil communication with you in the future. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You can take it however you want. I will continue to remind you of your constant, persistant violations of policies and guidelines, including WP:CIVIL which you are so fond of harassing others with as above, ironically in violation of CIVIL. --Ronz 06:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And I you. As a matter of fact, this whole line of discussion is a violation of WP:CIVIL on your part. Clearly, you are here to do nothing more than aggravate me. (Fortunately, this doesn't get to me. I rather enjoy it.) Regardless, please discontinue. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You should really stop making personal attacks on others. All they do is invite responses. By doing so could be used by others as accusation of wikilawyering. Shot info 06:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Ronz, please stop making personal attacks on others. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sighh, I have a 5 year old that does this too... Shot info 06:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparing me to 5-year old is yet another personal attack. Please refrain. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Levine, please you are advising everybody to stop, without following your own advice. I'm comparing you with my child, only because you are acting in a similar manner. Your continual warnings are just evidence of wikilawyering. I'm going to now leave them up just so the community can see the WP:WOLF when it is been cried for. Your call... Shot info 07:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In this exchange or any others recently, have I personally attacked you? Have I compared you to a five-year old? Have I stated that your POV is laughable, that your actions are ironic? Please show me where I have attacked you as I have done with you. Otherwise, please disengage. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

May I just point out to all editors here: WP:POT . Everyone, please disengage now. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Take your templates elsewhere

If you can't take honest descriptions (which are not personal attacks) from other users of how they view your editing patterns and how you treat them, then maybe you should change your behavior and stop reverting them and generally irritating them by not cooperating and by accusing them of COI and other undocumented offenses. You are in no position to lecture others. We are simply placing a mirror up in front of you so you can see how others perceive you. Try to do something to change that perception. It would help improve the atmosphere here quite a bit. You fail to realize just how provocative your behavior is and fail to sense that you are not as innocent as you believe yourself to be. -- Fyslee/talk 18:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope that this will be the end your campaign of personal attacks at me, and that we can get back to helpful discussion on article pages. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pfizer

Contrary to your edit summary, the website is notable, and notable enough to have an article here (which settles any charges of lacking notability!). I've been on their mailing list for years. The survey is even more notable because of the interviewees, who are outstanding and notable persons in their own rights, including several Nobel laureates. That's what makes it all notable, not because it was done in collaboration with Pfizer. -- Fyslee/talk 19:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Though it may pass the threshold for it's own article inclusion at Wikipedia, it doesn't mean that it is notable to mention a survey the did in a separate article. However, with the sponsorship from Pfizer, clearly it is notable. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler Warining

Hi. I am the second account of Badgerstripe if you remember him. I need important support of my movement to make spoiler warning's maditory to all Movie, T.V. show, or book pages that give away important info. and details for those that do not know that "Plot Summary" means that it gives away information. I am hoping that I can count on your support. Rembrant12 23:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How and where can I help? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

On the Policy Page. I have been argueing my case but all of them are to short-minded to even try to understand the minds of others. I will put the link up soon. Rembrant12 19:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, can you help get support from others? Thanks. Rembrant12 19:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Allright. 1. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) Rembrant12 19:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

2. The talk page of Wikipedia:Spoiler Rembrant12 19:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It may not be a good idea to canvas for votes, but I would love to read up on the dispute and see what help I can lend. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Allright. But can you tell me some people you know that may want to lend support and I will go "recruting". Rembrant12 19:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know anyone in particular who has any feelings on this subject. Again, make sure that your recruiting falls in line with the Wikipedia policy WP:CANVAS. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the way I asked you acceptable? I am looking forward the the support you can give me on the discussions. Rembrant12 19:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be fine, just don't over-do it. You can ask a couple of editors, but not too many. Read the policy. It's kind of vague, but it does set some parameters. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Levine. The section called "Mandatory 2" is a section that was signed by someone that is not me. I did not put it up. I put up "Madatory" Rembrant12 19:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 11:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I am looking at your unblock request. Please give me some time. --John 01:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

After close examination of your edits I have to say that you did break the rules. I can't unblock you. Sorry. --John 02:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supervision proposal - query

Heya,

Can you take a look at #What_supervision_is_not? More eyeballs sought :) Thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QuackGuru's a pain, but "only in your fantasy world"?

