User talk:Levine2112/archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Starting fresh

Winter is here. Time to archive. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning box

FYI, it's not very good form to leave boilerplate warning messages on seasoned users' talk pages. Your message to ScienceApologist struck me as very incendiary, whereas a personalized message emphasizing your thoughts on the subject would have been more readily received. I haven't spoken to SA about this, but I felt it was important to let you know my thoughts. I would encourage you to remove the warning box and replace it with a more personal message. Ante lan ^talk 00:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I placed one of TheDoctorIsIn's page as well. I will personalize the message more. Do you think given the warring that was going on, the issuance of a warning (in some form) was justified? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether justified or not, in my experience "warning" messages come off as officious, and are never productive. By placing the blame squarely on someone else, you ensure that they will react defensively. I use warnings sometimes, but it is usually only for vandalism. When possible, I find it works best to use language that emphasizes the joint nature of the conflict. Instead of saying, "You are edit warring," one might say, "How can we stop warring against one another," or something like that. It doesn't always work, but if you're willing to hear an answer, this approach usually at the very least prevents people from getting more angry. Ante lan ^talk 00:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of my current phrasing on each of their talk pages? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The beginning looks conciliatory; the end, less so. How about this: another thing that I find useful is to be specific. If there is one specific thing he did to make you upset, name that specific thing so he understands why exactly you are messaging him. That will let him respond to the issue that matters to you. On the other hand, if your message's purpose is to vent your frustration, he probably already knows that you're frustrated, and he probably feels the same about you. In such a case, no message is necessary unless you can find a workable suggestion towards resolving the conflict. Rarely, in a disagreement, does someone see their opponent as blameless. Ante lan ^talk 00:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't frustrated. I was merely trying the most civil route which I know to end their edit war. The specific thing which "upset" me was that they were edit warring. The article is in such a delicate state having just become unlocked. Looking back at the edit history, what grieves me most is that the edit warring began by Ronz the moment the article was unlocked. I wouldn't bother to warn him because any time I place even the most neutral message on his talk page, he writes it off as harassment and deletes it. Anyhow, if there is a way to phrase the personalized warning in such a way that it incorporates that it was specifically their edit warring which was upsetting and still doesn't become non-conciliatory, I am open to suggestions. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the way I see things, you are only warning the people with whom you disagree. Since you were also a participant in the "edit war," I don't see how you could achieve your goal of warning them about edit warring, since you would have to warn yourself, too, to seem sincere. It is easy to accuse others of warring, and much more difficult to recognize your own role in that warring. We all war on these articles, I think, but are loathe to admit it. Regarding leaving messages, the only approach that I could see working is to recognize that there is a problem, admit to them that you are part of the problem, and then try to find a resolution to the problem together. Short of that, I don't see any other personal message being particularly constructive. Thanks for letting me give you my thoughts. Ante lan ^talk 01:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, I encourage you to look closer at the situation. I was definitely not involved in the edit war in the slightest. If you disagree, please provide me with diffs. Second, I was not only warning the people with whom I disagree (unless you mean that I disagree with "edit warring" - then yes, I disagree with both ScienceApologist and DoctorIsIn for edit warring). They were on opposite sides and hence, an edit war. If I had to chose sides, content-wise I was/am on DoctorIsIn's side; regardless, edit warring applies across the board regardless of your POV on the actual content and that is why I issued equal warnings to both of them. Again, please look at the situation closer and respond back to me if you disagree with my assessment here. I do appreciate the advice about warning templates. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, when I wrote that last message I thought you had warned Ronz instead of TheDoctor. Regarding diffs, this is where you ask SA to abide by your view of the consensus, an act of explicitly taking sides (totally fine, but makes it implausible that he'll think you're trying to just be helpful when you warn him about edit warring). This is where you insert the line about Quackwatch not being peer-reviewed, a demonstration of your involvement in the edit war. My point is not that you are wrong and he is right, or that you have wronged him, or that he has wronged you. It is simply that when you are involved in an issue, the best private messages are conciliatory and future-looking; sometimes, it's best to leave none at all. Ante lan ^talk 01:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but I need you to be more clear. You are telling me that I was a participant in the edit war but the diff which you provided was from last month before the article was locked and our dis[ute resolution proceedings began. I just want to make sure that you recognize that I was not part of the edit war since the article was unlocked today. And despite being on DoctorIsIn's "side" of the content dispute, I warned him/her equally as I warned ScienceApologist. One of my pet peeves is when editors only warn editors from the opposing camp of edit warring (or incivility, or whatever) and seemingly ignore parties from their side committing the exact same offense. By warning both parties equally today, I feel I was being as judicious and fair as one could hope for. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If that's how you see things, I'm not going to spin my wheels trying to convince you otherwise. Best regards, Ante lan ^talk 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Your comment that you "see no reason why we shouldn't go back to just including Quackwatch's lack of peer review in the "Mission" section of our article as it is in Quackwatch's own Mission Statement where they tell us that their articles are not peer reviewed. Something to chew on folks. I was really hoping that we had a consensus and finally some peace yesterday. " can easily be interpreted as a threat to disruptively edit. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"can easily be interpreted as a threat" - Only if you are assuming bad faith. Please reconsider. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Levine2112 is a disruptive editor You may wish to defend yourself. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is missing the forest for the trees. Pete St.John (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

