User talk:Fyslee/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

My offer to Ilena

(From here) If I have done something wrong, then I'll be happy to examine the diffs and either explain or apologize (it wouldn't be the first time!), but I won't do it with a hodgepodge jumble of confusing and paranoid accusations. It needs to be (1) specific, (2) short, (3) one-at-a-time, (4) with precise diffs, (5) precise quotes, (6) civil in tone, and (7) very precise accusations. I think that is only fair. Ilena can do it on my talk page, and any other editors who are interested are welcome to join in. If she does it in a civil manner, I won't consider it yet another personal attack in violation of WP:NPA.

I am making this unnecesary and gracious offer in good faith, so if she misuses it and her tone gets nasty, I'll request that the admins above react with an immediate block, especially considering that no other editor to my knowledge, has ever been allowed to get away with so much and gotten away with it for so long. She has now received so many clear warnings and "suspended sentences" that one more violation should result in a very long block. Only then can we get back to peacefully editing here.-- Fyslee 10:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You were never "attacked" by me as you falsely claim. I pointed out verifiable facts that you use Wikipedia to further the identical agenda as on your blogs, webrings and healthfraud list. You advertised all of these in your own vanity links on Wikipedia and seem to be under the impression that when these are pointed out, this is an attack. Your "quack files" are pejorative, biased sites and who you attack as "quacks" on them, you attempt to paint the same identical way on Wikipedia. You seem to want to paint a false picture of your years of work with Stephen Barrett. You got away for over 6 months with disinforming Wiki readers that NCAHF was a legal non profit and when I posted verified information that it was not, you reverted my posts back to your false claims of it being a legal entity. You have now been dishonest that your blogs do not contain attacks against me. You even brought an anonymous attack to Wiki and then denied that you posted it here. Every time you link quackwatch or the suspended NCAHF, it links directed to your "quack files" and your webrings. This is verifiable, not an attack. Today, you altered this link you advertise, to remove your years of responsibility as "Assistant Listmaster" for Barrett's Healthfraud List. [1] I have web copies of your unaltered page. You claim you apologized for your months and months of disnformation about the legal status of NCAHF but I never saw them. It took months and months to get the facts on that article because of your attempts to keep the verifiable facts off of it. Have a lovely day. Ilena 16:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ Ilena. From an outsiders perspective you are very combative. Obviously "attack" is a strong word, but the cummulative effect of your edits speak for themselves. As I suggested before, editing pages with which you are not personally involved would be the better strategy for an enjoyable experience in wikipedia. I might add that editors in wikipedia have been remarkably tolerant of your disruptions, one presumes to allow you to get used to this more collaborative envirnoment. Unfortunately, you do not seem to be taking the hint. Seriously, read what people are saying, if you continue this way I am certain your editing priviledges will be reviewed, this has happened time and time again here. Please, it is not usenet, and wikipedia is not about the truth. Verifiable and no original research is the priority. David D. (Talk) 17:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
David. Please be so kind as to explain why when fyslee posts on Wikipedia his vanity links to his "quack files" (which are pejorative attacks on modalities which he and Barrett disagree with,) this is permitted. However, when I make reference to this verifiable fact, it is an "attack." This link of his I got off of his page on Wiki. Before today, it contained the link to Barrett's Healthfraud List where he worked for several years. [[2] As you recommended David, I have only been adding comments to the discussion pages on related articles and not edited them. Please also explain to me something that is very confusing. fyslee has posted x number of quackwatch/ncahf links around Wikipedia ... each and every one linking to his own webrings and pages. This seems like a gorilla could have a monkey posting his gorilla links, and this would not be considered "linkspam" and allowed. Is this accurate? One last question. Fyslee has continually attacked my work with breast implant women here on Wikipedia, much like is posted on his webrings. I have headed for 11 years, a large support group of appreciative women, and am regularly quoted in various media.[3] His false allegations are nothing but attacks yet he freely is allowed to continue this on Wikipedia without so much as a mention. Please explain why this is allowed. Thank you very much.Ilena 17:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Make the case for the removal of his sites and they may be removed too. Thanks for restricting edits to the talk pages, maybe try and bite your tongue too :), count to ten before posting? Fyslee's behaviour may well be bad too, but that does not excuse your own behaviour. Make the case against Fyslees edits not against him. basically both of you need to take a step back and battle each others ideas and content. Not each other. David D. (Talk) 21:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

One last chance

Ilena, I have given you an opportunity to civilly and simply state your case, not to just repeat and embellish your accusations. I can read them, and we have all done so numerous times here.

This time is different. We all need to analyze them and get to the bottom of your rage and defuse it. Your rage and warrior attitude do not belong here at Wikipedia. Now I'll copy from above in a better format and order, so READ MY LIPS very carefully:

Your presentation here (not attack) needs to be

1. Very precise

2. One-at-a-time

3. Specific

4. Short

5. Precise quotes

6. With precise diffs

7. Civil in tone

Now what part of that don't you understand? Number two says "one-at-a-time", so take your pick from your many accusations and then follow every single one of the steps listed above. Any deviations will not be tolerated, and will be promptly deleted. You make many serious charges against me, including of lieing I'm giving you a golden opportunity to demonstrate that you are capable of civil discourse, using simple logic, without hyperbole, and above all -- with documentation. Start with a short subheading for your first one, and we'll confine discussion under that subheading, without any deviations into other charges. If you aren't sure what to do....don't attack, just ask.

If you screw up this attempt, then I will take the initiative and demand proof for your charges, and I'll do the picking. The only reasons I haven't already sued you for your charges are that we don't do that here, and I'm so used to receiving insults, death threats, spam, and other stuff from radical chiropractors and other alternative medicine types that I'm pretty hardened. I happen to know chiropractors and others who don't use such methods, and I can work fine with them, even though we hold differing POV.

I could even work fine with you (as I have stated previously), and help you add information that does not conform to my POV, if you would only cease attacking and try collaborating. Just ask for my help. I believe in the inclusion of differing POV, as long as they are encyclopedic, are from verifiable, reliable, and good sources, and without any WP:OR. If you doubt my intentions regarding the application of NPOV to opposing POV, just ask User:Dematt, a chiropractor whom I admire very highly. -- Fyslee 19:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here [4]. See the edit history for documentation. -- Fyslee 08:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC))


Ilena, stop avoiding your duty

Ilena, you have made serious charges against me, but have (as the edit history here clearly documents) avoided providing documentation according to the procedure described here. Please stop misusing this page and start acting responsibly. Otherwise I fear we will have to consider your charges to be false, and thus malicious charges. If you refuse to document your charges, we will no longer be obligated to exercise good faith towards you (but I still consider personal attacks against you to be improper). Just document your charges, one at a time. -- Fyslee 22:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here [5]. See the edit history for documentation. -- Fyslee 08:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC))


Ilena

...What am I supposed to do?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. But if it interests you, you are welcome to follow along or participate above. -- Fyslee 21:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you were one of many in fyslee's "call to arms" to take turns WikiWacking me. As you see, he attempted to erase comments of someone who attempted to support me. [6] Have a lovely day. Ilena 15:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Ilena. That was rather odd. Earlier he said other editors were welcome to join in. Censorship? I think you have raised legitimate concerns with potentially significant conflicts of interests that need to be addressed. Steth 16:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I am wondering why he got rid of your post so quick, too? I'm also curious about something else. I realize one cannot post a link to their own website, but what about a website that is only one click away from your website? And then you post that link hundreds of times. Seems a little fishy. (oops, forgot to sign in:)--Hughgr 21:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Ilena? In any case, as he requested, be specific. "A website that is only one click away..."? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My rules of play

Ilena (and Steth), you both seem to have misunderstood this offer (made to Ilena). We (multiple editors here) have read both of your (usually undocumented) charges against me all over Wikipedia, and you've gotten away with it. Now Ilena (alone) is being provided the opportunity to provide documentation for them, one-at-a-time. She's a big girl and should be able to defend herself without any help from anyone else (except for possible technicalities, although she has just proven she can provide a diff.). She has made the charges, she is now expected to provide the documentation. If she can't do it, then she's got a problem. I don't doubt that she can provide something or other that is somehow related to each of her charges. (If I twist my brain enough and try to adopt her conspiracy theory mindset, I can vaguely get a glimpse of things she might be basing her misunderstandings upon.) It's her interpretation of things and the way she frames them in her charges that is the problem. I believe she is grossly misrepresenting things in an obvious effort to injure my reputation (a portion of the definition of libel (1) -- but no threat of a lawsuit here), and I'd like to be able to explain things for her (and whoever cares to listen).

  • (1) "a publication without justification or lawful excuse which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule." -- Parke, B. in Parmiter v. Coupland (1840) GM&W 105 at 108

I am not excluding the possibility of comments from other editors, but am primarily interested in others making sure that things are done properly. I believe my outline of conditions is a fair method to get to the bottom of this, and to provide a basis for examining her charges. If other editors feel there could be improvement, I'm willing to consider constructive suggestions. Otherwise this is basically between myself and Ilena. She has repeatedly thrown down the gauntlet, and I have finally decided to take her hyperbole seriously, since other editors who aren't familiar with her normal mode of communication might actually believe her.

Although none of this should be necessary (since neither her's nor Steth's personal attacks are even allowed here, and are ample grounds for blocks), I'm allowing Ilena (alone) to defend herself. I'm tired of her deceptive statements here at Wikipedia and on her websites, so now's the time to settle this. -- Fyslee 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(My comment immediately above has been reworded in accordance with my intentions here [7]. See the edit history for documentation. -- Fyslee 08:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barrett_v._Rosenthal, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll go read up on this. Ilena 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand why there is a request for mediation on an article that seems to have stabilized, and is pretty neutral now. I admit that I am mystified.Jance 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The article is not a current issue, while the announcement of the RfM was made in the context of discussions about her making of serious charges against myself. That is the relevant issue. -- Fyslee 07:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're interested, Peter is answering questions about the RfM on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Barrett_v._Rosenthal. --Ronz 03:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barrett v. Rosenthal.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Some wise words of advice to Ilena

(Copied from the block warning here.)

Site policies hold you responsible for acting conservatively about allegations against other editors. That means you must be forthcoming with page diffs and other relevant evidence that connects all the dots to your conclusion, and retract what you cannot support. If you read something into a certain piece of evidence and the same meaning wouldn't be clear to a reasonable person, then the burden of proof is on you to supply more evidence that fills those gaps. You say you've won a court case at the California state supreme court so you ought to be more familiar with that basic principle than most of the editors at Wikipedia. As of now I hold you fully responsible for supplying adequate and reasonable evidence. This cannot be unduly burdensome to the successful plaintiff of a prominent lawsuit. I will use my sysop tools up to and including blocks and bans to enforce that expectation. DurovaCharge 23:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Added here by Fyslee 09:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


She failed to heed the words of advice, and was then blocked for 24 hrs.. -- Fyslee 09:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
That block has been extended to one week. Ilena's block log -- Fyslee 11:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Defusing the situation

I am going to make an attempt to somewhat defuse this situation by editing some of my later posts (just follow my edit history to see where I do it, and notify me on my talk page if I miss any that should be changed).

My offer to Ilena still stands, but Ilena is refusing to accept my offer for her to provide diffs and evidence for her serious charges against me, and now she has found what she attempts to use as an illegitimate excuse to turn the tables, which is just another attempt to avoid providing proof of her very serious charges against me. No, it's her turn to provide evidence, not my turn.

I am now going to begin removing that illegitimate excuse by editing my posts. She won't like it, but I'm being totally upfront and transparent in my actions, and this is a good faith effort to simplify things. I'm going to replace any of my uses of the words "libel" and "attack" with "charges", or something like that, as the situation warrants. Since I have never had, or even hinted at, any intent to sue her, the point of whether a specific charge of hers is "libelous" or not is moot. I regularly get libelled and receive death threats without going to the police or courts, and this situation is no different.

