User talk:Levine2112/archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] Starting fresh

Winter is almost here. Time to archive.

[edit] Warning

[Warning deleted: Was more extreme than called for. I seem to recall I meant to edit it to moderate the wording,, but, eh, never mind. - Adam Cuerden talk 13:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)]

Can you please be more specific? What edit(s) are you referring to? -- Levine2112 discuss 18:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Another of his lousy threats, huh! who does he think he is? As I said before, this is NOT simply a personal conduct matter it involves the whole of the editors who edit the homeopathy article. As the only one of them now left with much insider knowledge of homeopathy (over a 29 year period) I find it especially sickening to have to deal with such folks, who actually know very little about the subject they pontificate upon so eagerly. So moving all that to his talk page shifts it under the carpet as it were. thanks Peter morrell 19:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Still, better avenues to take are WP:RFC/U or even a simple WP:AN/I report. Posting personal grievances against other editors on article talk space will just reflect poorly on you. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
That was possibly not the best warning template to use, for which I apologise - there's a funny jump between ones talking about "tests being reverted" and that one that... probably could use another level. But I do think that you should be a bit more careful not to remove the context of a criticism where it's relevant, and try to calm down a little with regards to Quackwatch. Adam Cuerden talk 22:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • What? Levine? In trouble? No. Not him. Some other user but not him. I know Levine and I don't think he did anything wrong--Angel David 00:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure how to proceed with "talk page" but..... In response to LEvine...Why would I relegate my opinions on this topic to a backpage where no one will read it? This is my entire issue with Chiro and other fields of ..??... whatever. I "am" a Kinesiologist" as in the SCIENCE of Kinesiology. Odd that a comment questioning your assertion should be buried. Science, by definition questions itself. By not allowing any debate up front, you are basically saying, "This is not a science." False advertising is false advertising.

Explain how the activator works and I will go away. You can use big words. I'll understand. I've asked many Chiros to explain it. No success yet. Please place your explanation on the main topic page. If it is "VERIFIABLE" it belongs there. If it is not then debate should be welcomed as it can only make the field of alternative medicine stronger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.59.3 (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hello Levine2112:

I hope I'm not a nuisance with this question. My only excuse is I'm trying to figure out what is happening with the Homeopathy business.

I'm guessing that Adam's warning to you above might have something to do with the Homeopathy article, but I can't figure out what he was objecting to.

I'm wondering if you know, and if so, whether you would mind sharing the information?

Thanks, Wanderer57 02:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This had nothing to do with Homeopathy specifically, but rather the criticism section of The National Council Against Health Fraud. It appears to have been a misunderstanding on Adam's part, for which he graciously recognized and removed said warning from my page. Anyhow, we could use some fresh eyes at The National Council Against Health Fraud. Currently we are exploring the ACA criticism of the NCAHF and trying to mold it actually into criticism of the NCAHF rather than criticism of chiropractic. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Rejoyce

Joy

Angel David hopes that you are joyful! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the Wikilove by melting the clouds of sin and sadness that weigh down someone else. Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Message of Joy

Hi Levine2112:

Thank you very much for the Message of Joy.

Regarding the homeopathy discussions, there is no joy there. What I find surprising about it is the amount of discussion that goes on behind the scenes, on user talk pages. The Homeopathy talk page seems to be the tip of an iceberg.

My best wishes, Wanderer57 18:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You got it. Pass on the joy, perhaps to someone who is not making the discussions joyous. Maybe they might get the message. ;-) -- Levine2112 discuss 18:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AGF

I think one important thing about AGF is that it helps to de-escalate tense situations. We don't want to inflame situations, and we don't want to escalate problems. Best to find appropriate venues for discussion, and then deal with the facts about what has happened. I hope you'll take this as my trying to be helpful. --Ronz 04:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I do find it helpful. But not surprising. I mean, you are right on with what you are saying here, one hundred percent. But if you wanted to really surprise me, you would recognize "that the shoe is on the other foot" and place the same exact sound and perfect advice you gave me here on another's page. To me, this would be evidence of you finally assuming good faith in me... something which I have never ever seen. I hardly think you have ever given me even the benefit of the doubt, let alone AGF. Until then, it's really hard for me to take any advice concerning civility from you. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