and, please read over re the dispute at QW when you get a chance. Thanks. Pete St.John (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Quackery

An article that you have been involved in editing, Quackery, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackery. Thank you. —Whig (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CAM article

I'd like to get your opinion on the revert by OrangeMarlin. Anthon01 (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Without getting into the actual content, I will say that his/her edit summary was inflammatory. Get real dude? That's not a nice thing to say. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you get a chance to look at the text, I would appreciate it. I have just recently come across the insistence that a quote from an article needs to reflect the entire article. Is their a policy/guideline that confirms this? Anthon01 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is. If so, how could we very possibly quote anything other than by quoiting it in its entirety. This seems like one of those (nonexistent?) policy/guidelines which people bring up only when it suits their arguments. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could you explain?

In light of your comments here: [1], could you explain: [2]? --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The two don't seem to correlate. What do you mean? Please be as specific as possible. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI discussion

You aren't a perfect editor, and I've criticised you on things before, but I don't want to see you indef blocked when there are so many people who are actually and actively disruptive who get clemency and help.

To this end, I would suggest you get an informal mentor, just to protect you from your critics. I'd be willing to do it, if you trust me to. Here's what I think would be necessary for mentorship:

Try to be careful with Stephen Barrett-related articles. Edit them, by all means, but remember, WP:BLP applies, so try to use sources above reproach, and present the views of the source fairly. If I should feel your sources are poor, or misrepresented, I will tell you, and explain why. And I think that's all we really need to say on Barrett and sources unless this becomes a major problem, in which case we'll discuss it at the at the first review.

Really egregious behaviour might result in a short block, but not by me. I will waive any administrative power over you.

I'll need to look at your behaviour enough to be able to advise you, but I don't think it's necessary or helpful for me to be digging through with a fine-toothed comb. To that end, I'll look at anything you bring to my attention. I'd put your talk page on my watchlist, and would appreciate if you'd tell me about any major disputes or heated discussions you get into. And I think that would be enough.

We'll review this in February, and either end it, discuss whether anything needs to change about it, or whatever.

If you wanted to end this at any time, you could. You are not under any punishment or restriction.