She can't deny that she has been making such charges (which at Wikipedia are considered attacks against another editor), and thus her obligation to provide evidence still stands. -- Fyslee 08:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wizardry Dragon (Peter M. Dodge)

Have you seen the black box on his user page, second from top? It might explain a lot. I suggest holding off on RFC for a bit. Regards, DurovaCharge! 01:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

From WP:AN

I suspect you have this discussion bookmarked as you have participated in it, but I wanted to make sure that you read this:

“ The provocation has got to stop. Fyslee, if we don't see significant improvement in your handling of the situation, you're just as likely to be sanctioned. Both of you need to stop, tone down the rhetoric and attacks, and work with the facts. - Taxman Talk 16:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC) ”

Fyslee, I always have been the first person to admit that Ilena's behaviour is poor, the dfference between me and others, is that I'm trying to fix it instead of sanction her from it. However, you need to realize that your own behaviour is also at fault here. I suggest that either you extend an olive branch to Ilena and offer to forget and/or forgive, or to try to disengage from the situation. It takes two to tango. If you won't feed her bad behaviour, then either she will stop, or she will continue and be blocked. I'm sure as far as you are concerned, either is a desirab;e outcome, so why not try it? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I'm in the Danish time zone and hadn't seen it yet after a busy day. I have over 1100 items on my watchlist and am right now working on finding the diffs that have been requested of me, even though Ilena hasn't complied with multiple requests from several editors to do the same. We haven't even gotten close to that situation. She just recycles her accusations without providing any proof. I hope you realize that they are extreme misrepresentations of some slight facts. She twists things so they are hardly recognizable. So far she has refused to accept the olive branch I still offer her on my talk page. I have lost hope of her doing so, and you haven't been effective at getting her to cease all other activities and concentrate on doing that alone. As you should know, an accusation carries less-than-no-weight (as to its possible truthfulness) until precisely documented so all can understand it. Until then it stands as an undocumented charge designed to damage the person attacked, which is quite unethical. I am willing to lay low, but I expect you to then do your duty (as her mentor and what amounts to an Adopt-a-user) by defending me and censoring her. That's your duty. It is not your duty to defend her, except if she is being treated unfairly. She should not be defended when she violates policies and attacks others. She needs you to teach her about proper behavior here. I have only protested and tried to defend myself, primarily by repeatedly demanding evidence. For that you have treated me as an aggressor, which is very unfair. Not being allowed to defend oneself is very unjust. It's all very sad. I still find your intentions regarding mentoring her to be quite honorable. It's probably because you were unfamiliar with her (she's extremely infamous on Usenet and in anti-spam groups) that you even volunteered to try to help her. Good for you. No one else who knows her would have dared to try. -- Fyslee 20:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If I may be so bold, it was probably because it had conditions attached, and came off as "I'll back off if you do x y and z" - it wasn't unreasonable, but sure you can see why she refused it. Personally, I believe Taxman had a point. While Ilena's claims were the more damaging, you've also made some disparaging comments towards her as well, and those aren't acceptable either. If you would just leave Ilena well enough alone, I think with a one week block, if you let her be, things might mend themselves with time. An apology for the comments you have made would definitely go a long way to vindicating yourself, if it ever does come to the point of community bans. Strive to be better than her, and you cannot go wrong. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

nothing much

I am just pointing out that your QF site had an article where LP is mentioned as double Nobelist when you are heavily pro-QW, that's all. Sloppy writing in the wee hours. Thought you would appreciate the irony of a free QF link, too.--I'clast 12:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Pauling was exceptional and contributed greatly to our knowledge base. That fact should never be taken from him. That doesnt' justify his later course of action, both scientifically or personally. -- Fyslee 12:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My offer to Ilena - 2

Ilena, you have made many serious accusations against me. If I have done something wrong, then I'll be happy to examine the diffs and either explain or apologize (it wouldn't be the first time!). I am inviting you to present your case here. It needs to be

1. Very precise and specific accusations

2. One accusation at a time

3. Worded briefly

4. Precise quotes

5. With precise diffs and links

6. Civil in tone

I am more than willing to work with you (as I have stated previously), and help you add information, even when that information does not conform to my own POV. Just ask for my help. I believe in the inclusion of differing POV, as long as they are encyclopedic, are from verifiable, reliable, and good sources, and without any WP:OR. If you doubt my intentions regarding the application of NPOV to opposing POV, just ask User:Dematt, a chiropractor whom I admire very highly. We have had a very good working relationship, and he can vouch for the fact that I allow much content to remain that is not in harmony with my POV, as long as it is added in a collaborative spirit, and is not in violation of any Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Fyslee 14:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I must have missed something, what was your reaosn for rejecting mediation? I think it might have helped. Email me if you prefer. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll repost my answer below:

Why I (Fyslee) didn't wish to participate

I am rather surprised to see my so-called "rejection" of mediation being discussed in a manner that makes it appear I did something wrong. Maybe I haven't understood what an RfM is all about. I have clearly expressed why I did not want to be a part of the RfM, but it appears to me that no one has read my explanation, or they do not agree with it and are not explaining why. I wish they would read the following and then discuss their reaction to my reasoning.

  • I have misunderstood something about the purpose of the RfM, I would like to be corrected.
  • If I have done something wrong by not participating, I'd like to know what it was so it doesn't happen again.

My reasons are clearly explained on the RfM page, its talk page, and a couple of other places, as well as the edit summaries. Here are the links:

Here are my statements in chronological order with the diffs (taken out of context, and without the edit summaries):

  • 1. If I am not to be allowed to provide the requested evidence of my attempts to deal with her attacks, then what's going on? Have I misunderstood your RfM? It was made in the specific context of her personal attacks on myself, so why is it described as an RfM regarding Barrett v. Rosenthal? That is not currently an issue under discussion. If I'm not to be allowed to discuss the current problem, then maybe you shouldn't have added my name and obligated me to a lot more wasted time. Please explain and maybe I'll withdraw. -- Fyslee 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [8]
  • 2. Okay, I misunderstood. In the context it seemed like it would deal with the current, rather than (relatively) ancient B v. R discussion, but you're probably right. Unfortunately this RfM will divert attention from the basic issue underlying all of her presence here, which is to carry her Usenet personal attacks to wikipedia. They got her sued before, and because she was reposting what someone else wrote, she got away with it. Now she thinks she can continue here. Oh well, I'll just withdraw. -- Fyslee 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [9]
  • 3. Do not agree. This is an unnecessary revival (IOW recreating) of a not currently active issue, thus creating more controversy and wasting more time. It has been a problem, and if it becomes active again, then this might be valid. At present this functions as a diversion from the real and very serious current issue, which is an undeclared RfC on Ilena's conduct towards other editors. She is currently blocked for that behavior. -- Fyslee 10:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [10]
  • 4. Peter (Wizardry), I believe you have some serious misunderstandings and assumptions about this issue. To the best of my knowledge, Barrett and Rosenthal have never had any serious discussions over the issue of breast implants. Barrett doesn't even comment on them or write about them, or even criticize Rosenthal's position on the issue. (Barrett may have at some long distant point in the past expressed views common among MDs, but he's never made it an issue in his activities. He concentrates on other subjects.) I personally support much of her position on the subject, but find her activities to be very damaging to her cause.
The attacks made by Bolen and Rosenthal against Barrett (that have led to libel lawsuits) have nothing to do with the breast implant issues, but are regarding Barrett's anti-quackery activism. Bolen admits that he is paid by alternative medicine practitioners (who have run afoul of the law) to defend them. He does this primarily by spamming (yes the anti-spam community is very much against him) a newsletter which he himself describes as "opinion pieces". They are filled with conspiracy theory rhetoric, ad hominem attacks, straw man attacks, and other forms of serious personal attacks, including libelous statements for which he is now awaiting trial. (Under deposition he had to admit that very concrete statements presented as absolute fact were nothing more than "euphemism".)
The whole issue is about alternative medicine practitioners, producers, and scammers, who don't like their methods getting exposed to criticism on Quackwatch. Rosenthal is among those who doesn't like those methods being criticized, and without herself being criticized first, has gone on the warpath against Barrett. Anyone who happens to share Barrett's (which are essentially mainstream POV) viewpoints then gets attacked as "Barrett syncophants" or other epithets that are designed to make it appear that we are all working directly with or for Barrett, and are paid by the pharmaceutical industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. -- Fyslee 10:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [11] & [12]
  • 5. Misguided RfM that should be canned
If there is to be any RfM regarding Ilena and the breast implant issue, then Barrett v. Rosenthal is not the right subject for an RfM. A different RfM that might be relevant (if there is any dispute there -- I don't know), could be titled:
  • [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Breast implant]]
This current RfM is totally off-base. It was announced and presented on the page and in the middle of a discussion of Ilena's personal behavior here at Wikipedia, which had nothing to do with breast implants, so when I followed the link and ended here, I was baffled. There was no "connect" between the current controversy, the situation in which it was announced, the place it was announced, or the reality of the situation. It was like a long dead ghost was suddenly being introduced into another discussion. The proper thing would have been to create an RfC:
  • [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Behavior of User:Ilena]]
This RfM is misguided, ill-timed, and off-topic. It should be canned. -- Fyslee 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Copied relevant comment from above:
  • This is an unnecessary revival (IOW recreating) of a not currently active issue, thus creating more controversy and wasting more time. It has been a problem, and if it becomes active again, then this might be valid. At present this functions as a diversion from the real and very serious current issue, which is an undeclared RfC on Ilena's conduct towards other editors. She is currently blocked for that behavior. -- Fyslee 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [13]

This RfM was simply the wrong venue and misapplied, so the error was not mine, but the error of the one who started the RfM in the first place. It should have never been raised, but something does need to be done, likely an RfC. That would indeed be appropriate. The issue is her attitude and behavior anywhere at Wikipedia, not the content of the Barrett v. Rosenthal article. Content matters can always be worked out through collaborative editing. Editors who refuse to collaborate need to have their attitude and behavior subjected to an RfC. That's the issue here. Wikipedia should not be used to further her Usenet wars, especially since I have never participated in them.

Again, please explain any errors in my reasoning. I am trying to learn here and am more than willing to correct errors. -- Fyslee 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I find this message posted to my talk page while I was composing the above:
  • Since you have refused mediation, I have opened a formal Request for Arbitration regarding the matter. You may wish to make a statement. You may do so on the page here. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[14]
Is this unnecessary and unprovoked escalation really necessary? I suggest that it be withdrawn and that the proposer (the same one who improperly proposed the RfM) disengage as he is not an impartial party to this matter, but has all too often favorized and defended Ilena in her actions, contrary to the first stated personal "philosophy" on his own user page: "I avoid taking sides in disputes." He has even prevented me from providing evidence in the form of diffs, and deleted them. -- Fyslee 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Since you have refused mediation, I have opened a formal Request for Arbitration regarding the matter. You may wish to make a statement. You may do so on the page here. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Copying my reply:
  • Is this unnecessary and unprovoked escalation really necessary? I suggest that it be withdrawn and that the proposer (the same one who improperly proposed the RfM) disengage as he is not an impartial party to this matter, but has all too often favorized and defended Ilena in her actions, contrary to the first stated personal "philosophy" on his own user page: "I avoid taking sides in disputes." He has even prevented me from providing evidence in the form of diffs, and deleted them. -- Fyslee 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Peter admits that it's not because "you have refused mediation", but this seems to be going ahead regardless. I've barely even looked at an RfA, so I'm turning to you as someone that appears to have more familiarity. (Please point me to someone more knowledgeable of and/or appropriate for such questions, as well as some documentation if it exists.)

  • First, there doesn't appear to be a discussion page for it, which is why I'm writing here. Am I missing one?
  • Assuming there is none, do you know if and how the scope can be clarified? As I interpret his statement, Peter has defined his perspective to be on what has happened since the Dec 26 AN, and some events immediately prior to it.