Responding to him as you did in your edit summary only makes the situation worse. [1] --Ronz 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. But it is true. The only connection has been invented in his imagination. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More edit warring so quickly?

I noticed you hadn't even bothered to contribute to talk [2]. Is it time to call for page protection yet again, or are you going to stop your warring? --Ronz 01:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am just trying to stop the deliberate whitewashing happening there. When will that stop? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 14:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there are any policies or guidelines about "whitewashing." Thanks for joining the discussions again though. --Ronz 17:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I never left. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CDA

The defendants moved to dismiss Barrett's libel suit under the CDA and the court agreed.

" Intelisoft moved to dismiss the complaint under section 2--619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2--619(a)(9) (West 2000)). Intelisoft argued that Barrett's claims were barred by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Act) (47 U.S.C. §230 (2000))..."

Please be mindful of the procedural posture. You're looking at an appellate opinion here, so Barrett has to argue that the trial court was wrong. He didn't sue under the CDA, he lost because of it. Here he argued that he should not have lost because of it. The appellate court also disagreed. Cool Hand Luke 06:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. You are absoultely correct on this issue and I was wrong, but I believe you could have fixed these two sentences without the massive revert which messed up a lot of other work. Please try to be more caraeful, and see if you can't reinstate the other edits performed today. It would be a very nice gesture. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a revert. I just moved the footnote up and condensed a couple of the notes (still trying to trim them per QuackGuru). The new wording for the Rosenthall case sentence is unchanged (except that I use "CDA" because the term is now introduced earlier). Interestingly, the appellate court assumes here that Bolen's comments were tortuous (otherwise worthy of recovery) because the defendants didn't specifically argue otherwise on appeal. That's not a factual finding though, just a procedural point in appellate court's review. Cool Hand Luke 06:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, CHL. I appreciate you efforts and cool hand head so much! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So, can anyone ask questions here?

--Ronz 18:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I welcome constructive comments and questions. I frown on personal attacks and harassment. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Great! Then how about an apology? --Ronz 18:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

For? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. [3] --Ronz 03:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bro, I was just telling you to stop baiting as you were well at hand in doing over at Doc's. I'm suddenly empowered by an immunity to such baiting so feel free to drop some key strokes my way like your latest, this laughably innapropriate "warning" template you've placed here. I shall treasure it always and a day. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quackwatch

While you make some interesting points, they are not reasons to delete the article. However, it might be worthwhile to address your concerns in a more appropriate venue. --Ronz 01:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your intervention in the AfD discussion is very sensible. I just wanted to let you know that it seems that you really understand the problems with that article, beyond what the organization is or not, it is a pitty to see people discussing as if they were pulling a tooth from them instead of just let the old PR rag go and create a new good thing showing what it is without needing to say so good it is, I fail to understand that. Jenny^Len☤ 07:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess we can try to improve the article that is there. Your fresh input would be most appreciated. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate your offer but I must decline, I think that the existing article will always be a battleground for groups and the PR main line is absurdly intended to stay. If there was a new article, more WP style, I will be glad to help though Jenny^Len☤ 07:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Wales

It's an interesting controversy and application of NPOV. --Ronz 23:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Most definitely. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Quackwatch Kauffman

I don't understand how you can make such a conclusion [4] from my comments. Please explain. --Ronz 15:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How is a question a conclusion? I would love a response though. Do you think Wikipedia considers Proffesor Kauffman to be an unreliable source of his own opinion? Do you think that the way we are currently treating the mention of Kauffman in the article to be a violation of NPOV? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"So you agree that Professor Kauffman is a reliable source of criticism" You are concluding that my opinion is the exact opposite of what I said, and asking if I agree. Or am I missing something? --Ronz 02:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are missing something. The question mark. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The question mark doesn't save you. QuackGuru uses this distasteful, provoking, and baiting trick all the time. -- Fyslee/talk 04:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Save me? From what? (P.S. I am glad that you recognize that QuackGuru's behavior is distasteful and provoking and constitutes "baiting". I wish you would help do something about him/her.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