If you want to do this, let me know. I'm going on holiday tomorrow, and won't be back until the 28th, so take what time you need to think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 02:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your vote is requested

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Oldspammer/Robert C. Beck

-- John Gohde (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quackwatch

Isn't their a 3RR violation at the QW page? Anthon01 (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Is the proper procedure to warn him first? Anthon01 (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

He/she is not worth warning because he/she has been warned before and simply blanks any warning he/she gets on his/her talk page. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR? —Whig (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not technically, but you don't have to actually commit three reversions to be considered to be engaged in edit war. I am going to stand down though. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I see three editors at 3RR. Also note that blocks to stop an edit war are usually given to all warring parties. Avb 01:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? I only see one editor at 3RR (QuackGuru). Avb, can you explain your position? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have explained 3RR to you before. I'll try to improve on what I said back then. It's really very simple. I'll limit it to the basics, leaving e.g. page moves out. Note that this is not only my position but also the position held by virtually all admins at AN/3RR since it's spelled out very clearly in WP:3RR.

A series of edits that has not been interrupted by another editor counts as one edit. With the exception of the addition of material that has never been in the article before, all edits are reverts. Reverts that are clearly not part of an edit war do not count. When the number of remaining reverts by the same editor to a single article within any 24-hour period exceeds 3, the editor has violated WP:3RR. When ongoing, it's blockworthy. That's all.

When I wrote the above at 01:15, QuackGuru, Levine2112 ~~and Anthon01~~ were at 3RR, while Anthon01 went on to 3RR half an hour later: a subsequent revert would have been a WP:3RR violation unless clearly not part of the edit war. I was at ~~1RR~~ 0RR and went to 1RR 20 minutes later due to an edit that partially reverted QG; the same edit also inserted new material which does not count as a revert. FWIW, I try to keep 1RR as per my membership of the WP:Harmonious Editing Club. I hope this helps. Avb 14:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please clarify where I had 3RR? Thank you. The times would be helpful. Anthon01 (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a tad off there; you were at 2RR (and I at 0RR) at 01:15; you went to 3RR 30 minutes later. Updated above. Avb 16:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I count at 1 rvt only. That revert was at 23:59, December 21, 2007. Please clarify since I may be counting wrong. If you could get the time stamps it would be greatly appreciated. Please clarify the timestamps of the second and third revert. Anthon01 (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I just stumbled over Anthon01's 01:12 AN/3RR report. That was quite unnecessary (note that I did even warn anyone, hoping this talk page conversation would suffice). Editing oneself after reporting an edit war may not be the wisest thing to do. I have added my opinion to the ANI thread. Avb 16:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mind the last one (probably unlike QG) until I discovered that it came only 30 minutes after you had reported QG for edit warring on AN/3RR without 3RR vio. Avb 16:51, 22 December

2007 (UTC)

The first one was an edit. I was not reverting anyone's edit. The second one was an revert. The third one was building on your edit of your new text. I see one revert only Anthon01 (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the next Avb entry as he removed it. Anthon01 (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR and my explanation above. You were edit warring. Do not edit war. Consider this a warning. Avb 17:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to read WP:3RR Please read it as I think you are confused about the meaning. Anthon01 (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply at your talk page. Please respond there and without theories about what goes on in my mind please. Avb 17:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete my text on Levine page. I don't think it is your place to do that. Anthon01 (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I consider it an insult. But since you're so keen on having it here, I'll let it stand. Avb 17:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I will reread 3RR as you suggest. I think you should also reread 3RR as I believe that your interpretation is slightly incorrect. Anthon01 (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. FWIW, I've reread it twice before commenting here. Where do you feel my interpretation is incorrect? Avb 18:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The first edit you mention above was just an edit on Quackwatch being cited in a scholarly journal. It has nothing to do with the paragraph in question. Anthon01 (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The first edit reverted to an earlier version (namely one where the content you replaced or changed was not present). It became part of the edit war when QuackGuru reverted it (the very next edit, one of QG's edits you reported on AN/3RR as a revert).

Relevant policy text:

An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted,
A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors
Since the rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not such will not breach the rule. Since edit warring is considered harmful, exceptions to the rule will be construed narrowly.