--Ronz 17:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just replied to him. You may want to follow my strategy, otherwise we are tilting at windmills. [15][16] This whole business makes me wonder how many people Ilena has driven to suicide. I've never had her so in-my-face before since I have always avoided her. Most people I deal with everyday are pretty reasonable, but when such hatred gets forced on me it hits pretty hard. -- Fyslee 18:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

turn the other cheek

please be careful and remember the golden rule. --Dematt 15:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dematt. As always you have some wise advice. I know what you mean, but I have another twist on it....;-) I have already been turning the other cheek, both of them. I've been forced to kiss my own a** cheeks by the editor who has raised this ruckus, and been pushed into the mud as if I was guilty, just because I have been accused without evidence of wrongdoing and tried to feebly defend myself. Oh well, that's life. Have you been following the situation closely from the sidelines? If so, I might want to call on your help (off-wiki) as an advisor. It is always better for me to have a critical eye proofread my stuff before submitting it. Otherwise I end up with foot-in-mouth problems. I know that I can trust you to be brutally honest in a very helpful way. That's what I need, not just some yes-man. -- Fyslee 16:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have been watching. This is definitely a tough one, but not insurmountable. Basically, this is Chiropractic on a much larger scale with more personalities and people. It stems from the fact that you both have strong opinions on polar opposites of the same issue. In another life, with another issue, you could well both appreciate each others support and would make strong allies. But, that is not the case, here. This really has nothing to do with either of you, this has to do with Barrett. Remember that he is the controversial one that is being written about, not you. Comments directed at you are because you defend Barrett, it's not really personal. Treat llena the way you would like to be treated and keep turning the other cheek - there is always the other cheek. She is not irrational, she just wants to be heard and if you stop and listen, then maybe she'll listen to you. --Dematt 16:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You are certainly welcome to bounce anything off me that you want. I'm not sure I've got any answers but I'll do what I can. --Dematt 19:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You may not have all the answers, but you are always fair. When are you going to seek adminship? I'll vote for you. -- Fyslee 21:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, then... with your vote, that makes one! :) --Dematt 03:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

RFAr

If it is accepted I will comment but I don't really view myself as an involved party.Geni 15:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I feel compelled to note that I did not change the title of the RFAR, I originally titled it "Fyslee, Ilena, et al." (Which is what jpgordon's comment was directed at). It was later changed by Thatcher. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of that and I protested the change to no avail. Your version was correct, but others have decided it should be changed. Your title reflected the fact that the main problem involved myself and Ilena, even though other editors played their parts. We'll see how things go. I am eagerly awaiting Ilena's contributions. I want to see her accusations worded and documented in such a precise manner that I can understand them and attempt to rebut them. If I fail to do so, then I can learn from them, reform, and apologize if I have wronged anyone. -- Fyslee 22:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, there's no need to get tied up over semantic changes, jpgordon and Kirill are well aware of the underlying issues, so I am sure that a simple name change won't phase them or mislead them. I, too, await Ilena's response, as I think it will more or less set the tone of the Arbitration. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch peer review discussion

I had moved the section in question to the WP:RS talk page because it had been crossposted there and the same discussion was going on, and the discussion was not appropriate for the Quackwatch talk page. In hindsight, I should have left a note on the Quackwatch talk page about the move, so I've left a notice pointing people to the correct page while still leaving the discussion there. --Philosophus T 07:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just discovered your explanation, instructions, and links to the new location, so go ahead and delete it now, but leave the heading and the redirecting links. It does take up a lot of space, and your intentions are honorable. -- Fyslee 08:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 23:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Containing forest fires

Peter, I fear your deletion here suffers from a problem that has been chronic of your mentoring of Ilena. You have (possibly properly) deleted inflammatory material, but left the source of the flame -- OhSusanne's post, which is a repetition and even enlargement of Ilena's attacks. Why did you not delete hers on sight right away? I will at least give you credit for also deleting Ilena's reponse, but it was OhSusanne's post that started it, and it hurt. I had to exercise great restraint and heed the advice of several editors and admins, to keep from replying. But it would only have inflamed the situation, so I did what I have done many times during all of this ruccus -- laid low and not replied nearly as often as I have been provoked. I'd like to see some fairness here. --Fyslee 23:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I thought about removing the whole thing, but I didn't want to get another angry editor involved in this whole affair, and I don't think Susanne would've taken well to it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project )

I am copying this to your talk page so that you may see my response. Please reply on my talk page. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Peter's talk page.
Peter, I do sympathize with the dilemma that such situations present. One cannot please all people all the time. In the current situation with Ilena (and now OhSusanne), I have had ample opportunity to see you at work. I have during the whole mess considered your intention to help Ilena to be an honorable endeavor, but at the same time have felt it missed the mark in fundamental ways. This is just another example, and I'll explain what I mean.
The dilemma I mention above demands that one make a decision to deal differently with both sides in such a way that no one can later say one was unfair. Right now (with OhSusanne) you have done the same thing you have done many times with Ilena. You have chosen (certainly with no ill intent -- I do AGF!) to punish those who have been attacked, while doing little or nothing to (and sometimes even defending) the offender who has done the attacking. This places you in a position where it appears you defend offenders and punish their victims. It can appear that way to others, and to the victims it is a very unpleasant situation. We feel helpless, and even held down, while we watch you defend our tormenters. It has certainly caused me to leave her charges unopposed, which the search engines are now showing, no doubt to her glee. Usenet is now reflecting what is happening here, and I have received condolences from people I have never met! While I have rarely defended myself in this situation, I will do so in the RfA.
I certainly admit that I am not a paragon of tactfulness in all my replies and am attempting to become an adoptee, even though I'm an experienced editor her and elsewhere. So far my requests have been met with wonderment! I do need to learn how to deal with attacks in a better manner. (My openness, honesty, directness, and sense of justice, are sometimes a hindring.) In the current situation, even when the main content of my reply to an attack is perfectly good, there are things that sometimes can be read "between the lines," and some people (especially yourself) have judged me harshly for them, and ignored "all the lines themselves" that Ilena has written. Oh well, I'm learning from all of this. I just hope you will begin to side with the victims more often, and enforce the NPA policy more stringently against those who attack, than against those who defend themselves from those attacks.
One must always side with the victim, even while giving the victim constructive criticism about how to respond in a better manner. No one, most of all the attacker, should be in doubt about which side you are on. If the attacker sees you chastising their victim, they take it as a clear signal that you defend their actions, and thus you have (unwittingly) facilitated them in their continued attacks, and in fact become a party to them, even though that was not your intention. This whole mess could have been prevented, instead of actually accelerated, if you had adopted a firm approach towards Ilena right from the beginning. Large numbers of otherwise good editors could have been editing, instead of wasting time on all this mess, and the personal consequences could have been avoided. (They are much greater than you may realize.) We don't need Usenet battles here at Wikipedia.
This whole situation has been made even more ironic, in that you are the leader of the Neutrality Project, and the first point in your "Philosophy" box states "I avoid taking sides in disputes." That is a utopian dream. (You could reword it "I seek to be fair in disputes.") One must take sides in some situations, otherwise one appears to make no difference between the criminal and his victim (to take an everyday example). There is a difference between right and wrong. They are not equal, or things about which one can be "neutral". As far as OhSusanne is concerned, if she doesn't "take well" (your words above) to being dealt with in a manner that enforces Wikipedia policies and common decency, then she too (as with Ilena) has an attitude problem. Wikipedia has enough problems without rewarding such attitudes, or keeping their holders as editors.
Please do not delete this as a personal attack. It's not an attack, but a serious discussion of real issues. We are adults here and should be able to talk openly, as long as we do it in a civil manner. -- Fyslee 08:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Replied to on my talk page. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Take Heart

When someone plays the Nazi Card, you know the Hitler Zombie has started eating their brains.--Emilydcksn 03:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No one understands the poor zombie! All he wants to do is eat some brains ... ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC) (Obviously preceeding response is not meant to be taken seriously.

Arbitration parties

Thank you for your message. A listing of the parties listing in the format you suggested appears on the main case page, here. I hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 20:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion....that could save us hopping back and forth between articles. BTW, it was I who added that format there....;-) -- Fyslee 20:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it ... I didn't recall putting it there myself. The party list usually isn't included on the Evidence page, but you can feel free to copy it into your own Evidence section as you are editing the section and then delete it when you're done. Newyorkbrad 20:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll give it a try. It can be my little scratchpad, if that's allowable. If not, just let me know. (It would be easier if each person's entry just started with that format for their name.) -- Fyslee 21:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Slipped disc vandalism

You blanked the page with this edit [[17]]. This is considered to be vandalism and is not the way to solve an edit war. When pages are merged and redirected their history, including all previous versions of the page is kept. Nuttah68 13:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Who was it that vandalized the redirect? The status there had been stable since August 30, 2006. I only restored it. That is not vandalism. User:Rebroad has clearly misunderstood the long history of this article, and has changed wikilinks to the new article, so if there is any accusation of vandalism to be made...... There was good discussion and agreement back then that the article should be merged and all the good content kept. That was done, and a redirect left in place. -- Fyslee 13:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
With the edit I have linked above you did not restore the article, you blanked it. Nuttah68 13:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The article still exists. I only added the template. Things were happening pretty fast back then and the redirect should have been restored at the same time. No harm intended. I was just trying to restore things to the August 30, 2006 condition, and add the template. I forgot the redirect. An innocent mistake. Please help me restore things to the stable condition which existed before User:Rebroad misunderstood the situation. That user did not discuss anything with the other editors who had been involved back then. I assume good faith and believe it was a misunderstanding by an editor who didn't understand the articles's long history, and that an improved article already existed. (S)he simply started added wikilinks, changing existing wikilinks, and then reactivated a dead article by deleting the redirect. That's a very disturbing thing to do. To top it off that editor has made untrue statements about lack of mention of slipped disc in the Spinal disc herniation article. That is not true at all. -- Fyslee 13:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee, the situation became unstable when you created the redirect back in August. How much time needs to elapse before you consider it to be stable? --Rebroad 16:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
This makes no sense rebroad. What situation became unstable? I don't understand why you are not editing the Spinal disc herniation article rather than forking this content? David D. (Talk) 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish that made some sense, but I certainly don't see it. I think you should read what these administrators have to say: [18], [19]. They understand the issues with the article, and Wikipedia's way of dealing with these situations.

It's always a good idea to contact the editors who were involved before doing such a radical things as undoing a redirect. That's a big no-no here. Many articles depend on redirects, and undoing one single redirect can orphan some articles, or at least cripple them. Articles and redirects have longs histories, with many editors involved who have worked hard and produced a lot through collaborative editing. It is an act of very poor judgment, an exercise of bad faith, and simply a slap in all their faces, when you single-handedly come along and undo their work.