Hi there, your name was mentioned in passing during discussions about ban enforcement, I would advise you to please read the Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Banning policy, in particular note that relaying messages from banned users would get you blocked, so please don't allow anybody to manipulate you in this way. This isn't an official warning and you are not currently under investigation. This is just a friendly note ensuring that you have been made aware of the relevant policies. Tim Vickers 20:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware. What I am not aware of is me relaying messages from any banned users. Where did this accusation come from? Can you point me to this discussion which you mention above? I would like to see what others are saying about me. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
To help you understand what he means (assuming I understand him correctly!), notice that Tim is just giving some "preemptive" advice as he says "would get you blocked" (my emphasis), as in "if you were to do what Ilena is encouraging Niels Mayer to get you to do, which is to help them in some manner." Her request is found in the history of the talk page. I don't think anyone has said you "are" doing it (it could - likely inaccurately - be construed by some to be the case), but since she is actively working on getting you to help her and Niels Mayer, I would encourage you to distance yourself from them so it won't happen ("it" meaning either help them or get blocked). Just "avoid the appearance of evil." Getting anywhere near them is like playing with fire. That's all. -- Fyslee / talk 02:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't even say I need to distance myself. I am not even in their proximity as far as I know. I mean I know Ilena from Wikipedia only (and since she has been banned here for almost a year now... well... ) and I have no idea who Niels Mayer is or aware of his presence here. That Ilena is in correspondence with Niels Mayer outside of Wikipedia and suggested that he goes to me for help is beyond my control. That Niels Mayer posted the email on the talk page of his sock puppet IP is also beyond my control. I understand what you mean about avoiding the appearance of evil, but what could I possibly have done in this case to avoid that? -- Levine2112 discuss 02:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I am unfortunately unable to discuss any details of the context in which your name was mentioned, Levine2112, since this was a conversation on an unrelated confidential matter. However, I would stress that I am not accusing you of any policy violations. You have been notified of the relevant policies and you have given your assurance that you understand these policies and are not in breach of their conditions. I am entirely satisfied with this response. Tim Vickers 02:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I just did some research into the history of JzG's page and I am a little distraught by what I found. It seems I am being accused quite maliciously by Fyslee for being a proxy for these users. I really resent this and emphatically deny such an accusation. I see Fyslee is trying to attribute my Welcome message to a IP address with some covert activity. Please check my contributions and note that I greet many, many, many IP addresses. That this one turned up implicated as a sock-puppet is pure coincidence. That Fyslee was trying to implicate me on any of this smacks of personal attacks. I am sorry, but I am really steamed about what I just read. And further by Fyslee's edit summary when he was made to delete this accusation: "OK - it's in the history" To me this means that he is satisfied with his accusations, reluctant to delete them, but is at least happy that the accusation will somehow live in the the edit history. Maybe I am blowing this out of proportion, but I am really annoyed. I am going to take the rest of the day off and think about this. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I can see why you might find that upsetting, however can I repeat that I am not accusing you of any policy violations. You have given your word that this will not happen and I have accepted this assurance. Tim Vickers 03:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not you who are making the accusation - again I appreciate your advice here. It is Fyslee's accusation which I find upsetting. What's more, in this accusation, he states that Niels' IP sockpuppet has an IP near some of mine. How does Fyslee know even one IP I use, let alone "some"? I thought this is information which can only be acquired by an admin through a CheckUser. Did some admin give him my IP? I feel like my personal information has being compromised here. I have to agree with JzG's comment to Fyslee: He should know better. I really thought that this was the kind of incivility which Fyslee's RfA was supposed to curb. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I did not actually accuse you. I just pointed out some things that make it imperative for you to distance yourself from these people, even if you haven't been in contact with Niels Mayer. Read my message above very carefully. I specifically write "(it could - likely inaccurately - be construed by some to be the case)" to make you aware that I think it would be inaccurate, but that some other people might put two and two together and get five. No one has actually accused you of being a proxy (a question is not an accusation), but you are being sought to work as a proxy. You can't prevent that, but you can take our advice as cautions. You have fans who are doing you a disservice. I, like Tim, am perfectly satisfied with your answers above. The knowledge of your IPs is an old story from before you started using Levine2112, and a few times thereafter. We have discussed this and where you live in the (distant) past. You have just forgotten. You, just like many of the rest of us, have forgotten to log in a few times. It's as simple as that. No checkuser. Since I no longer consider you to be the person who viciously attacked me off wiki before I started here, it is irrelevant now. -- Fyslee / talk 07:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey all, just to let you know, I haven't been contacted by Niels Mayer (and also was unaware of this user) or anybody else by email or here on the wiki. I do occasionally hear from Levine and Fyslee when they have something they want me to look at. My email is enabled, so anyone is welcome to do that I assume. I pretty much try to edit according to NPOV, V and RS and NOR anyway, so hopefully I won't fall victim to someone who intends to POV push anyway. I will let JzG know if I do get contacted. -- Dēmatt (chat) 06:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser information is guarded very closely - see the policy, this is not a general admin function and is given to only users who can be trusted completely. While it is not absolutely impossible that IP information can be disclosed, it is extremely unlikely to be the case. Tim Vickers 03:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled over this thread while researching a couple of things for Levine2112 & just want to explain some technical aspects leading up to some advice.