Relevant statements from my policy summary (above):

With the exception of the addition of material that has never been in the article before, all edits are reverts
Reverts that are clearly not part of an edit war do not count. Avb 12:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all I appreciate your attempts to help me understand this. And you may be right but I think you're wrong. You said "The first edit reverted to an earlier version." Are you talking about my first edit? If so then I think that you are incorrect. My first edit was simply a change in text not an undo. You're calling my first edit a revert just because my edit changed existing text as opposed to adding new text? If so, according to your interpretation, every edit that modifies existing text is a revert. The first edit was just an edit on my part. I didn't revert text that some one had edited in the past 24 hours. The fact that it was later reverted by someome else doesn't turn my first edit into a revert. See my point? Anthon01 (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You're calling my first edit a revert just because my edit changed existing text as opposed to adding new text? If so, according to your interpretation, every edit that modifies existing text is a revert. --> Yes.

I didn't revert text that some one had edited in the past 24 hours. --> that is not a requirement.

The fact that it was later reverted by someome else doesn't turn my first edit into a revert. --> No, it doesn't, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that your edit was reverted which made it part of the ongoing edit war reported by you. Avb 00:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

First I came here to wish Levine a happy and health holiday. Why is this conversation here at Levine's talk page when it doesn't appear that the last part of this has anything to do with him? I have to say, this conversation between Anoth01 and Avb should be on either of their talk pages but oh well, I guess this is a decision for Levine to make. Happy, Healthy Holidays everyone! --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be on Anthon01's talk page. I copied it there but he removed it and repeated on the related AN/3RR thread that the discussion could be found on Levine2112's talk page. Avb 00:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I can't undersatnd that ANI you asked me to look at. It's a total mess to my feeble mind. Sorry. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bulk reverts

Your bulk reverts to my edits on various pages would appear to be wikistalking if not vandalism. May I request that you desist, use discussion pages and only revert what you consider to be worthy of reverting - NOT my whole edits, which you will agree, in a spirit of cooperation, are of value. In other words you are reverting valuable contributions to wikipedia based on your personal views. Let's work together to overcome this. I don't want to escalate this to administrators. Mccready (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Mccready, you are making bulk edits and it's simply easier to revert them all and let you make smaller edits. Just take it a little at a time, that's all. It will be much easier to discuss individual edits and you will also be in a much better position to defend individual edits than a whole lot of edits of very mixed quality. If you take this to admins and try to escalate a conflict, you will surely lose, so just be collaborative and work things out. -- Fyslee / talk 15:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have a question

SAndbox is a place to practice editing. It is regularly cleared by robot editors so no worries on the silliness. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Barrett <Unsourced negative assertion removed per WP:BLP>

"which means that I can prescribe for myself and my immediate family" http://www.quackwatch.com/00AboutQuackwatch/faq.html#license . Anyone who self-prescribes, or prescribes to family members should have their license revoked for failing to meet the generally accepted standards of care. [3], [4] 180-6., [5], [6]: 5-2. b), [7], [8], 502. (1), [9].

<Unsourced negative assertions removed per WP:BLP> Magnonimous (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just incidentally, I doubt that physicians never prescribing for themselves, is a necessary absolute. For example, suppose physician A diagnoses physician B with adult-onset diabetes, and prescribes glucophage, and determines that B will have to take it indefinitely. To me it would seem merely sensible for B to refill the prescription himself, when it expires. So I'm sceptical that the condemnation is over-broad, and suspicious that the context (the reason given which explains the quoted sentence fragment) is omitted. Pete St.John (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Barrett simply quoted the Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine FAQ which says in full: "Active Retired – A physician who wishes to continue to write prescriptions for themselves or immediate family (spouse, children, parents, and siblings who reside with you). If you choose this option, you must submit a letter to the Board and return the active license. If your license is on an active retired status, you are excused from maintaining professional liability insurance and meeting continuing education requirements." Magnonimous is reading entirely too much into this and has been blocked for "WP:BLP violations, talk page abuse, canvassing, recreating deleted content forks repeatedly, general disruption" and "Abusing sock puppet accounts". Avb 01:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI re QW