If you really think there are other meanings to the term, then let's discuss them. If they can't fit into the Spinal disc herniation article, then let's make a true disambiguation page. (I love doing that!) But the old article should not be awakened to life. It has gone through a sort of metamorphosis and is now a much better article. -- Fyslee 19:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing Evidence from Archives relevant to Arbitration

It appears that you have had the archives altered to remove evidence that could be damaging to your Arbitration case. I note these diffs reveal this. [20] Since part of the vast amount of "attacks" you claim I made against you was your claim that it was I was revealing your personal identity, seeing to it that your own revelations of your personal identity were removed on January 26, 2007, seems relevant to be brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee. Thank you. Ilena 14:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to that. I didn't know it had actually been done. I am concerned for my security, and am trying to not be quite as open as I have earlier been. I made a request to have the "edit history on my user page be deleted up to this diff from April 12, 2006? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fyslee&diff=prev&oldid=48182114 "
It looks like he did it! Don't worry about the arbitration. I'll back you up on that point. I have never addressed your accusation on that point, since it was true. It was just a statement of fact. Now I no longer wish anyone to use my real name at Wikipedia, for obvious reasons. When one gets threats, including death threats, from chiropractors and promoters of alternative medicine, there is no reason to make it too easy for them. I'll alert JzG to this message and he can comment if he wishes.
BTW, where have I made the claim you describe above as "that it was I was revealing your personal identity,..."? Please provide the diff. -- Fyslee 15:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Death threats since December 2, 2006??? OMG!!! Really???? Do you make a police report? Please let us help protect you by posting evidence of these threats. Since you KNOW they are chiropractors and promoters of alternative medicine, they gave you their real names apparently??? This is a very serious accusation and one which I feel certain no one with integrity would make without clear evidence. Extremely serious. We await the evidence of these threats. Ilena 16:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Unless he specifically accuses you of making or facilitating the threats, they don't need proof, nor does Fyslee or any other editor need a reason to decide to become more cautious about his identity. If he accuses you of deliberately revealing his identity after he decided to become more cautious, it might be an arbitration issue, but otherwise its irrelevant. Thatcher131 17:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be extremely cautious in presenting any evidence relating to any real-life threats of death or physical harm on-wiki. Information of that nature should be e-mailed to the Arbitration Committee mailing list, and refer to the matter in your respective Evidence presentations on-wiki in general terms with the comment that specific evidence has been e-mailed privately. Newyorkbrad 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the email address of the Arbitration Committee, please? Thank you. Ilena 16:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You can e-mail your message to any active arbitrator, using the "Wikipedia e-mail" feature, with the request that he or she forward it to the entire list. Of course this goes for all participants in the case. Newyorkbrad 16:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Since December 2, 2006"...? Ilena, what are you talking about? Your mocking tone is not helpful..... -- Fyslee 17:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

On December 2, 2006, you posted this diff with your real world name and your Wiki name. Very, very recently. [21] Obviously, if in fact, you had received death threats from chiropractors and promoters of alternative medicine before that date as you claim, you would not have done so. Claiming death threats is a very, very, very serious accusation ... especially since you also claim that you know who made these threats. If these accusations are indeed factual and substantiated, I want to help you. Ilena 17:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that would be wise. Stick to your knitting and let Fyslee stick to his. Thatcher131 17:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Instead of foolishly rising to this b**t**g, I'll leave her to her speculations, and I'll also pass on accepting her offer of so-called "help". Enough for now. Next step is to see if JzG can restore things until after the RfA is over. -- Fyslee 17:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed personal data, as requested. All the arbs are admins, I think, so nothing will be concealed from them. There is nothing more to add, I think. Drama over, back to the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for your response. If it could be restored, I would appreciate it, but since it can't, that's the way it goes. Whatever the case may be, I have never denied that I have previously revealed by true identity. Now I want people to use my Fyslee identity here, no matter what I do myself, although I will try to also stick to it. The box at the top of this page explains my position on the matter. -- Fyslee 18:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Making potentially false claims that chiropractors have issued death threats to you with no substantiating evidence, is, in my experienced opinion, another one of your underhanded attacks at the profession and an attempt to make yourself appear like a victim, worthy of sympathy. I worked for years with women who were indeed stalked and received real death threats, people whose privacy was in real need of protecting. These women did not post their own names on the internet and on Wikipedia as recently as last month. To compare yourself with true victims claiming privacy issues when a one second google shows your advertisements of yourself throughout the internet with your real name advertised for years and years, makes your death threat claims with no corroborating evidence fall short of any veracity. I am frustrated indeed, with going through my notes and realizing that you are tampering with evidence close to this Arbitration Case, forcing more work on me and on others. Ilena 19:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee is under no obligation to prove anything to you. He is under no obligation to give any reason at all for wanting personal information removed. He is allowed to ask to have his user page deleted to remove personal information from the history (and since it's his user page not talk that is even less controversial). If you feel there is or was information in Fyslee's user page which is of relevance to an arbitration case and you want to cite it, then the Arbs can see it. If Fyslee asks for his user page history to be restored then he can, knowing that the personal information will become visible again. All clear? Good. Now click "Random article" and find something else to work on, eh? Guy (Help!) 20:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

History is now restored

As requested by myself, [22] [23] User:JzG has kindly restored the history of my user page.

  • "I really do want to have the deletion undone. Ilena should not be able to use my good faith attempts to protect my privacy as another excuse to exercise bad faith and accuse me of wrongdoing. -- Fyslee 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)" [24]

Ilena, are you satisfied now? -- Fyslee 20:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused. You claimed you it wasn't your idea to change the archives, and Guy claimed he did it on request, so who requested the archives be changed if not you? Curious in the Jungles Ilena 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are very confused:
  • "You claimed you it wasn't your idea to change the archives...." (Your words above)
I made no such claim. On the contrary. This is typical of your charges against me. You often claim I have said something, but you misquote my words, making your charges nonsensical and false. Now start presenting your case in the RfA. -- Fyslee 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
My sincere apologies. I read the first part of the diff. that read: "I didn't know it had actually been done." I just counted 381 instances of your real name and fyslee on the WWW, so I believe those will forgive me for having doubts that privacy is such an enormous issue with you as you claim. Since you were posting them together as recently as last month on Wikipedia, that also makes one doubt your veracity. That your alleged claims of death threats include chiropractors, who you regularly attack and label with pejorative, demeaning terms, and promoters of alternative medicine, another of your targets, it feels to me that those are subtle attacks on these people, with not a shred of evidence to back your claims. I have worked with women whose lives were in danger and had true privacy issues, and your "privacy concern" rings hollow to me, sorry. That you did your virtual shredding smack in the middle of this Arbitration, where evidence was going to be presented ... well, we'll let the Arbitrators decide. Ilena 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you really wasting your time counting the times I've used my real name? Why? I have never denied it. It is only an issue because you refused to heed the warnings by others to not do so. That will be part of my documentation job. -- Fyslee 21:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This is exaclty what I mean, Ilena. What possible reason do you have for demanding that Fyslee produce 'evidence' of his claimed harassment/threats?
What would you do with the evidence, were he to produce it (which he has no need to do).
He has asked that you back off. Why don't you? Why are you insisting on making this an issue, when it should not be an issue at all? He asked you to respect his privacy here. The very simple way to handle that would be to respect his privacy here. Period. End of discussion. Jance 07:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey did you know?

Did you know that CBP was looking for Alan Botnick to serve him with a lawsuit. Apparently he wrote a paper for Quackwatch and Barrett published it and CBP is suing both of them, but Botnick cannot be found. They have put an article in Clinical Chiropractic for anybody to help find him. Jim Turner is representing CBP. Let me know if you hear anything. --Dematt 21:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! I haven't been at Chirotallk for some time now, so I don't know if he's posting there. It should be easy enough to do. Try to see what you can find. -- Fyslee 22:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You were at Chirotalk at 6:06 this morning and took off your status as Administrator and changed your name to fys god. [25] I would never have known about that site had you not linked there yesterday. I took copies last nite before your changes. Here you were telling people to sign up for Wikipedia Re: Life University Wikipedia entry« Reply #12 on Jun 5, 2006, 5:45am » [26]. Thanks for the links to Allen Botnick, who apparently is a co-defendant with Barrett and Quackwatch and the moderator of this board you administered until 6:06 a.m. today. Have a lovely day. Ilena 15:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Your cyberstalking is noted. Now please leave me alone. -- Fyslee 15:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Really??? I was following YOUR LINKS. Fun game for you to always play victim. You have filled my talk page with your giant notices and false claims of victimhood. You dare to demand that I leave you alone after filling my talk page with your rants. I would never have known about your 3 years as Administrator with Allen Botnick on Chirotalk had you not given the link. That you removed yourself as Administrator there at 6:06 this morning is very notable ...especially after your cyber-shredding of evidence in the middle of this Arbitration was revealed yesterday. You're no victim, fyslee. Please stay off my talk page ... please keep your giant notices off it ... please leave my user page alone where you insist on meddling, and please stop whining and ordering me around. Thank you very much.Ilena 16:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You may have followed my link, but the subject of the whole thread was about the founder of Chirotalk, and a link to it had already been posted by Levine2112 about 1½ hours before mine. As far as posting on your talk page, as you have done on mine, I have tried (before your indignant post above) to limit my last posts there to noting that I have answered your double postings (to both talk pages) on my own talk page,[27] [28] rather than answering on your talk page, so your complaint above rings rather hollow. Now please leave me alone and respect my privacy. -- Fyslee 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thiomersal controversy/Wikipedia E-mail

I have reverted the link, because it is very close to original research, and not a reliable source. For the parts of WP:EL that relate to that subject, see the section 'links normally to be avoided', points 1 & 2. Furthermore, there are many external links on Thiomersal controversy, and for that, wikipedia is not a linkfarm (also under WP:EL). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's take this point by point:
1. I don't know your POV, but I do know the POV of the one who first deleted the link, and you have then backed up that deletion by reverting twice. What I say below may apply to you or him or others. Wherever the shoe fits....
2. The OR policy does not refer to external links or sources, but to an improper methodology sometimes used by Wikipedia editors when they write Wikipedia articles. OR in non-wikipedia sources is often perfectly acceptable here, as long as it is found in a V & RS.
3. External links do not have the same RS standard as references within articles. Links to Quackwatch are nearly always suitable as External links, while their use as internal references must be judged on a case by case basis, as the thousands of pages and myriad articles at Quackwatch are written by many different people, in many different styles, for many different purposes. Therefore one article there might be fine as an internal reference here, while another would be totally unsuited for Wikipedia in any capacity. Unfortunately opposers of Quackwatch (who are usually supporters of the methods or ideas criticized) are trigger happy to delete anything from it, and rarely make that evaluation. (Levine2112 sometimes goes on a rampage to delete them, but he has recently actually made that evaluation a couple times and both kept the link and improved it. Good for him. He has also found a couple instances where I think his judgment was correct, and I have allowed the deletions without reverting it.) Instead they delete on sight, which is POV suppression, a practice forbidden here, since Wikipedia is all about presenting all significant POV from all sides of the question. Suppression of an opposing POV is therefore counterproductive and an exercise of bad faith against other editors. Instead of just deleting their work, one should seek to get them to improve their case by using better arguments or sources. That's called "collaboration" and "writing for the enemy". Such collaboration between editors with opposing POV produces the best articles. My collaboration with User:Dematt (a chiropractor) has resulted in a great chiropractic article, a profession for which I hold quite a bit of skepticism, yet we work fine together because he is an inclusionist, and understands that NPOV requires inclusion, and writing for the enemy.
4. The two points ("points 1 & 2") that you mention above are subject to great interpretation, and with controversial articles it's a very POV judgment. Those who delete Quackwatch links are normally (always?) believers in pseudoscience and will interpret anything against their pet idea as pseudoskepticism. The other side will do the opposite. Since both POV must be presented in articles, including external links for both POV (as is done in the article), then this POV use of those to points as an excuse for deleting the link can be construed as POV suppression of the opposing POV. Better to err on the inclusionist side, than on exclusionism bordering on policy violation (designed to minimize or eliminate opposing POV).
5. As far as link farms, I have no idea who originally added the link, but I fear you are making (or backing up) a POV suppressive judgment when deleting that particular link, instead of deleting some other one, if that is really your concern.
6. You also use another excuse in your edit summary here, for your first revert -- that it isn't peer reviewed. That one is way out in left field. Peer review is not a requirement for External links.
7. Please don't use popups to make such reverts. You can get your popup privileges removed for such misuse.
8. There may be some other legitimate Wikipedia policies that apply, but you haven't presented them yet. I'd like to see them. If I am wrong in my analysis above, I'm sure you can correct me, and I will welcome it. -- Fyslee 08:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
1. See my contributions
2. OR does apply, the next thing could be that someone is incorporating the data (thinking it is a reliable source) into wikipedia?
3. WP:EL does say that it should be reliable sources, and that links should be kept to a minimum, I am sorry, I saw this link added (just only the link) so I reverted. EL do not fit in a thought of POV suppression, sorry. Write the article, and expand it, write paragraphs, and use references to back you up. A sentence 'a newspaper reported blah blah.[ref to site]' is very acceptible, just in the EL, no. There it is just another link.
4. Point 2 clearly applies, it is not a reliable source.
5. I said I saw this addition, it is not a POV, it is not having the time at this moment to go through all the links. That one link is there does not mean that others should come as well. EL should be kept to a minimum, why not expand the article and add some references, why did you only add this link?
6: Peer-reviewed is a bit too far, indeed. Verifyability is (sorry, I used a wrong term).
7: This is not misuse, otherwise I would have used the undo-button, or used edit button on the previous version, and saved.
8: What? Do I have to defend my link-removal, I have given already 4 policies/guidelines under which this link is questionable. I have not seen any reason why that link should be in WP, as probably with many of the others in that external link section. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Prescientific systems