IP addresses can say different things, and sometimes say nothing at all. An IP-address can virtually always be traced to its owner, usually a specific Internet provider. Internet providers have various systems to assign IP addresses to individual customers. Dial-in numbers generally assign IP addresses dynamically; this means that only the Internet provider can say who (i.e. which phone number) has been assigned a specific IP address at a given time. Some dial-in numbers repeatedly assign the same IP address to the same phone number if possible. Obviously, dial-in numbers tend to be used locally for cost reasons, in which case the user's location can be approximated. But even with local calls and people using the exact same dial-up number, the distance between the users can easily be 10-20 miles or more. Some cable or ADSL connections are assigned dynamically but retain the same IP address between sessions if possible. Other cable/ADSL connections have a static IP number. Other connection types exist, generally with static IP numbers.

The IP numbers referred to in the discussion above have been assigned dynamically and the users are located in the same area (many hundreds of square miles) Therefore, in this specific case, and I'm saying this in addition to JzG's correct warning elsewhere, everyone is advised to refrain from what is, at best, mere speculation.

Also, 75.83.171.237, an IP address used to make Morgellons edits, is not currently an open proxy but a dial-up number (with a known location). Perhaps someone can ask JzG to check the notice on that page. If it has been used by both editors, it must have been an open proxy at the time, or meat puppetry/users on the same connection (most probably in the same room or even on the same computer). (It is possible that Niels has used various dial-up numbers in order to obtain a new IP address between sessions in order to evade a block.)