So I've been away, not caught up, and swamped. I don't see any of the AN/I items against us, current in my Watchlist; am I missing anything? Was any action taken? Pete St.John (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you've been away for a week, hopefully you are enjoying a great Holiday break, as I did. Pete St.John (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I need help

Once, I accidently made a typo when logging in. Now I have an extra account. Could you help in transforming this new account into a doppleganger one.--Angel David (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of anyway of combining accounts. I would recommend deleting (if possible) the extraneous account or just cease to use it. You may want to put a note on the "User Page" and "Talk Page" of the extraneous account alerting other users that this account is your secondary account and is not in use and maybe that it was created by accident. There may be a process by which an account can be removed, but you should probably check with an admin to see if that is possible. Hope this helps get you started. Sorry I don't know more. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How about a page redirect. Anthon01 (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't use this account and it has no userpage or talkpage. And it has one contribution. I need to ask an admin to remove it. Please help me in doing so.--Angel David (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to the extraneous account? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The account is called User:Angle David since I made a typo when logging in--Angel David (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I found for you: WP:Username_policy#Deleting_your_account. Let me know if this helps, though it doesn't seem as though there is much you can do other than ignore it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brilliant!

You have really hit the nail on the head here:

The point is that we can all present both (or more) sides of this topic if we resolve to use reliable sources and work together with civility. Wikipedia is not a scientific resource. It is an information resource. It is not a collection of facts. It is a collection of verifiable information. This means that there is room to present all notable POVs which are documented by a WP:RS, no matter how grotesque or absurd or offensive you and anyone else deems them to be. I know it can be frustrating, but please consider WP:NPOV. It will help. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC) [10]

Very well put. I also fully agree that Blackamoor's behavior is atrocious. I just found it too late to comment. -- Fyslee / talk 01:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it is important for new users (and old users) to understand that WP is not a scientific resource and thus all of the information contained within does not have to be scientifically sound or supported. It can be kind of a tough pill to swallow and can cause some editors to lash out due to frustration. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

For once, I agree with Fyslee. :) —Whig (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am enjoying this moment. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is nice, isn't it?! -- Fyslee / talk 05:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Very well said. Seems like some want it to be a science encyclopedia. Anthon01 (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It can be, but it is more than just that. -- Fyslee / talk 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of pseudoscience in other encyclopedias

I appreciate your comments on psuedoscience. Please consider commenting here. [11] Antelan believes the discussion should be closed. Anthon01 (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk about being in synergy. I think I should just let you finish my sentences. :-) Anthon01 (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing. :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't ever post on my talk page again

I will thank you to stay off my user talk page entirely. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for catching this. I hadn't noticed the duplication since I haven't been following this discussion closely at all. -- Fyslee / talk 05:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stealth change to inclusion criteria?

Have a look at talk here. I don't believe expanding the list's second tier to include anything beyond "a statement by a group" was ever discussed. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arb

Hi Levine,

I was going to jump into the polls that you've devised (I like the system, by the way). However, with the advent of the Arbitration that Martinphi is bringing, I felt it better to wait to do much at this point. Ante lan ^talk 09:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT warning

Based on what I've seen of you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#ScienceApologist.27s_RTV and Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!? I'm issuing you a warning about baiting and WP:POINT violations to game the system. If this behavior continues with you or any of your fellow travelers at Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!? I will not hesitate to block to stop the disruption caused. Please be mindful of the cautionary statement at WP:AE which says "Gaming the system at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized as poking sticks at caged animals." FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

When was SA baited? Anthon01 (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Guy(I think that is his name)

Jonathanwins (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)I would like to ask your assistance, I notice this user uses a disparaging remark against another user and the expression "batshit insane" ,as someone who lost a family member to emotional illness ( they were bi-polar and ended up committing suicide) I am dismayed to see a website ( with non-profit status) displaying such remarks about human beings. Can you advise me where to go to complain about this individual. In the meantime I will get in touch with Media Relations. Your help is appreciated.