Hey, I think it is time that we delete Prescientific system. I haven't found anything on this other than sites that have copied WP or definitions of prescientific that have nothing to do with this article. I am afraid we have created OR. Do you want to do a speedy delete or regular delete? --Dematt 19:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the points at the end of this [29].(You're welcome to read the whole thing...;-) It would be too bad to just delete that article. It should be developed better with references. -- Fyslee 20:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I am open to that, too, and believe me, I have looked all the way to the end of all the google searches that I can think of. There are no references for prescientific system that uses it in the sense that we do. I agree with you. I think it would be great to develop an idea such as this, but there is nothing, nada, zero. Maybe you are on to something - perhaps you should write this up!!! Then we can reference you! But as it is, it seems to be OR. Can you find anything? --Dematt 20:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I trust you. If you couldn't find anything used in this way, then there probably isn't anything worth using. I've copied it for my private use, since it's a good article with a lot of good ideas. I don't know who started it or the history behind it, and I only contributed one section, so I have no great feelings for it. -- Fyslee 20:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll just suggest one of those quiet deletes - nothing that needs a AfD or anything. Hughgr and Mcreedy were the last few to edit it and I don't think they will care. We can still use prescientific in its adjective form, just have to be careful when we use it as a noun. Meanwhile - write a paper on it, I'll cite it! --Dematt 21:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You bugger, you beat me to it! --Dematt 21:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't you! This place is bugged! --Dematt 21:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course we're being watched. Take it as a compliment. -- Fyslee 21:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I better go get dressed. --Dematt 21:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Signature

See User:Fyslee/Sig. Simões (talk/contribs) 01:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. It works now. -- Fyslee (First law) 14:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but mine is better;) ---- Dēmatt (chat) 14:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Very nice looking. It's nice to learn a bit more about HTML and such like. I'm an amateur at it. I usually try to copy what others do and modify it. Sometimes it works and other times it doesn't, which reveals that my knowledge of HTML is rather rudimentary. -- Fyslee (First law) 15:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I copied yours and changed a few things several times before I finally got it to work. I did exactly the same thing you did last night - got the same error (for three hours!) until I finally realized I left out a / :) Sure wish they would make the color thing easier, I must have tried 100 combinations and saw absolutely no rhyme or reason for any of them! I got lucky with this one. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 15:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's a great HTML color chart. There are lots of them on the internet, but it suits me fine. -- Fyslee (First law) 15:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
You have got to be kidding me... This is why it takes me twice as long as everyone else to do anything. I'm always reinventing the wheel. I think I even made up a few colors of my own;) ---- Dēmatt (chat) 15:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

I found it here. Actually, I had seen it earlier and didn't think much about it until Simoes brought it up. Suddenly it all made sense why on that date several controversial items started being moved to List of Fringe science. Interesting. (I like the green, too:)-- Dēmatt (chat) 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha! Yes, I have read that at some time in the past. Very interesting, with some important rulings made at the time. -- Fyslee (First law) 18:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this revert war that you were involved in was SA trying to clean it out without anybody knowing that he was moving to the fringe science list. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't do it now, but you can compare SA's editing pattern right then with this block. Maybe that's his/her IP. Right now I just discovered something going on over at Life University, and you're going to see me do something that will likely give Levine2112 a heart attack! -- Fyslee (First law) 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your evidence statement

You will be making one, won't you? It's been a while. DurovaCharge! 00:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment and the sandbox

I appreciate your comments on my user page. The sandbox will come in handy. I was reading the tutorial yesterday some more but couldn't figure out how to do the sandbox for myself. I do understand how to make the indents now from see what you did on my page. I am new at this kind of thing, never have tried to do anything with websites, so it's slow going for me. With my medications, I take a while to understand some things so I hope to get better at this. I have been lurking and reading for awhile now to see what others are doing.

The article we spoke of does need a lot of balance added into it. I was hitting links to see where I went and what they said. I have to admit I was surprised, since all the reading I have done has said that links to sales sites, personal sites and attack sites are not allowed. I'm going to do some more learning and hopefully I will be able to get involved to help make the article a great one. I still need to learn some of the basics but I haven't even gotten to how to do links and so on. If I make mistakes of any kind, and I mean this for anyone, just make the correction and explain it if it needs explaining. I do not get my feeling hurt easily and I know my limitations here right now. I also don't have a strong view on most things except maybe when it comes to my own information of crohn's disease but I still am very calm about things. I look forward to working with you and everyone else. I have lots to learn! :) --Crohnie 12:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)PS: is there a spell check? :)

Thanks, now I see how to get the little green box! :) --Crohnie 22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Clayton

Hi Fyslee, just to clarify, I am very neutral in this issue. But we must observe utmost adherence to WP's strict sourcing rules and NOR policy, and specifically 'no synthesis' when it comes to contentious issues. Direct quotes and summary of neutral verifiable sources would be best. Thanks for understanding. Crum375 20:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't my synthesis, but only very slightly adapted wording and links from the article where Clayton's status is listed. -- Fyslee's (First law) 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
When following the source provided I did not see them specifically saying what WP was saying. In contentious cases, we need to either quote verbatim, or to summarize faithfully and accurately, and present in a neutral tone the existing reliable sources. The PDF you provided only uses 'bogus' and other claims generically - to use it here would be 'synthesis' (of the "putting 2 and 2 together in contentious cases" type). Thanks, Crum375 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You claim to be "neutral", but I'm going to let your actions determine that question, and I want you to take a hard look at your latest edit through my eyes. It wasn't just an edit, but a mass revert, including some real improvements to the article, it's formats, necessary and legitimate categories, etc.. Not only that, the edit summary is misleading. Place yourself in my shoes and look at your own edit (mass revert) and your edit summary. Should I exercise good faith towards you in this situation? I would like to do so (especially since your argumentation here is proper), but would you blame me if I were suspicious after watching your actions? Please be more careful. We both know that the included information was correct. Clayton is considered a diploma mill and its graduates are automatically double checked for other dubious behaviors. Instead of deleting and essentially tearing down Wikipedia (we're trying to build it up), I suggest you help to find the sources (I am in the process of making refs of several) and building up, instead of tearing down. Exercise a bit of good faith towards the hard work of other editors. I'm going to add some good references and restore some of what you have deleted. That will help me to determine if you are really "neutral." -- Fyslee's (First law) 21:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I actually came here to let you know your latest version was much better, and found myself under attack ;^). Hopefully you can recognize that all I want is a well sourced neutrally presented encycolpedia, not an expose piece or conversely a promo. So the trick is to identify when contentious issues are involved (as is obviously the case here), and then tread carefully. I reverted for one thing because you removed the cite templates, but also because I could find no specific mention of 'bogus' in relation to this institution, and no specific mention of the institution at all. In your latest version we have the institution named, which removes the OR burden from us. Thanks for your effort on this. Hopefully I still have your trust? ;^) Crum375 21:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
No problemo. I understand the situation well. I'm a bit gun shy, since I often edit opposite editors who have vested interests in deleting anything negative, even when well sourced, but who don't hesitate to use self-serving and poor references when it benefits their cause. Actually it's quite natural, and anyone can fall into that trap if they aren't very careful. The wikilink was wrong, and is now corrected. (I had looked at two and unwittingly chose the wrong one the first time.) Clayton is just one of many such institutions listed here at Wikipedia. So my bad wikilink was part of what caused you confusion. My bad! Sorry about that. -- Fyslee's (First law) 22:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem - understood. Thanks, Crum375 23:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Signpost

Unfortunately, it is neither possible nor usual to require the subjects of a story to consent to its publication in most cases. In the first place, my reports are usually based only on matters of public record (that is, descriptions of the parties' statements). In the second, the byline (and the history tab of the page) makes it quite clear that my reports, while subject to editorial control from Ral315, it principally represents my view, not an official opinion of the Signpost. And in the third, if people request corrections, I am usually happy to include them, unless they cause a bias, in which case I can in nearly all cases find a compromise. David Mestel(Talk) 21:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just rather surprised and taken aback when I discovered we had been mentioned in the Signpost. Maybe I should start reading it! When dealing with serious accusations and/or potentially libelous matters, it's important to be extra careful. I found myself in the situation of seeing false accusations against me being aired in a very public place. Not a very pleasant experience. -- Fyslee's (First law) 22:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

First Law

I made a comment to you earlier about your First Law; I thought it was on your talk page but it might have been somewhere else. I said basically that I thought your First Law was cool, but that in the explanation of it it sounds as if you thing NPOV is about balancing the opposing views of Wikipedian editors. Actually, NPOV is about balancing the opposing views of the reliable sources. I made the same mistake earlier in my Wikipedian life.

From a very recent minor edit of yours re Health Freedom, plus your first law: I wonder whether you're intereted in various aspects of Freedom. I like that. --Coppertwig 02:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you very much for you help and patience with me!

I responded to your post on my talk page. I just wanted to say thank you directly to you. --Crohnie 18:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I just want to make sure you knew I saw that you fixed my mistakes and that I really appreciate it. I responded to you on my talk page. Thanks so much, --Crohnie 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been my pleasure

Fyslee, thanks for the memories. I do hope you find what you are looking for. From the bottom of my heart I wish all the best for you and your family. I still think you would make a really great chiropractor;) You do have a heart of gold. You have much more to offer than Barrett. I don't want you to go through life and end up an angry old man. There is a little good in everything, sometimes you just have to look a little harder for it. And as far as I know, they still have not proven there is no God, so keep your faith. Sometimes it is all you have to hold on to. Love Ya! -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OMG! What are you doing? I see that you've blanked your user spaces. Please, please, don't guit this project. If anyone deserves to be here it's you. Don't leave here because of what's happening to me. I'm not worth it. Wikipedia may not be worth it either, at least it doesn't deserve you. You're too good for this often poisonous atmosphere. You understand NPOV more than any editor I've encountered, and that includes a number of admins. Lots of anti-quackery people probably hate me for it, but our collaboration has ended up allowing you to expand the chiropractic article in ways that were unimaginable before you came here. Wikipedia needs people like you. I may disappear, simply for personal security reasons that have been acutely exacerbated by all this, but you don't need to do that as far as I know. I'll let you know where I end up. I wonder if all RFARBs have such high personal price tags attached to them for so many people? Please reconsider!!! Contact me. Fortunately emails don't get messed up by tears, like paper does. This is all so f..king far out and unjust! Your friend, Paul. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 11:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see such attacks going on, it's making me so hesitant to edit an article or even write on a talk page. On my talk page this arbitration was brought up and I thought I could learn a lot from it. Well following it has been very disturbing with all the editors taking sides, pro and con, and all the attacks and allegations. Both of you have been helpful, along with others and/or understanding of my slow learning and I would really hate to see either of you leave. Dematt, I hope you change your mind about leaving. You seem to be very fair and knowledgable about a lot of things esp. rules of WP. I hope you see this. I'll be back, maybe tomorrow, I have a lot of meds in me for a flare or a stomach bug, can't tell. I really don't understand how this arb is being done, a lot of it seems to be way off topic and against the Wiki rules as I understand them. I am neutral, at least I think I am, so if I can post to this arb, please let me know, and I might. I got so paranoid that I was using my son's computer and posted this on my talk page so hopefully no one will accuse me of multiple accounts or sock puppetry or whatever. Well good night all. --Crohnie 03:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Request..guiding principles

Very good. Basically you're addressing the same issues that I was trying to with my "environment" request, but you way more easily avoids accusations. (The downside though is that I do think some action should be taken to improve the editing environments.)