Note that there is a difference between using an open proxy (an IP address anyone can use and hide behind) and being a proxy (i.e. a person called meat puppet) for another user (e.g. a banned or active editor). Avb 19:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Now that I think back, I do remember Fyslee trying to pinpoint where I lived in open discussions on Wikipedia (probably before he came to understand the importance of not revealing another's personal information). I am rather sure that whatever IP address Fyslee thinks he has for me is either wrongly attributed and severely out of date. I really think that he dragged me into this hoping that the mere association with this impropriety would somehow reflect badly on me as an editor in good standing. I am sorry if I am lacking in good faith, but the accusations Fyslee made here still have me bitter. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
... dragged me into this hoping that the mere association with this impropriety would somehow reflect badly on me as an editor in good standing ... --> Please reconsider in the light of correspondence bias. Thanks. Avb 02:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you see his accusation? That's correspondence bias for you. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Now that is an accusation! Remember what I wrote above about what I had written: "A question is not an accusation." If you will read (as I previously requested you to do) very carefully what I wrote, and what I have written afterwards to make clear my intent and what I meant, and to prevent precisely this misunderstanding which you now express, you will see that Avb's statement above is right on target. It appears that you are refusing to AGF and are placing the worst possible interpretation on what I wrote. Please reconsider and just take my advice and forewarning (because you weren't aware at the time of the plans being laid to recruit you as a proxy) as it was meant to be, just as you have taken the advice from Tim Vickers and Avb. You happen to have friends and allies who are doing you a disservice. You have no control over the fact that they have plans for using you, but by warning and advising you of the danger, we are all acting in your best interest. You can believe that and let this matter be settled right here. Deal? -- Fyslee / talk 05:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You have accused me with your speculation. Even JzG told you it was inappropriate. And that you were bothered that he deleted it but you were happy enough that it was at least it would live on in the history... I will AGF when you own up to your actions. I haven't even heard so much as even an apology for you trying to wrangle me into this. All I get is a lecture and some Wikilawyering from you, trying to convince me that since your accusation was in the form of a question, then it is alright. This isn't Jeopardy! and I ain't buying it.
I am fine with the advice from Tim Vickers and AvB - it's solid - but they wouldn't have had to offer it if you hadn't tried to drag me into this mess (of which otherwise I had not been a party too). Above you state that you no longer consider me to be the person who viciously attacked me off wiki before I started here... well, you have a funny way of showing it. I don't know what gripe you have with this person, but it isn't me. So start treating me better. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I am the one who deleted it, not JzG. You were the one who was seeking information on the sock puppetry matter and you seemed to be ignorant of the posting by Niels Mayer of an email from Ilena and therefore I informed you of what was going on and provided a warning and some advice. There were several things that could lead some people to misunderstand the matter and I illustrated how it could happen, but apparently too graphically, even while carefully wording it so it would not be misunderstood as an accusation, but as a rhetorical question. It looks like I came too close to some invisible line and it has been misunderstood by you. I apologize for that. I have expressly stated (and repeated) that such a misunderstanding by others would be "inaccurate". As far as the old matter of a pre-wiki attack by a chiropractor named Levine, I have told you that I don't believe you are that person and I don't have a gripe with you over that matter. It's history. -- Fyslee / talk 07:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you deleted it after JzG made it clear that it was improper. And your edit summary at the time you deleted it seems even more confrontational. I did inquire to JzG how he ascertained that Ilena was a sock-puppet (and as it turned out, it was a good thing that I did, because apparently she wasn't. A point which JzG went on to clarify on the ArbCom.) However, your response to the question I asked of JzG was not how you say it is above. It was much more than a warning or advice. It was also speculation that I too was a proxy. It is with this that I take issue. It is clear that you did not mean it as a rhetorical question, but rather as accusatory speculation. This is precisely how JzG interpreted too and that is why he warned you it was highly inappropriate. I appreciate your apology above; however, I would appreciate it a whole lot more if you showed some remorse for what you actually did and not for some trumped up concocted rationalization. Also, I am glad you are finally willing to stop your past two-year incivility toward me now that you know I am not some chiropractor with the same last name (a very, very common name, mind you) with whom you had some off-Wiki conflict. As you well know, I am not a chiropractor at all (or even a Chiropractic Assistant, as you have also speculated over the years) and my last name might not even be what you think it is. Anyhow, I am hopeful that now that you have personally absolved me of guilt in Ilena/Niels sockpuppet/proxy issue and of your off-Wiki gripes with someone with a last name which you associate with me, that finally after two years you can start treating me respectfully. I am willing to AGF and consider that your two years of antagonizing me was based solely on your own misunderstandings. I will also admit that because of your antagonizing I have been uncivil with you. Can we move on now? -- Levine2112 discuss 18:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, let's move on. I will try to be more careful in the future. -- Fyslee / talk 23:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Groovy. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Levine. Just noticed what you have been going through in my periodic peek into Wikipedialand. I can sympathize with you. I, too, have had the unpleasant experience of being on the business end of Fyslee's agressive behaviour. His past uncivil behaviour has not gone unnoticed Fyslee's RfA. He has apparently rubbed others the wrong way in the past.

IMO, his warnings that 'future danger' will be your fate if you don't follow his so-called, 'friendly advice', seem at best, not only unsavory, but threatening and very un-Wikipedian. Unless, of course, you enjoy a parent-child lecture. Steth 22:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Steth. I wish your peeks into Wikipedialand were more than just periodic. I, for one, miss your contributions. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative disability

Hi, I left you a message on Talk:Alternative therapy (disability). Piechjo 16:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked/banned editors

Hi Levine2112. Per Wiki stats, I see you have significant contributions to the Stephen Barrett article. Arbitration Committee banned Ilena has posted to the Stephen Barrett article/talk page. Arbitration Committee banned Ilena and SSP indefinitely blocked Scrotel both have used the 75.83.171.237 IP address. See User Talk. NielsMayer and Nielsp have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of Scrotel. See SSP report. If you are aware of any attempts to circumvent these bans/blocks, please consider making a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. -- Jreferee t/c 18:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, hopefully superfluously, noting that this does not implicate Levine2112. Avb 19:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand exactly why Jreferee posted here. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QuackGuru