From misrepresenting other people. Stop it. --Ronz 16:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you were the one misrepresenting me here by saying that I was making a conclusion. Stop it. And stop your baiting. You really are the master. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So, you agree that you are misrepresenting me? (This is just an example of what you're doing, don't you see it?) So, if I write, "You agree that you are misrepresenting me?" in response to your comment above, which is the exact equivalent of what you did in response to me on Talk:Quackwatch, then I'm not misrepresenting you? (This is just an example of what you're doing, don't you see it?). --Ronz 16:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No. I said that you are misrepresenting me. Please stop this harassment or I will report you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please report me. --Ronz 16:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop, both of you. Levine, you did misrepresent Ronz by using the same tactic as QuackGuru. You are not innocent and have no right to report him as you have done. Your responses to him here fail to take responsibility for your own baiting responses. -- Fyslee/talk 18:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

On my honor, I attest that I was doing nothing more than trying to clarify Ronz's stance on the issues at hand. If you can't WP:AGF here, then please discontinue to comment. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That may have been your intention (I AGF), but that is not what you did. You are no different than I am, or any other human being. When we are too close to a situation it can be hard to see how others perceive our actions. If you hadn't escalated this matter by complaining further up, it wouldn't be so bad, but I have now been forced to comment on this and parse it for the admins who read your complaint. I can assure you that an admission of your error (a relatively minor and common human error, which normally should not be judged too severely) will definitely not cause you to lose face in my eyes. On the contrary. I will welcome you into a very distinguished club of which I am a cardinal member - the club of fallible human beings.....;-) -- Fyslee/talk 18:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No you didn't assume good faith. You assumed that I was baiting Ronz. I was not. How did I escalate this matter? How about an admission of your lack of good faith here? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You "...escalated this matter by complaining further up." I again AGF that it was not your intention to bait Ronz, but what you did was very provoking to him and to me as a reader of your interaction. Unfair debating tactics are quote provoking and can be perceived as baiting, even if that was not the conscious intention. Intentions complicated by improper action can create perceptions that are expectable. That's all I meant. -- Fyslee/talk 19:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not following you. For the sake of clarity, tell me specifically where I first provoked Ronz further up. I am assuming by your comment here that it was before you first jumped in here and told me that I wasn't going to be saved or something. Please clarify. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I explained it and provided the diffs at the Wikiquette alert. -- Fyslee/talk 19:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I must be missing it. None of your diffs refer to the conversation here, yet you say that I complained further up and that escalated the matter. Please clarify what you are referring to. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh! I understand. Sorry about the confusion. By "further up" I meant "up the chain of command", IOW the Wikiquette alert. Things like this should be dealt with locally between the involved parties, not by (to illustrate the point) "running to the teacher" and crying "he insulted me" (or whatever the situation is). We're adults here and shouldn't be so sensitive that we can't discuss such simple matters without calling for help or tattling. I hope that clears up my ambiguous comment. Now go back to the alert and read my comment there with some other spectacles on. Try to place yourself in our shoes. -- Fyslee/talk 20:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ???

What'd I do wrong? Did I rv something by mistake?Yamakiri on Firefox 23:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. VandalProof messed up and issued you the warning rather thant he anonymous vandal. With apologies... -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's fine then. Yamakiri on Firefox 00:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alaibot, Musa kimeli and "content removal"

Nope, my bot didn't remove any content from that (now-deleted) page, it tagged it as uncategorised, following which, someone else blanked it. I think you may have been misled by a "VandalProof" edit summary, since it was my bot's version you reverted to. Please double-check before issuing erroneous warnings in future. Alai 05:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I was having issue with VandalProof today. Some weird bugs. I am going to try out WP:TWINKLE instead and see how that works for me. Again, I apologize. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The edit summary was indeed very confusing... Alai 06:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Hello, Levine! These are one of my questions I ask anybody (regardless who it is). I have looked at Images, some say "jpg", some say "svg", some say "png", and some said "ogg". Please, tell me the diffrence!--Angel David 23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. These are different image formats.

• JPG - It is an old image standard that is best used for photography.
• SVG - It is a language for describing 2D-graphics and graphical applications in XML and stands for Scalable Vector Graphics. Scalable means that the image can be plown up to any size and you won't see any pixels. Shapes aren't defined by pixels in this format.
• PNG - These use pixels like jpegs but are better suited for drawn graphics and text. Plus, you can make transparency layers with a PNG, where in JPEG you cannot.
• OGG - I am not all that familiar with this one, but the Wiki article suggests that it is used for streaming audio and video content. I don't think it is necessarily for still images.