"Wikipedia does allow assumptions of bad faith, and therefore does not participate in or allow editorial"

You meant "Wikipedia does not..." --Ronz 16:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Healthzealot

Hi Fyslee, check user doesn't indicate that Healthzealot is Ilena, so I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.

I removed some material from a subpage of yours today for BLP reasons. It would be a good idea if you were to stop posting about individuals you're in conflict with in real life, and also to stop editing articles about issues you have direct involvement in. This whole pro- and anti-Quackwatch thing has gone too far. As a project, we can't support or oppose any of these groups or individuals. We're only here to write about things that reliable sources have written about, and there shouldn't be any campaigning or real-life fights spilling over into the encyclopedia. Ilena's already been blocked because of it, and so it's particularly important that others don't continue it, otherwise her block will be very unfair if it stands alone. I hope you can understand that.

I'm really sorry to write in these terms. Your contributions in areas you're knowledgeable in are of course very welcome, and I definitely don't mean to imply otherwise. Finally, thank you for removing the IP addresses from the sockpuppet category. That was a very welcome good-faith gesture. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Answered by email. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 07:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

welcoming anons template

Hi. May I ask you to at least substitute the template using {{subst:Welcome-anon-Jimbo}} if you are going to mass greet anons [30]? There is no need to create new mass dependencies on this template and there is no need to update/purge the cache of hundreds (thousands, if this edit pattern is continued) of talk pages of anons when the template changes. So, if you really *really* feel urged to spend your wiki time mass greeting anons, at least please subst all templates. Thank you. --Ligulem 10:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I did archive by myself

I think I did it this time the way you taught me to. But would appreciate you checking me to make sure. Thanks, --Crohnie 13:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I started to polish it up, but discovered that you have copied directly from the page, without getting the codes.
  1. Go to the talk page edit history.
  2. Go back to the version as it was before you deleted the stuff you moved.
  3. Then edit that version.
  4. Clip what you want to move and save the page.
  5. Then take that to the archive.
  6. Edit the archive and place that in.
  7. Then delete your previous addition of uncoded text and save the archive page.
Don't worry if you screw it up. Nothing is really lost. It can always be fixed. Just ask. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 13:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make repairs myself. I blew it, and my son is trying to help, but even though he is great with the computer, his total lack of experience with wiki prevents him from really helping. He says he is going to try to figure it out by starting a new page and learning on his own, but until then, can you help me, please?--Crohnie 20:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Skepticism

  • I copied and pasted from a different project. If you check back in 24 hours I think you will see that a watchlist of sorts will have already been created automatically, I think. But thanks for the suggestions. Smee 17:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, I tried real hard but....

I had to leave in the middle of following your last suggestion and then got myself confused and couldn't find what it was I was doing. Thank you so much for helping me, yet again! --Crohnie 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Da nada. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Da nada=no problem? Sorry only English speaking with me and not that well. I have a very big favor to ask of you, would you be my mentor? I didn't see you on the list of mentors but you are always there to help me when I ask and boy do I need help.  :) I know you are busy with the arbitration and you can say no without hurting my feelings. I just find you very knowledgable about wiki and very helpful to me with my learning problems. I hope you will say yes but I don't want to pressure you. My son is going to try to learn how to edit here too, so that will help me a lot if and when he does. By the way, he wrote the last note to you about me not being able to fix my problem and him not knowing enough about this site to help me. He's a great son who takes good care of me. Anyways, if you are willing, please post to my talk page, well even if you can't still post there if you would. No matter what happens with the arb going on, I feel you have been great to me and I've seen you posting to articles and discussing things like an adult should. Thanks, --Crohnie 23:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded back to you on my talk page.--Crohnie 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

Volume 4, Issue 23 — 2008-06-02


My RfArb discussion

Thank you for your criticisms. I know this is exhausting, frustrating and upsetting. I am sure my criticisms can be uncomfortable - an iconoclast is a natural critic, and not necessarily a very well written one at that, especially under time pressure. So I apologize for my own poor writing and any errors that do creep in, in the wee hours. I am not Mr Sensitivity and please bear in mind that I might actually be trying tone my criticism level down, always. If someone has a house or car that needs repainting, I assure you I can blister the old coat right off, naturally - it is the nature of the beast. As for my dual citizenship, it was primarily to reduce the attrition rate on trolls & stalkers, and, more important to me, my workload.

As for the COI charges, they are serious. I have been filing administrative reports of my progress, and it is doubly difficult w/o feedback. You should know by now that when I take a subject on, I plan to resolve it. If you have questions, criticism or concerns I will try to answer them, here or there. I do not accept *any* challenge to my AGF. For your own benefit, your might want to edit your response.--I'clast 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Note about the external links in vertigo article / contact information

At first, sorry for my bad English. Dear Fyslee, thank you very much for your note about the links in the vertigo article. But the site www.whiplash-connection neither will be a wiki, nor a forum or a blog. Not one article in this website is from other writer than me. Sure there is a link to a forum at another host for the victims that often die after head-neck-joint instabilities with atlas moving and suppressing the basilar artery before getting help. That is a real tragedy, I collected over hundred patient talkings about their long way before getting help. But in research at universities - at least in Germany - no talking about upper neck joints instability is taught - mainly because of the good work of insurance companies. So I please you very very much to let the links stand so long until any other being provides similar work. I searched the internet but in Medline publications only a dozen of citations exist about alar ligament damage. I created the site, because I suffered from a life threatening instability and I got several brain stem ischaemiae - medical doctors wondered why my state permanently worsened and I got comatose, but on the other hand they didn't believe me, when I said, there is supression of the basilar artery after relaxation. They didn't accepted my talking about my cervical spine as the reason for that. Only very few do such a posterior fixation - I know of three surgeons in the whole world that do such surgery. One in Suisse, one in Japan and one in Germany. Thank you and very kind regards. Harald Kiessecker (harry.kiessecker @ gmx.de) And dear Fyslee thank you that you did not remove the links. It is hard for me to do promotion for that disease at all - I am still not feeling very well. And it is very exhausting for me to read or write in English. I was biologist before my accident and I do not want to confuse victims and medical professionals but help a little. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hkiessecker (talk • contribs) 08:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

I see, you told me the external link note in other articles to. Please do not remove, because it is no wiki. My admin used a wiki system, because I can better create articles, but all articles are protected and I delete all articles. The website shall not be a wiki. Before you delete the links, the version before has links to a non-media-wiki system (www.hnjdonline.de) this was my previous site - but I often had difficulties to work with - so decision fell to media-wiki (not as a wiki but only for better working for me and my impairment). So I please you to better revert the links then to old version (hnjdonline.de) rather than delete them. hnjdonline.de has not a media-wiki as content management.
What I want to do is publicating scientific information and results of research of two neurosurgeons - one of whom fixed the life of over 400 atlanto-occipital-dislocation instabilities - no other could do. But the two surgeons are practitians only and so I do the work. At moment a work about two hundred patients is in progress with biography, accident, years of life threatening, surgery, and summary. This will published there soon.
Thank you very much —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hkiessecker (talk • contribs) 08:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
I presume that you are referring to my message to you regarding these two reversions I made:
I am not questioning your sincerity, the accuracy of the information, it's usefulness as a help to patients, or anything of that nature. I am referring to the rules here at Wikipedia. We have certain standards for what is considered appropriate as sources, and your additions violate several policies and guideliines here:
  1. WP:RS, especially this part.
  2. WP:EL, especially this section. Look at numbers 11 and 12.
  3. WP:VANITY, because it is your website, and you added the links. Others may do so, if they are allowable according to the two policies listed, but I don't see how they are. I have made the same mistake in my new days here ("newbie" days), but have since learned that Wikipedia does not allow site owners to post links to their own sites, even if the sites are top quality. They are not my rules and I have nothing against you or your site. By all means continue to develop your site. I'm sure it can help alot of people, even if it isn't listed here at Wikipedia.
BTW, I happen to be a physiotherapist, so I understand the problem of whiplash very well, having treated hundreds of people with this condition.
Just to be certain that there is no misunderstanding here, I will contact an administrator who can explain this to both of us. If I am in error, then you will have my apologies and the links will be restored. Until then I suggest you wait. Wikipedia will also be here tomorrow....;-)
BTW (again), remember to sign your messages. Just use four tildes like these ~~~~ . -- Fyslee (collaborate) 09:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The site isn't totally locked, as I just made a couple edits here. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 09:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I concur with Fyslee, except for WP:EL #12. That it can be edited by others seems accidental, and hence incidental, and probably quickly reverted. My apologies if you (Hkiessecker) are a noted professional (an exception which might make your web site allowable), but I never heard of you. You may list your site on your user page; then, if people are intrigued by your edits and become curious who you are, you can refer them to the site.
  • To Fyslee: Thanks for the invitation. Please tag your diffs here toward evidence that you have accepted Wikipedia rules when you appeal the ArbCom ruling.
  • To Hkiessecker: Welcome to Wikipedia. One of the tenants I frequently need to refer to is that "Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability." If you have references to articles in medical journals or other reliable sources on your site, you may add those to relevant articles. You may very well have some references which no other editor is aware of.
— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A question about newbies template

I have noticed a template on the user pages of newbies that has a lot of helpful links to help learn the editing policies here on Wilipedia. Do you know how I could get one on my user page to make it easier to work the sandbox having this information more localized for me? Thanks, --Crohnie 15:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You can just look at various newbie talk pages and find one you like. Then use the edit mode and copy it, but don't save the edit. Take the copy to your page and place it there. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 15:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! --Crohnie 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Health Freedom Movement article

Hello Fyslee

I've made a start on expanding the pharmaxceutical industry sub-topic in the health freedom movement article. See the relevant talk page for the background to why this was deemed to be necessary. However, I've encountered some technical problems along the way, which appear to involve the "Campaigners, organizations, and newsfeeds" section. Can you assist in resolving these? Essentially, the problem seems to be related to the fact that whoever created the "Campaigners, organizations, and newsfeeds" section did not actually create a new section and list it in the Contents section. As a result, the content of the "Campaigners, organizations, and newsfeeds" section now begins at the foot of the article - after the references - and continues in "The influence of the pharmaceutical industry on health freedom" section, beginning with the words "It has an extensive campaign editorial in each issue of its monthly member magazine." Any help that you can bring to resolving this problem would therefore be much appreciated. --Vitaminman 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it and see if I can fix it without dealing with the content. It looks like the codes or refs have been disturbed in some manner. I can also see that the external links section is gone, and that is probably a good idea, since it was a link farm for links of very different quality (or lack of same). -- Fyslee (collaborate) 20:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I tried something, but it looks more complicated. When all else fails, revert and try again. I'd suggest opening two (or maybe three) windows, with the edit history in one of them. That way you can recontruct the situation, see where it went wrong, see what good edits need to be included, etc.. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 21:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on an unblock request

Hello. A user who has been blocked for allegedly revealing personal information about you is requesting to be unblocked. Your comment on User_talk:TheDoctorIsIn#Warning about whether or not to grant the request would be appreciated. Sandstein 20:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Invisible; Mann