Would you two both stop attacking each other? If I weren't involved in some of the edits leading to these disputes, I'd block both of you for WP:NPA. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Right now I think the current version is fine. It isn't worth an edit war. -- Fyslee / talk 17:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that I am attacking him/her. He/she has proven him/herself to be a harasser with me. I don't want him/her ever commenting on my page again as he/she only does so to try and provoke me. I agree with Fyslee; the version we hashed out is fine. QuackGuru is unable to accept that and prefers to edit war and harass me over it. I choose to ignore the troll. If you have other suggestions on how to handle these situations with QuackGuru, I am all ears.-- Levine2112 discuss 18:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Quackwatch

Hi,

I wonder if you can clarify this for me. This is from Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

From ScienceApologist "QW is a reliable source for what skeptics consider pseudoscience. Peer review is not required for demarcation. See WP:FRINGE."

How is the partisan website, Quackwatch, a reliable source in light of this statement posted in WP:FRINGE? "However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." --Anthon01 (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you. This list has very implicit criteria for inclusion (especially the top portion which has nothing to do with the opinions of skeptic societies or self-published quackbuster websites). The top portion should only include opinions from sources of the highest caliber (i.e. Academy of Science). -- Levine2112 discuss 17:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
So what makes a skeptical body notable? --Anthon01 (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent question. I would think that the guidelines of the WP:N policy could be applied. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We Got a major problem

Somebody wiped out all the editing I did at Complementary and Alternative Medicine without any history being recorded. -- John Gohde (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be two articles, because your edits art still intact here: Complementary and alternative medicine. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
How did this ever happen? I redirected the newest version to the old version. If anybody wants to merge the stuff, they still can locate it as the file was not deleted. I hate when this type of thing happens. -- John Gohde (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:TALK

We've had already had these discussions and I don't have the time to repeat them. I think you should refer to the same discussions you've had with others instead. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I see a clear pattern of behavior on your part when you find yourself unable to back a policy violation claim which you have made. Rather that admitting that you were wrong, you prefer to go on a personal attack. I keep assuming that one day this behavior of yours will stop, but I am consistently disappointed. This certainly hearkens back to the points admin AGK made to you here. Please reconsider them. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you want to discuss TALK or not? I've recommended that you refer to your discussions with others. Sorry that you have other problems, but I'm not discussing them here. I recommend we stay on topic. If you have other issues to discuss, please do so separately and in the proper forum. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's discuss TALK as it relates to the current discussion on TALK:Quackwatch. What is your issue with my manner of discussion there? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I've suggested you look at others' discussions with you about this, especially in WQA and ANI. That way I don't have to repeat my previous discussions with you and you don't have to readdress them. I have no interest in going back a half year or more to look at discussions that repeated only recently. --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Rather than going back then, let's talk about the here and now. What is your issue with our recent exchange at Talk:Quackwatch? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, no. You're asking me to repeat my previous discussions. I'm asking you to review the previous discussions. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I am asking you to do at all. I am asking you to talk about the current discussion. It doesn't appear that you are willing to do that, perhaps because there is no basis for your accusation that I am violation WP:TALK. Rather, you are the one violating WP:TALK with your incivility and personal attacks. So unless you are willing to discuss the issue at hand, then there isn't really much more to say. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
"We've had already had these discussions and I don't have the time to repeat them. I think you should refer to the same discussions you've had with others instead. "
"I've recommended that you refer to your discussions with others."