I hope this helps. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a suggestion

Hello Levine. NPOV policies and tutorial suggest that we should civilly point out each other's biases in order to overcome the inevitable barriers to neutrality. You are free to state whatever you see as my biases also and I welcome that on my talkpage or here. Anyway to preempt any problems of censorship or POV pushing on the Stephen Barrett or related articles, I have had a look through your contributions and would like to present some balance. You have made a lot of effort on Wikipedia by the looks of your activities, and of course I have to assume your efforts are well intended. But I feel that you have shown a lot of frustration in your comments on talk pages in situations where simple acceptance would be more appropriate. Your bias, if you don't mind me saying, is strongly towards pseudoscience, and judging by the edits, it is strongly in favour of the fringe. It has been published in various psychological journals that a bias towards the pseudoscientific can cause a great deal of distortion, and impaired judgment in the person holding such views. Now don't get me wrong, I know you may be writing for the enemy in some of those situations, but I do feel that keeping the fringe in its proper place is extremely important on Wikipedia, as it relates strongly to the application of fairness and due weight. Basically misinforming the public is a serious mistake and it seems to be quite inevitable that other editors will correct you on every one of those errors. I would expect no less from my peers if I were to cause any such problems. I suggest taking some time to reflect on your own behaviour is always a good idea. I personally spend time in such self reflection and I recommend it, especially when your efforts seem to always come across reasonable resistance from your community. Feel free to contact me whenever you need more advice. Regards Spoctacle 04:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VandalProof Abuse Investigation

Hi there,

This is a note to inform you that your VandalProof access is under review per the report at User_talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Abuse. If you have a side to this case, please leave a note there, or if it is private, you can email me. I make an effort to actively check any report of VP abuse, so if you did nothing wrong, bear with me.

Cheers, Ale_Jrb^talk 12:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

After a review, it does appear that you used VandalProof as part of an edit war. The use of VandalProof has few rules, but this is one of them. Any comments? Ale_Jrb^talk 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

After consideration, please consider this a warning. VandalProof is for reverting vandalism, not for reverting edits you don't agree with (even if the other user is being troublesome and the revert is suitable - revert manually in situations like this). Access has been restored. Cheers, Ale_Jrb^talk 13:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Levine2112/barrett litigation

Could you explain what you are intending to do with this page? I'm sorely tempted to delete it due to BLP concerns. JoshuaZ 02:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar Mockery

On May 7th of this year, at 14:37, the user page User:Dr Spam (MD) was created. Within a period of 48 hours, User:Dr Spam (MD) had placed approximately 55 barnstars on user pages and user talk pages. Many recipients doubted the sincerity of the sentiments behind these barnstars, in part because of the comments placed by Dr Spam on the barnstars. A sampling of the reasons that Dr. Spam offered for presenting barnstars to editors:

• Hi - I am putting this here in case there's trouble later. Please accept this tireless barnstar thing for all of your wiki-activity. Thanks. User:Dr Spam (MD) 16:08, 11 May 2007

• nice one! User:Dr Spam (MD) 16:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi I am leaving you with this barnstar for you to reflect carefully on. I will provide the citation in a few days once you have had the opportunity to consider why I might think that you deserve it. Peace User:Dr Spam (MD) 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well done for all of your fantastic editing / writing: you are obviously a genius of our day, shining like the brightest barnstar against a dark barnnight in these new and difficult wiki-times. I therefore award you the surreal barnstar (I can't get the other barnstars to work properly - my apologies.) Please note that you have no right to remove the barnstar, for it is sacred. LEAVE WELL ALONE! Many thanks.

• awesome contribution to this web site! have a lovely barnstar thing User:Dr Spam (MD) 12:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• cool editing

• Awesome

• Cool.

• I am awarding you a surreal barnstar because you obviously deserve it! Keep up the good work - don't slacken off, it'll get harder before it gets easier!

• Hy my cat (the fat white one) is awarding you this barnstar of diligence because he doesn't eat fish either. He just likes to eat biscuits - or so he says. But how then does he get so fat????

Occasionally Dr. Spam's comments did appear sincere (if vague), but a review of the record indicates that sincere-appearing comments were generally generated during a massive cut-and-paste session. There were also many barnstars presented with no comments at all, and even more that User:Dr Spam (MD) presented without signing his name to indicate from whom the award was coming. And some barnstars, praising the editing skills of the recipient, were awarded to editors with one solitary edit to their name.