Hola! Thanks for updating Mann at acupuncture and acupuncture point. You may want to have a look at acupressure, cf. this edit. I'm not altogether sure Mann's statement is adequate to the sentence it's cited for, but I'm also not sure whether that sentence can be falsified with a good scientific source. Cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 06:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to improve it a bit. Felix Mann must be considered a real heretic in acupuncture circles. The included falsifiable statement should not be significantly altered or deleted unless it can be countered with a well-referenced statement that proves it to be false. It can be very easily disproved (and therefore removed) by the simple production of verifiable and reliable scientific sources in the body of the article which prove it to be wrong. Such evidence should be discussed on the talk page before deletion of the sentence. I'm not sure it's a simple matter to produce such sources...... one can always hope! -- Fyslee (collaborate) 14:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

Volume 4, Issue 23 — 2008-06-02


Mentor

I just want to thank you again for being my mentor, sort of, since my first day here. I now have a very nice and patient mentor helping me out. You were great to me and I want to let you know how much this means. I hope we can still stay in touch though. Thank you again for all your help. --Crohnie 10:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you have found someone. You are still welcome to keep in touch. Good luck. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! You too keep in touch ok? I actually got brave enough to work on the Crohn's Disease article and am trying to help in another. Talk about being bold!  :) --Crohnie 13:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Go for it! Be bold with things that obviously need fixing (spelling, grammar, and such like), be cautious about making large changes (rarely a good idea), and be extremely cautious on controversial subjects. Use the talk pages, win the confidence of other editors, use good sources, etc.. You'll gain more experience and learn to avoid pitfalls, but you'll have to encounter difficulties to learn that! Don't take adversity too personally, since Wikipedia will be here tomorrow, and sometimes really obstinate and abusive editors move on or get blocked. Choose your battles with care. It's not always worth it. If you really get in such a situation and meet strong resistance, discuss it, get better sources, get other editors to take a look at the situation and pitch in. You may find that they will modify what you're trying to do, and that's just fine. None of us is totally objective. We naturally think we're right, but we need to learn. This is a great learning place. Above all, place the project's goals above your own POV, without compromising your POV and identity. It's fine to have one, but it will rarely match Wikipedia's goals totally. Being NPOV in the real world is not a good thing, but editing in an NPOV manner is essential here, so go for it! -- Fyslee (collaborate) 13:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the great advice. I have been using the talk page on Crohn's Disease. So far someone was kind enough to correct a spelling tpyo for me. I am taking it slowly though. --Crohnie 14:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Danish article

Fyslee, I noticed your name in the Danish Wikipedians category. If you have time, could you tell me please what this says?

Sådan et tog bør vi også investere i i Danmark, mener den politiske forening, Schiller Instituttet, der har afdelinger i hele verden, også i Danmark. Den danske formand, Tom Gillesberg, siger: Vi mener, at man seriøst bør overveje et magnettog fra Århus til København. Det er ganske vist en meget stor investering i infrastruktur, men vil til gengæld give os et trafikalt kvantespring ind i fremtiden.

It's from this article. If you don't have time, however, no worries. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's a rough translation:
We should invest in such a train here in Denmark, says the political group, the Schiller Institute, that has departments in all the world, and also in Denmark. The Danish president, Tom Gillesberg, says:
We think that a magnetic train from Aarhus to Copenhagen should be given serious consideration. It is indeed a large investment in the infrastructure, but in exchange it will give our traffic situation a quantum leap into the future.
I hope that gives you a good idea of the subject matter. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 21:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Fyslee, that is very, very helpful. In general, would you say that the article supports this edit, namely that the proposal for a national Maglev train system is a Schiller Institute proposal, and that it's to be linked to the Eurasian Land-Bridge? The reason I'm being careful is that the Schiller Institute is part of the LaRouche movement, which is basically a cult. One of their characteristics is to claim credit for things they were barely, or not at all, involved in, so I want to be sure that this article clearly says what the edit is claiming it says. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't say anything about the Schiller Institute, but the article about their proposal (which came after someone else suggested building a bridge) has nothing to do with the Eurasian Land-Bridge, and only mentions shortening the transit time between the two largest cities. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 21:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. Just one last question, then I'll stop annoying you: does the Danish article say explicitly that the Maglev train is a "Schiller Institute proposal"? Or does it simply quote the Schiller Institute president saying it's a good idea? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to indicate that it was their proposal. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 06:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Fyslee, much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions by Homeopathic

I've copied this from User:LeeHunter's talk page, [31] since he has apparently given up:

Lee, it's sad to see sensible editors leaving WP... Hope you'll see this message and have the time to answer a couple questions: 1. How does someone become an editor at WP ? 2. Do WP editors get paid by WP, and if yes, how much ?Homeopathic 03:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Answers to your questions:

1. Homeopathic, you are already an editor. Anyone who makes any change to an article is an editor. Registered users usually edit under a pseudonymous user name, although some use their real names. Even unregistered users who only edit from an IP number are editors. According to Jimbo Wales they have fewer rights here.

2. Editors are not paid. If someone is paying them (for example a politician, organization, company, etc.) they are guilty of having a financial WP:COI and risk getting blocked if their editing is out of line.

3. You haven't asked about this, but using more than one user name is frowned upon, except for special circumstances. That's called sock puppetry. Edit using only one user name, and always remember to log in. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 08:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're telling me that Adam Cuerden has the same editing rights like I do and like everyone else ? (besides Rogue Admins) ?
Maybe should i be asking about how does someone becomes and Administrator on WP ?Homeopathic 14:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he has the same editing rights, and you have no more rights than he has. He has more experience, and it's usually a good idea to listen to more experienced editors. Wikipedia has its own rules, which are different than elsewhere and you cannot change that. There are many pitfalls here and it's a good idea to not edit very much without learning the written and unwritten rules. Sometimes it's best to just correct spelling errors at first....;-)
Avoid controversy with other editors. Be honest and upfront about yourself and your intentions. Remember that all articles must tell all significant sides of the issues (including the unpleasant ones), which means that having a biographical article here can quickly turn into a nightmare for the subject of the article. The subject of the article cannot get the article deleted, and will have to put up with any controversies and disagreements becoming a part of the article. That is what's known as the "unintended consequences" of having a biographical article here. Many people regret ever having heard of Wikipedia!
Becoming an administrator isn't easy. It takes a lot of experience, a nearly flawless record (no misbehavior or major conflicts), a good understanding of all the policies and guidelines, a good track record in following and abiding by them, and then a voting procedure where other editors (as well as administrators) vote for or against the person seeking to become an administrator. If one has too many enemies or too many conflicts, it's not worth trying. It also takes a good grasp of the written English language, so your Greek background may be against you.
BTW, Greece is one of our favorite vacation lands. We have been there four times and have visited Corfu, Athens, Delfi, Crete, Thessalonica, Meteora, Halkidiki, and Cos. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 16:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, it was very helpful. Maybe next time you can visit Alonnisos too, is a nice place, perfect for couples and families. And you'll have the chance to meet Vithoulkas in person, during the summer seminars, along with the rest of us :)Homeopathic 22:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome, Fyslee! 12.208.150.136 19:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions for Homeopathic

I'm wondering about this VES thing you mention here. Please describe it for me. What does it do? -- Fyslee (collaborate) 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've described it here. If you are interested in more details, i'll further explain it. And you can always find more information about it on Vithoulkas' website or on Archibel.Homeopathic 21:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Now I've looked at it. What is a possible method for falsifying the choice of a proposed remedy (as proposed by this system)? Can one use it in a double-blinded fashion and then subject any two different remedies it proposes to chemical analysis and discover any differences between the two? -- Fyslee (collaborate) 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, i'll try to explain but please keep an open mind: Homeopathic remedies are prepared from substances by ultradilutions and succussions. After 12CH (homeopathic "potency"), the dilution involved is greater than Avogadro's number and theoretically (and practically), there are no molecules of the raw substance within the diluted solution. This is where most people and "scientists" object to, they say homeopathy is a quack and effects are based on placebo (but this is not the case, because it has evident effects on animals and infants). Anyway, considering the above, there is no point in performing a chemical analysis, because nothing but water can be found chemically. However, it has scientifically been measured that during the proccess of dynamization (diluting and succussing), the physical properties of the solution change. Anyway, Homeopathic remedies do work, but i explained the above, just to show that any chemical analysis has no meaning (that would work only on low potencies, lower than 12CH, were there are molecules of the originating substance, but still... it's not because of them that the remedy has biological effects). The mechanism is unknown yet, there are theories, but the remedies can be used effectively and safely to cure diseases (in an amazing way, if i may add so).
Regarding the "double-blinded fashion" part. In general, that can not be applied to homeopathy, atleast not in the standard way it is being used and meant today. The reason is simple: in Homeopathy, prescription is based on the individual characteristics & symptoms of a patient. That means that every patient needs his own remedy. For example if you have 10 patients with headaches, you may need 10 different homeopathic remedies, one for each of them. In homeopathy, prescription is not based on the 'diagnosis' alone, but on the various characteristics of the patient. Homeopathy does not have "this remedy" for "that disease", it doesnt work that way. So any trial that uses homeopathic remedies in a double-blind approach (as it is known today), it is doubtfull that will reveal any important effects. On the other hand, individualized prescription of homeopathic remedies has most excellent results.
The VES is actually just a set of rules, used by Vithoulkas (who is being considered an Expert in the Homeopathic community). This is the actual proccess: during the homeopathic interview, the doctor records the symptoms of the patient, and gives an "importance" grade (from 1 to 4). VES then tries to find the best matching remedy according to the symptoms THE DOCTOR recorded, and always taking into account their importance, AS THE DOCTOR DECIDED (based on a general set of homeopathic rules). This means that the same set of symptoms, with a different "importance" degree, will lead to a different remedy. So VES does the best it can, according to what the Doctor has entered, ie the general rule Garbage_in,_garbage_out applies here too.
Wanted to add that VES actually does its best to ignore the "garbage" entered by the doctor, and does so in an excellent way. Having said that, it can not perform miracles, and if the "garbage" is more than the "reliable" information, then GIGO will win. VES is the best and most advanced regarding this issue, "ignoring" garbage, compared to any other homeopathic system.Homeopathic 04:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
There are other systems/programs that do suggest remedies, but nothing is as complex, and as effective like the VES. For example RADAR itself (VES is part of that), can suggest remedies, in what is called a flat-repertorization (applying a simple set of rules, not VES). In that sense, comparing the suggested remedy of flat-repertorisation in contrast to that of VES, an expert or good Homeopath, will nearly in all cases find the remedy suggested by the VES, much better (regarding homeopathic pharmacology - materia medica), and the possibility of being the individualized remedy the patient needs at the time.
Homeopathic prescribing is basically matching the symptoms of the patient with the known materia medica (pharmacology, known recorded symptoms) of a homeopathic remedy. Any possible method for falsifying the suggested remedy (if i understand the term correctly) would have to be based on knowledge of materia medica, and a different set of rules. There are other programs that suggest remedies, but i know first-hand the VES is very, very advanced and complex, and my personal view on the subject is that at this time: (a) nothing comes close to it, when analyzing difficult cases (in simple cases or very well recorded cases, most programs do OK) and (b) does the best job in "ignoring" garbage symptoms entered by the doctor.Homeopathic 04:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Homeopathic theory is complex, and there are too many parameters to be considered. Prescribing homeopathic remedies is nothing like prescribing conventional chemical drugs. Hope i've managed to explain a couple things.Homeopathic 04:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain your understanding of the matter. That's what I was primarily interested in knowing. I of course know the basic rudiments of homeopathy, its relation to Avogadros number, and the belief in the "memory of water." I also know that homeopathy can't be falsified, which automatically places homeopathy outside the realm of science and into the realm of metaphysics, pseudoscience, and quackery. But I'm sure you have already heard that. Anything that claims to be scientific, but keeps moving the goal posts so it can't be proven or disproven, loses credibility with scientists, since science deals with measurable phenomena, and leaves beliefs alone, since they belong to other realms of thought. That's where your interest in psychology, psychiatry, and philosophy will come in handy. The scientific method approaches every issue with an open mind, and scientists know that if they let go of reason and verifiable facts at any point in their investigations, an "open mind" becomes an unreliable thing. The rules of logic must never be violated. The acceptance of a single logical fallacy renders any results untrustworthy. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 08:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What is logic, and what's its function ? Logic provides answers based on the data provided, and does so in a very good way. However ,if you insert more data/parameters, the result can change. Up to now we were used to think in chemical ways (as far as biological effects from drugs are concerned), and Homeopathy proves by its results that this is not the only way to affect the human body. It's the same thing like when Galileo said the earth was round (contrary to the beliefs and "known" science of that era). Same with Einstein who when first talked about quanta and the theory or relativity, was ridiculed by a large part of the scientific community. Same thing will happen with Homeopathy, same thing happened with Accupuncture before it was accepted by conventional medicine. So logic provides possible answers based on the current data. To think that at a certain time, we have ALL the data, is not logical thing to say. Logic is a tool, and has to be properly used, otherwise instead of helping the human being, it becomes his tomb-stone.
About the mechanism of action of the Homeopathic remedies, that is not known yet. There are some theories, like the water-memory you mentioned, but for the time being it is not proven. The only thing that HAS been proven, is that Homeopathic solutions, beyond Avogadros' number have different physical properties (ion conduction, electromagnetic properties, etc) from pure water. Although we do not know how they act, we know what they can do, and how they can be safely used to REALLY cure diseases (and not simply cover-up the symptomatology like the chemical drugs do). It' the same thing with electricity, its power could be harnessed before the actual explanation of the electron movement was brought forward.
After all these years that i'm into Homeopathy, i've learned my lessons, and i never try to persuade anyone about its effectiveness, or not being placebo, etc. These are my last comments on the subject, hoping only that you would allow yourself to benefit from Homeopathy too (Classical Homeopathy).Homeopathic 05:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Homeopathy has results, observable ones. It has absolutely nothing to do with "beliefs". You can see patients with acutes to improve in much less time (when compared to the antibiotic treatment). It's only a matter of accepting to do the trials in the first place, under the proper conditions. Homeopathic 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Technially, you could double-blind homeopathy: Let the practitioner suggest whatever he wants, have a dispensary well-stocked with homeopathic sugar pills and plain sugar pills, double-blinded as to which is being dispensed. Randomly assign each patient to either get what he was prescribed or the placebo (either have them prepared in a different building, or set up the pharmacy with a lot of placebos next to the "real" drugs). It's not hard, though I doubt m e it'd find much of interest. Adam Cuerden talk 13:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
You are absolutely right in your last comment. That is exactly what the Homeopathic community tries to do. But it is very hard to persuade colleagues to do such trials in hospitals.Homeopathic 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much