"I've suggested you look at others' discussions with you about this, especially in WQA and ANI. That way I don't have to repeat my previous discussions with you and you don't have to readdress them. I have no interest in going back a half year or more to look at discussions that repeated only recently." --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
"Ronz is acting in bad faith, banding accusations about willy-nilly with no backing nor grounds for doing so..." - from admin AGK. Above is just further evidence of this kind of bad-faith-accusations-with-no-backing-whatsoever behavior. "Banding accusations about willy-nilly ..."—you never "do" back them Ronz, my friend, and there is where the problem lies..." - more from AGK. One last note on Ronz from AGK: "the only experiences I've had with Ronz is claims of Bad Faith that wither on the vine when substantial evidence to prove his claims are requested". Ronz, it's been over 6 months since AGK - a totally neutral Mediation Cabalist - noted this issue with you. Isn't it about time you change your ways? -- Levine2112 discuss 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, it seems that you only want to take these discussions off track. I've given you the chance to back up your claims that you want to discuss TALK, and gotten this instead. --Ronz (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No, you have just repeated your accusation and still have not provided any examples of what you mean from our discussions today. Hence, I have pointed out that this behavior is not uncommon from you and others have recognized it. This discussion will go somewhere once you examine our discussion today at Quackwatch and pick out anything which I wrote which you deem to be a violation of WP:TALK as you have accused. Until then, it seems that you are banding an accusation of bad faith and are unwilling/unable to back it up. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I can only take this to mean you don't want to discuss it. That's all you had to say. --Ronz (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No. I very much want to discuss it. But there is nothing to discuss until you can point out the reason why you leveled that WP:TALK violation accusation at me today. You seem to be avoiding this. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Great! Please refactor the above so that it follows WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not about TALK violations on this thread (if any). And note that you are still avoiding my request. Please point out the reason why you leveled that WP:TALK violation accusation at me today at Talk:Quackwatch. If you cannot, I will just assume that you issued the accusation in error, spite and/or frustration. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but if you refuse to follow TALK, the discussion is over. --Ronz (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, I want to point out that just as you avoided responding to my request for you to spell out what you meant by there being an NPOV violation on the material in question at Talk:Quackwatch, you have also avoided responding to my request for you to spell out what you meant by there being a TALK violation with my conversation with you at Talk:Quackwatch. Your pattern of accuse-and-run is getting pretty tedious. If you would like to end this discussion, please do. All I ever wanted to know was your rationale both for the NPOV and the TALK violation accusations. You slipped and schemed and bandied more accusations but yet you never answered my request. As mentioned, this is behavior that was pointed out to you by neutral observer and mediator AGK over six months ago. I hope that you recognize this troublesome pattern and seek to improve. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry that you keep wanting to take this discussion off topic. That's your problem. If you're unable to follow TALK and otherwise engage in dispute resolution in a civil manner, you should get used to being ignored. Learn to follow TALK please. Take your other problems to appropriate forums if you're serious about them. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly on topic and the appropriate forum would be your talk page, but every time I post there, you delete it. Clearly you don't want to talk about this issue of yours and would rather go on evading my inquiries. Because of your evasion and incivility this conversation is a exercise in futility. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I respect your desire to conduct your discussion in the way you both see fit. The only issue is that puts this discussion in a holding pattern, at least for now. In addition, I am new to WP and don't know where to find these past discussions. I'll looking forward to the resumption of this discussion. Respectfully. Anthon01 (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A word of advice is to be weary of editors who throw out a lot of policy claims without the desire to back it up with their rationale. I encourage your continued contributions to Wikipedia and I am at your service should you need any help with policies, editing, et cetera. Welcome! -- Levine2112 discuss 21:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