In response, once this pattern of apparent insincerity was established, a few experienced editors asked Dr. Spam to desist from barnstar spamming, in the belief that randomly awarding barnstars devalues the entire barnstar program. (Indeed, so random was the placement of barnstars, that some were even placed on wiki accounts that had not been active for over a year.) Dr. Spam has now stopped, presumably recognizing that his efforts were not appreciated by the majority of editors.

Most of the barnstars placed by Dr. Spam during his May campaign have been voluntarily removed by the editors on whose pages they were placed. You are receiving this notice because Dr. Spam's barnstar still remains on your page. If you feel that Dr. Spam's barnstar spamming was a form of mockery, you may choose to remove it yourself. But if the way this barnstar was "awarded" does not bother you, you are of course free to keep it on your page. After all, it is your page. This notification was simply for your information. HuskyHuskie 14:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

Victuallers has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or in this case someone chosen at random . Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Shaken Baby

Shot Info has deleted twice a very important "Letter To The Editor" by Dr. F. Bandak that was published in response to another "Letter To The Editor". Dr. Bandak's results from his 2005 were challenged as being to high. This published letter gives a detailed explanation as the reasoning why he used the high velocity forces. There was great discussion and questioning in the SBS scientific community concerning the high levels and this was his explanation, and needs to be included. Thanks The Stroll 17:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider refactoring

[5] Thanks! --Ronz 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Beat you to it. Please discuss QuackGuru's behvior with him as well. Also, consider answering my two questions. I think it will help get us all on the same page. You must have noted that I took some time away from the Barrett article to let things cool down there. Coming back, I was amazed to see how unpleasent my "welcome back" was. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd hope you'd do more. --Ronz 00:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What more? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[6] You got it there! --Ronz 00:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I just figured I'd delete the whole unpleasent subthread. Anyhow, I'd like a serious discussion about the policies and answers to my related questions there. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An aside commment on your CAM proposal

[I think this comment is more appropriate for your talk page than the article talk page, but feel free to move it if you think that is appropriate]]

I just checked out your user page noticed that you are a skeptic. What does this have to do with your CAM proposal? Well, I think that combining the articles into one serves the best interest of maintaining neutrality on the subject matter and ensuring that the (lack of) empirical validity regarding the effectiveness (and the underlying theoretical framework) of many CAM systems is clear to the widest audience of readers. In a perfect world where Wikipedia was immune from POV pushing by special interests seeking to build "consensus" around dubious ideas, I would support your proposal 100% because I believe the inherent differences between CM and AM warrant separate articles. I also think it would be worth having an article solely devoted to identifying exactly which CAM approaches are supported by evidence (however limited) and which one's are not supported by any evidence or even common sense. I think it is sad that quasi-mainstream approaches like osteopathy (which at the very least, is unlikely to be harmful [as practiced in the U.S.]) are lumped together with complete bunk like homeopathy and "energy medicine" in many peoples' minds. This only serves to legitimize the dubious approaches without really furthering the cause of evidence-based practice. My personal background is in psychological and educational research, and I see the same thing in that field. Completely dubious assesments (e.g., the Rorschach) and therapies (e.g., psychoanalysis) grounded in questionable theories with no empirical evidence that they work are legitimized by being lumped in with valid approaches under broad categories like "Psychological Assessments" and "Approaches to Psychotherapy". On this basis, in the minds of many lay people, "Past-life regression" and "Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy" appear to be equally valid apporaches to therapy.