Thank you for the improved formatting for my Robert Weltsch article. This was my first wikipedia contribution. I will follow your lead in formatting future contributions. Boodleheimer 14:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Well, it looks as if the ruling will that you've done wrong (although I can't figure out exactly what it is you've done wrong), but there will be no sanctions against you. You still need to be careful, I would advise against adding quackwatch links to articles, even if they are appropriate, unless they were removed by a POV warrior, and I would remind you of WP:CIVIL. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Good points. Since I have rarely actually "added" any Quackwatch links, that won't be a problem. The anti-QW POV warriors will just have to deal with other editors who defend them, since my reverting their improper deletions has been interpreted as "adding"! I'll have to be more careful. This is all a maturing process. There are monsters and pitfalls around here, and they aren't always accompanied by ex post facto warning signs or mentioned in existing policies and guidelines, so one can be at risk without knowing it. I am always open for warning tips and good advice. Just send me a mail. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 19:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal 2

The above-entitled arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published at the above link. Ilena (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year and is banned from editing articles and talk pages related to alternative medicine, except talk pages related to breat implants. Fyslee (talk · contribs) is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a neutral point of view. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, I would say that this is an equitable solution, and I would advise you to take to heart the caution in respect of neutrality and sourcing. I'm pleased that the final version recognises the distinction between your contribution and Ilena's, although I don't consider Ilena to have been evil, just impatient, hotheaded and too slow to learn our ways (you had an advantage there, which I believe you capitalised on to a certain extent; hopefully you will be somewhat kinder if this happens again). Overall, a fair and reasonable outcome. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Fyslee, I think it's time to Zin. For the rest: what Guy said. And to Guy: Ilena has tigers too you know. AvB ÷ talk 15:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am sure of it. I think if we (all of us, including Fyslee) had been a bit more patient we might have resolved her editing problems. Like I say, she's not evil, I think, just failed to learn before the plug was pulled. OK, it's not like we forced her at gunpoint, but I don't think we were exactly trying to persuade her to stay either. Of course, my tolerance for pushers of medical conspiracy theories is not high, so naturally I was part of the "no loss" camp. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

Volume 4, Issue 23 — 2008-06-02


You deserve this

The Purple Barnstar
For pushing through trials and tribulations to become a better editor Shot info 00:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much! This will be worn as a memento for the injuries of my RfArb battle. I'll put it on my user page now. Fyslee/talk 11:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Fl

Why do you have a template in the template namespace for signing your name? It's a totally inappropriate use and you could achieve the same effect by setting a raw signature code in your preferences, or if it's intended to be an alternate signature, by moving it to User:Fyslee/Fl and then invoking {{User:Fyslee/Fl}} instead of {{Fl}}. I'd rather you took care of this yourself, but if need be, I will take the template to TFD. Personal templates do not belong in the template namespace at all. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I had forgotten all about that. It's gone. Thanks. Fyslee

This is not an encyclopedia article??

What happened? I mean, I found the diff where it happened, but how? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   09:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it might have been in the cache from an immediately previous paste, and it got used somehow. At least it's fixed now. Fyslee/talk 09:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fan Club

Just found this while googling, [[32]] Shot info 01:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but...

Hi Fyslee. Thank you for the invitation to be a registered user. The problem is that I am already a registered user, and have been for a few years now; I just can't login to my account due to a login problem.

I have looked at the help pages for login problems here on Wikipedia, but my problem doesn't fit their descriptions. Or rather, it does, but the fixes they mention do not fix my problem. If you are willing to help me figure out my problem, I would LOVE to be able to login again.

Here is my problem: Since around December 2006, I have repeatedly gone through this process: I click on the "sign in" link. I enter my username and password. WP says I have successfully logged in, and my username, etc., appear in the upper right. But when I go to any other page, I am automatically logged out again. I have checked, and I am receiving cookies from EN WP, among others. I don't know the solution to my problem. It may be a firewall problem or an ISP problem, but I have no idea how to fix it. It seems to have started about the time the school where I work switched ISPs, but I don't know if that is in any way related. Oh, and my supposed IP(s) do not show my location: they say I'm in Germantown, MD, while I'm actually in Mexico. The IP that WP thinks I have is not the IP that my computer says I have, and it also tends to change very frequently on WP (probably related to the fact that I access internet at a school. Any help or suggestions would be welcome. Congrats for surviving ArbCom with only minor abrasions. Feel free to respond here or on my user talk page (though I might not get back to you immediately, since I won't get the "New messages" box). Happy editing! --Cromwellt|talk 23:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you've thought of the possible problems I would have checked, so I don't know what's wrong. Have you tried creating a totally new user name? Fyslee/talk 06:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories and Userboxes

You wanted to talk to me?—David618 t 22:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Explanation

a) the block was not as an April Fool's joke; I concede that saying "April Fool's" was a bad idea.

b) I also concede that I should have warned you first.

c) Template:Welcome-anon-Jimbo is unacceptable and falls within "biting the newcomers" and possibly even "trolling". That's why you were blocked. DS 23:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you should have warned me. No one has questioned it before, and I have used that template for some time. What's wrong with it? Don't you agree with Jimbo? I use Jimbo's statement to encourage new users to get an account. We can talk about it. No need for a block, especially of a week! I have a talk page like anyone else, and I'm always open to reason. I can assure you I was acting as a welcoming committee member and trying to help new users. I acted in very good faith at all times. -- Fyslee/talk 23:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee, are you honestly trying to say you don't understand what was wrong with that template? If so, no one can help you. You'll just have to think about it. If you do understand what was wrong with it, we can drop the issue here. Picaroon 23:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I am willing to learn. I quoted Jimbo. Did I word it improperly? I quoted him precisely and incorporated it into a standard template. I really would like to see this from your viewpoint. Please don't give up on me. I'm an experienced use here and really hadn't seen any possible problem with it. How was I to know that Jimbo's POV on the subject was wrong? Is it what was said, or the way it was said that's the problem? -- Fyslee/talk 23:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Ask yourself, did Jimbo really mean that? Look at the context, meaning the comment he was replying to. By posting that welcome template, you were taking a comment of his, typed in exasperation towards the anon who was getting on his nerves, out of context. If he really thought IPs were inferior users, would he not have eliminated anonymous editing a long time ago? Six years ago, maybe? Picaroon 00:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I guess I misunderstood him. What did he mean then? -- Fyslee/talk 00:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea. Picaroon 00:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Arthur Rubin's talk page:

I can. He was leaving blatantly inappropriate welcome messages. Just read special:undelete/Template:welcome-anon-Jimbo. Picaroon 23:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Why have I not been notified of this, or been a part of the discussions? I had no idea this was going on. -- Fyslee/talk 23:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what? What's the "this" you speak of? Picaroon 00:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It refers to the link [33] above, which is only viewable by admins. I had no idea anything was going on behind my back. Am I correct in guessing that a discussion of the template has occurred, and that's why it has just been deleted? -- Fyslee/talk 00:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the template under WP:CSD#T1. The special:undelete link is so Arthur Rubin could save himself a click in finding out what the content was (incidentally, he seems to agree with Dragonflysixtyseven and me about the content). Picaroon 00:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I am definitely not going to disagree with you guys. I just want to understand this better, so as to learn from it and avoid making such a mistake in the future. A warning to me would have been sufficient. A week long block was rather a shock to me! What kind of discussions and arguments have been used against the template? That might help me understand. I had no idea, and no discussions had involved myself. -- Fyslee/talk 00:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Dragonflysixtyseven thought that the template was inappropriate, and blocked you for it. I later deleted under CSD T1 because I thought its wording was likely to bite the newcomers and take Jimbo's words out of context. That's my objection to it, and I assume he was thinking along the same lines. Picaroon 00:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I used a standard template and included the following text:

If you want to have full rights here, get an account!
I notice you are known only as an IP address; that means you are not signed up. It is imperative for you to get an account as soon as possible, instead of using various anonymous IP numbers (which reveal where you are located).
Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has written that:
  • users with "anonymous IP numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits." -- Jimbo Wales

What about that is "biting" a newbie" - as described in the article, or "divisive and inflammatory"? I didn't use the template in response to any type of improper behavior, but to IPs with a red talk page link. I could thus see they hadn't been welcomed yet, so I placed the welcoming template there and hoped it would give them valuable information, including the advantages of having a user name (their location could not then be identified). I tried to word it in a neutral and helpful manner, but I see it has been interpreted by admins in a totally different way than intended. -- Fyslee/talk 00:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Jimbo's own words are being taken out of context and used to make anonymous editors feel inferior and pressured to log-in is what I think makes the template fall under WP:BITE. Picaroon 00:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I think I can see your POV, and from that viewpoint I most certainly agree! That just wasn't my intention and I really was acting in good faith. My motives were quite different, so the block came out of the blue quite unexpectedly. I never dreamed I could get punished (without warning at that!) for being warm and welcoming. I guess "a good deed never goes unpunished," as we say here in Denmark.....;-)
Now I really wonder why Jimbo said that. He certainly seems to indicate that it's better to be a logged-in user, than to be an anonymous IP, and the existing template (without his quote) does too. I guess it should be changed as well? -- Fyslee/talk 00:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)