You've repeatedly make accusations of personal attacks, and do so in inappropriate forums, disrupting the discussions there. Please take your accusations to the proper forums. WP:WQA is a good start. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BDORT

Can you take a look at Talk:BDORT and my recent edits when you get a chance? Also Richard Gorringe. You input would be appreciated. --Anthon01 20:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] As I was editing that page

The chiro technique page, I get a message that someone beat me to it. Figures it was you :) Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice the use of AK is 12.9%. Anthon01 (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I did. Thanks for keeping our encyclopedia filled with the most current information! -- Levine2112 discuss 02:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frost Citation on AK page

Regarding these two pages statements on AK article.

"AK patients have their muscles tested in many different functional positions, although the arm-pull-down test (or "Delta test") is the most common." and "This is considered by some a conflict of interest: the AK practitioner will benefit if AK is perceived by the client as effective, but the AK practitioner is the one who actually determines how effective the practice has been, because he or she subjectively applies pressure to the patient's muscle or muscles."

Do you have a page number where these statements can be found? Anthon01 (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't at the moment. I found the references by doing Google searches of the book. That's how I learned about the alternate name "Delta test". How are things going at BDORT? Still need some input there? -- Levine2112 discuss 21:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes I do. At BDORT, take a look.
Richard Gorringe as well. Perhaps I am seeing it wrong but the way the text is written in the Gorringe article, it conflates malpractice with alternative medicine, when if fact what was being examined at the trial was a particular alt med technique. Seems it should be simpler so as to avoid misunderstanding. There is an RFC at the bottom of the talk page. Anthon01 (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right. It does seem conflated. I don't know much of anything about this topic, but if I can help with policy, please let me know. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
A policy question: There is a WP:SYNTH section (last section) at the bottom of the page. I added cited text today and it was reverted by Crum375. He placed his objections to my text in that section. What do you think of his reasoning? Anthon01 (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
He is actually right with his evaluation of WP:SYNTH. Essentially, you want to say that Gorringe's methods don't comply with ICAK. However, currently in order to make that assessment, you have to bring two sources together - source A and source B - to arrive at your conclusion C. What you would need to find is some source X which explicitly states that Gorringe's methods don't comply with ICAK. Otherwise, you - the Wikiepdian - are making the evaluation. There are sometimes, however, when the derivation of conclusion C is so obvious that WP:SYNTH doesn't really apply. However, here it appears it does... especially when dealing with a WP:BLP - where we have to be extra sensitive and make sure that we get the article right and do no harm. I hope this helps! -- Levine2112 discuss 00:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I appreciated the lesson. So even though the malpractice report specifically states that Gorringe technique involved putting vials against the skin, and the ICAK says substances in the mouth are the ICAK standard, I cannot say he is not practicing AK? Anthon01 (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a judgment call because it seems pretty obvious; however, I would say that you cannot. BLPs are sensitive so it would be better to get an ICAK statement which specifically makes this conclusion. I think the given example at WP:SYN pretty much correlates with your current situation. I know it is a bit frustrating. I've been exactly where you are with this on many other topics. You can always discuss this with Crum375 and the other editors there and see if this is one of those times when the rules can be ignored and consensus prevails over policy. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the welcome!--AnjaManix (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 discuss 00:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page dispute

Please refactor. Your title is contended. Perhaps you want to say it's your assertion? [1] --Ronz (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harrison and Quackwatch

I dont get it. This author has published "70 peer reviewed, index medicus research articles in a wide variety of chiropractic, orthopedic, biomechanics, and physical medicine journals. Deed E. Harrison, D.C. is a manuscript reviewer for several top journals including Spine, the Archives of Physical Medicine &Rehabilitation, Clinical Biomechanics, European Spine Journal, and Clinical Anatomy." Why would that make him only slightly notable?

If not in the contentious "peer-review" sentence, why couldn't his rebuttal be included in the article somewhere else? Anthon01 (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. In the criticism section, it may reach the standards - it's questionable because it's not published anywhere notable - but it certainly does not reach the higher standards of "Methods and scope", and I find it slightly dishonest to insist that it's a neutral fact that must be included in the description of it, when the only source that can be found is an attack piece on what is, after all, a non-notable website [Unless you can show otherwise], that does not seem to reach any of the higher sets of standards in WP:RS. It might make the standards for the criticism section, but the phrasings being used with it are to imply, in a neutral section, that it is unreliable because it's not something it never claimed to be. Adam Cuerden talk 17:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that using the Mission Statement alone confirms that Quackwatch articles are not peer reviewed. This is neither a criticism nor is it praise. This is a completely neutral face which Quackwatch found relevant enough to put on their Mission Statement. However, if you have suggested wording of how to include this verified information as criticism using the Harrison source, I am open to considering your suggestion. However, please do so on the appropriate talk page and not here. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critics of Quackwatch

If there are critics who make complaints about Quackwatch, we should discuss whether they are a reliable source for the purpose of establishing that they made certain criticisms. —Whig (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Dr. Deed Harrison for one published a reply to Quackwatch's criticism of his work in which he makes it all to clear that Quackwatch is not peer reviewed. As a published doctor in several peer reviewed journals and a procedural technique pioneer and inventor, Dr. Harrison is certainly a notable critic. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this should be a reliable source for the purpose of establishing that at least one critic has brought up Quackwatch's lack of peer review. One critic however notable does not make it a notable criticism however. I think we need at least another one to demonstrate that this isn't just a lone wolf opinion. —Whig (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QW FAQ

[2] doesnt make any sense to me. Can you elaborate?--Ronz (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh! That makes sense. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience concerns

Thank you for info. Sorry for having pushed around my POV in a WP:POINT manner, I hope that I finally got the correct place.