However, given the reality of strong emotion and the questionable evidence-base surrounding many conroversial topics here on Wikipedia, I think splitting the article into three simply provides an opportunity for CAM proponents to "muddy the waters" through POV forking and the use of weasely definitions to promote their particular bias. Like User:Adam Cuerden pointed out, it is hard enough to police one article and keep it relatively NPOV given all the competing interests involved, and splitting it into three makes it much more difficult to ensure that a random reader stuimbling an article will be able to read an accurate, neutral article that does not give undue weight to unproven "medical" therapies. I think it is important to consider which approach is in the best interest of maintaining neutrality and conveying the truth to readers. Redirecting readers to one article in which they can get accurate, timely information about complementary and alternative medicine, serves the best interst of neutrality on Wikipedia. The single article could ensure that the similarities and differences between CM and AM are thoroughly communicated while reducing the opportunity for people to unwittingly lend creedence to one particular approach and disparage another based on whether they are perceived to be "complementary" or "alternative". Using the same reasoning, based on my psychotherapy example above, I think the interests of neutrality are best served by having one psychotherapy article that could clearly differentiate between those approaches which are supported by experimental evidence and those which are not. Having separate umbrella articles like "cognitive-based therapies" and "humanistic therapies" simply allows proponents of one sweep the lack of supporting evidence under the rug by avoiding any direct comparison to valid therapies. Proponents of psychoanalysis, for example, claim that any attempt to study the outcomes of therapy would compromise the "integrity" of the therapy itself. Yet, without a unified article directly comparing different therapies, readers would have to go to the "criticisms" section of the psychoanalysis article to learn this information. I think we run the same risk with CAM if the articles are triforcated. Thanks. — DIEGO ^talk 13:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And I am glad that you agree that in an ideal world, there should be at least two articles discussing the individual characteristics of both AM and CM, and further a third article form CAM which discusses the combined application, terminology and distinctions. Aside from being a scientific skeptic, I am also an idealist - especially with projects such as Wikipedia. Just because it might be hard to maintain NPOV, isn't always a reason to be timid. We are dealing with two very distinct terms here, each which could fill its own article with information specifically about the individual terms. You may be interested to know that there are separate artcles for Cognitive behavioral therapy, Cognitive Therapy, Cognitive analytic therapy, Cognitive behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy, Reality Therapy, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy... and the list goes on. Are you saying that all of these should merged into one umbrella article such as Psychology? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it wasn't the best analogy. But to answer your question, I think all of those articles on specific therapies should remain separate, just as I think the articles on chiropractic, TCM, homeopathy, osteopathy, etc. should remain separate. Currently there is a Psychotherapy article that is basically an umbrella for all of those separate articles, just as I think CAM should be an umbrella for all the separate articles covering specific areas of CAM. I would be against a further midlevel grouping of the therapies by introducing articles like "cognitive therapies", "behavioral therapies", "therapies for mood disorders", "therapies for personality disorders", etc. because that would generate a lot of (in my opinion) unnecessary overlap. For example, in this scenario, "cognitive-behavioral therapy" would need to be discussed in every single one of those "sub-umbrella" articles becasue it applies to each category. I would rather have the groupings and relationships between the different approaches to therapy all laid out in one comprehensive "psychotherapy" article with links to the individual therapies. A two-level hierarchy instead of three.

Anyway my laptop battery is about to die, so I will finish this later. Thanks — DIEGO ^talk 18:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR on Chiropractic

I see I have 5 changes which could possibly be considered reverts in Chiropractic today. I only see 3 of them as reverts, and the last is a reversion of clear nonsense, but.... Thinking about it, Ernst 2007 probably doesn't belong in the article, but I don't see how to distinguish it from Ernst 2006. I'm satisfied with User:Dematt's current version, anyway. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Groovy. I won't call the 3RR police on you, so no worries. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for my barnstar /\_/\--Angel David 14:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well deserved! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just dropping in

I just wanted to drop in and say hello. I haven't really done much on Wikipedia because real life has kept me busy. I found other articles to work on that I pray aren't as controversal as the one's I have worked on. Anyways, I just want to say hello to you, I hope things between us are ok. I know we have had our disagreements but I hope that is past history and we can work together if we are on the same article. I wish you good health and happiness,--CrohnieGal^Talk 17:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Right back at ya! That anti-fluoridation article you uncovered at Stephen Barrett is interesting. Thanks for that. Let's explore the possibilities for inclusion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am so glad that things are ok between the two of us. I deleted the link but still have it. Maybe we can get everyone to at least talk about it, and maybe get a consenses on it to be added. I know miracles. I just think that there was a lot of controversary about floride that it should be in the article for weight, balance and NPOV. Good to talk to you again.  :) Off to dinner, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 69.202.27.212

You did not present my edit with a NPOV like your style skepticisms should -- i just can't believe that someone smart enough to type whole sentences can believe in any of the CAM crap. Even google is not your friend in that category. At least you're an atheist and not a wiccian loony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.27.212 (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it best to leave my personal beliefs out of my article editing. Some editors refer to this as "writing for the enemy". An editor who can do this successfully at Wikipedia is valued. It's tough at times, but our job here is to present verifiable information (not necessarily truth or facts - just verifiable information from reliable sources). Editing without judgment, without inserting your opinion... it's not always easy. But with practice and patience we can all do it. I hipe that you take a look through the Wikipedia Welcome page and that you consider signing up with an account here. Best regards. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hulda Regehr Clark‎