--Achillu (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider

Please consider refactoring in light of WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and Talk:Quackwatch#Getting_unstuck: [3]. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Given that others had already commented on it, refactoring would have been more appropriate than removing it without comment. --Ronz (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please use care when declaring "harassment"

In your edit summary you described my previous warning as "harassment". Of course, it is not harassment as defined by Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. Please be careful how you characterize the actions of others. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please follow this same advice when declaring other's behavior as disruptive. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You may note the definition at WP:DE. I shall now demonstrate that you are disruptive from the definition:
  1. You have engaged in circular and revisited discussions to the point of exhaustion. This is being tendentious. [4]
  2. You have misrepresented resources and have claimed that sources have stated things that they have not. [5]
  3. You have rejected community input as witnessed by your attempt to say that your position was fully supported. [6]
Respectfully submitted, ScienceApologist (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Not tendentious example but rather pointing out the irrelevance of another's argument.
  2. You say I am misrepresenting resource, I say I am representing them accurately.
  3. The difference being that my position is fully supported.
Anyhow, I appreciate the advice, but I would have to say that you are incorrect in your assertion here. Please understand that I do feel that you are singling me out to make experience at Wikipedia less than hospitable. This is the very definition of harrassment. So I promise to take your advice to heart if you promise to take mine. Agreed? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I just want to note that in my (relatively) brief experience with a debate (feud, edit war...) at Quackwatch, ScienceApologist reversing the sense of a quotation in a link seemed deliberate and eristic. He's have to argue that he accidentally misread a sentence in the process of proving that I had myself misquoted it. In fact, from his "respectuflly submitted" list above, I got the impression it was describing him, not you. Science is not a Jealous God that we must fight for to the death; he seems to have his dogmas confused. Pete St.John (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Quackwatch FAQ

Please direct discussion to FAQ #1 as proposed. The supporting sources do not provide evidence of whether Quackwatch is peer reviewed. Not at all. They only provide evidence that people have criticized Quackwatch for not being peer reviewed, i.e., the second sentence of FAQ #1 which could be made a separate FAQ #2 in accordance with Ronz's wishes. I'm going to stay out of it for a bit now because I thought I had a good resolution last night but Ronz marked it unresolved again. I hope there will be more discussion of the FAQ and less on what we do in the article itself until we have agreement on the facts. —Whig (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As much as I think that the FAQ section is important, I feel that my time is best served dealing with the article first. I do recognize that the FAQ section can certainly provide a stepping stone to dealing with the article and if you were to spearhead this project I would certainly be there to lend a hand. However, I humbly disagree with your take on the new source. I think if you read it again, you will see that it outright states that Quackwatch would be better if it were peer reviewed; hence, it can be inferred with little reason that Quackwatch is not peer reviewed. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I defer to your judgment. Perhaps I was a bit invested in that approach yesterday and needed to take a step back. However we make progress, we seem to be doing so. —Whig (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You might consider RS/N if you want some feedback on whether a given source should be considered reliable for some purpose. —Whig (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, you already did that. I just found it. :) —Whig (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks! re Barnstar of Peace

Thanks! I had just been thinking, "I'd better get a *&%^(&^ barnstar out of this or I'm going to rampage across wiki with a flamethower ..." :-) It would seem you deserve a barnstar for persistent effort and calm demeanor through much travail, but I saw earlier you already have a bunch of those. I don't, because mostly I'm mean and elitist, so I honestly appreciate your thoughtfullness. I'll move it to my user page after we see some evidence that calmness has a chance to prevail for awhile. Thanks really man. And congradualations to you. Pete St.John (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, thank you. And I'm glad that you see my efforts and demeanor as calm. I was almost starting to believe my critics who have called me "disruptive" and labeled me a "troll". Thanks for your neutrality throughout this ordeal. Unfortunately, at the moment it seems we have a dissenter in ScienceApologist, but I am optimistic that he/she will come around. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikilegalism: quote the rules, use neutral wording, drive people crazy :-( BTW I second the Barnstar of Dilligence. If there is a way to formally do that, I will. Other than pasting more barnstars :-) Pete St.John (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Love it! Thanks Whig. Thanks Pete. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quackwatch

Is there consensus to drop the text (no formal scientific peer-review) in the mission section? --Anthon01 (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but as a compromise, I am willing to accept the ASCP discussion of it in "Quackwatch as a source" section. I don't fully agree that it should be taken out of the "Mission" section, but I am willing to abide by this compromise if we maintain a consensus. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Other than SA is that the compromise? --Anthon01 (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems that we have a consensus. If you wish to voice your yea or nay on it, that would help though not necessary. It isn't a vote, but rather consensus is an agreement to abide by the edit. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)