Probably best to take it to WP:BLPN. --Ronz 04:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. WP:BLPN#Hulda_Regehr_Clark. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully we'll get some quick assistance. Note however that BLPN is not a forum for discussion of issues other than related to BLP. I think you should refactor the report, and maybe start one in WP:WQA with your other concerns. --Ronz 19:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Which part specifically? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

All parts not dealing specifically with BLP issues. Pretty much too late now. You brought up the issue of others behavior that has nothing to do with BLP, now they're calling you out on yours too. Too bad you had to use BLPN inappropriately like that. --Ronz 16:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please consider refactoring given the above discussion: [7]. --Ronz 23:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well...

... I do agree that this was a good call. Course, I think the whole AIDS conspiracy theories article should have been deleted long ago, but there you have it. MastCell ^Talk 04:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I too agree on this one. Otherwise this rampage needs to stop. -- Fyslee / talk 05:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Rampage? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop removing quackwatch links

While you are at times making useful edits by substituting links to copies of information with links to the original sources, some of your edits are poorly supported, and some are highly contentious. Given your clear biases in this situation, I think you should give such editing up to those who are more neutral. --Ronz 16:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I really haven't removed all that much. I don't have the clear bias you and others are claiming I have. I am helping Wikipedia by removing unreliable sources and link spam. I should think you of all people would commend my efforts. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There are already multiple parties involved. Where would you like to take this dispute next? --Ronz 17:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Anywhere you'd like to take it. I'm just going to keep on trucking; attempting to improve Wikipedia as I go. (You will note that for every article where I have removed/replaced a link to a Barrett site, there are at least five others where I have left links because I felt they were being used appropriately. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the situation, it fits the criteria for RFC/U. ANI might be a better step though. --Ronz 17:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? An RFC/U or an ANI? For who? Really read the conversation string for the Clark page. Really read it. You tell me which users comes off as being uncivil. I really feel that I can justify each and every one of my recent replacements/removals of a Barrett related site and back it with Wikipolicy. And to my credit, my edit trail shows that I have supported and bolstered other outgoing Barrett links. I am not on a rampage, deleting links at will as some have suggested. I am very thorough and meticulous, and in discussions I have remained quite civil. Can you say the same of yourself? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

We're discussing your removal of links here. I'm taking your comment, "I'm just going to keep on trucking" to mean you're going to continue. I'm seeking dispute resolution on this issue. Many others are as well. If you have concerns about the civility of others, take it to WQA, as I've already suggested to you. Your confounding the two, separate issues won't help with either. --Ronz 18:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the advice. May I suggest that if you have an issue with any of the links which I have removed/replace that you discuss it with civility on the talk page of that article (as we are doing on Clark). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you have a long history of doing this, you've done it to many articles, and many other editors have already commented on this behavior, I think the only solution is to look at your individual behavior as a whole. This means ANI or RfC/U. Once we get that dispute resolved, then we can go back and clean up. --Ronz 23:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Or you could try to address the issue on the talk page rather than evading it with threats and incivility. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DR is not uncivil nor threatening. Again, if you have an civility concern, take it to WQA. --Ronz 23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the Clark issue, I receive an answer at ANI which I find quite satisfactory. I wish someone else could have expressed this to me earlier. I am curious how the same logic will apply at Barrett with the Board Certification issue. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please refactor Talk:Hulda Regehr Clark

Please refactor your comment so as not to misrepresent what I have written: [8] Specifically, I never said for you to to take the Hulda Clark issues, which were already under discussion on BLPN, to ANI. --Ronz 20:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read above where you tell me to take behavior issues to WP:WQA. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of others is more than just an issue of civility. Again, please refactor. --Ronz 20:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What misrepresentation? The only one I see is when you claimed I was canvassing. Clearly, I was not. So if you want to refactor your claim first, then I wouldn't have to leave the part where I show why that claim is bogus. Let me know what you decide to do. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it best that I take this all to ANI or RFCU. --Ronz 02:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)