Try WP:Wikiquette_alerts or WP:ANI. There you can file a formal report. Be sure to provide diffs (edit records) of any perceived misdoings. Then wait. An admin should respond to your posting within a day. Let me know how it goes or if I can be of any further assistance. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Somebody deleted one of my articles, i think it is familiar to you. JK3 you can click on it to see it. i don't know how to create a article. i have been having problems with one article. Pretty please help me i am in desparte need for an article. Write back please. --Joekellyiii (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Check it

AfD:[12]--Anthon01 (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be an external link, i.e. like this with [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion...Tajmar]] Pete St.John (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

also, the item got relisted, so a new discussion is at the bottom of the page, in a second section with the same title (Martin_Tajmar#Martin_Tajmar) so we want to add our comments down in that section. Pete St.John (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EBCAM

It is published by Oxford University in England. Now why would they do that? Anthon01 (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your uncooperative editing on Chiro

Levine pls use talk as I have done. What is your grammatical point? There is obviously no consensus. Pls respond on Chiropractic talk page. Mccready (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathic ingredients

I don't have the time to track down all the articles, all the discussions and what's been said in each, but why not just have a single article listing homeopathic ingredients? If I recall correctly, there is even an official list in the UK that would serve as a good starting point. Or is there already such a Wikipedia article? --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

fwiw I'm inclined to agree with Ronz about that (much as ...well nevermind). Ingredients are important to homeopathy, but that doesn't make homeopathy particularly pertinent to the ingredient. So for example, the description of making sulphuric acid would certainly mention water (a necessary ingredient) but the article on water need not mention sulphuric acid, and in fact, shouldn't. If the principle or a major use of a particular plant (say) were homeopathy, it would speak to the notability of the plant. Pete St.John (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is weight, often inaccurately described as notability. Anthon01 (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

nevertheless, if a major use of a plant were in homeopathy, it would speak to the notability of the plant (right?). And if the article on Water had a section on it's use as an ingredient for Sulphuric Acid, that would give undue weight to Sulphuric Acid (as important as it is) in the article on Water (which is important to lots of things). Right? Pete St.John (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

PSJ, your logic is sound and may be applicable if we were discussing two ingredients here. We are not. We are discussing an ingredient and an application of the ingredient. For instance, no one has any issue including the statement "The wood has been used for many applications from making chests that repel moths to shingles" in the Thuja article. When I asked for why the homeopathic application was being treated differently, I was told because it is a pseudoscience. That is not an accurate interpretation of WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE in my mind. However, to make sure, I have posted a query about a similar article and set of circumstances at WT:NPOV and I am awaiting a response from third-parties there.

Ronz, with regards to the idea of starting an article for a List of Homeopathic Ingredients, I am all for it. But I don't think it is an either/or situation. I believe that we can have both. Wikipedia is about making knowledge readily accessible to the masses. I would think that a person doing a report on Thuja and using Wikipedia as a source would be interested in finding out that one of its uses is as a homeopathic remedy. Providing a single-sentence to this effect in the article Thuja (or Thuja occ) would satisfy this and - in my mind - would not violate WP:UNDUE, though I am waiting to hear from third-parties on that point. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well sure Levine, I don't want to argue outside a specific example. I didn't mean to overgeneralize. Pete St.John (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

But in a general example, what is sought for inclusion is a mere statement in an article about the foo plant that according to some reliable source, foo is an ingredient used in homeopathic preparation. That's all. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

But in that general example, I would consider the use of the plant by homeopathy to be significant in the homeopathy article and not in the plant article; as most plants that have any uses, have more significant, widespread, understood, and documented uses in chemistry, manufacturing, ethnobiology, etc etc, much more than in homeopaphy, which is underdocumented on account of being considered fringe (or, bunk). So I'd be interested in an example of a substance whose use by homeopathy is pertinent to the plant, and not undue weight to homeopapthy. So for example, Water should not mention sulphuric acid, but Sulpher certainly should: the acid is an important part of the significance of sulpher; but it's just a drop in the bucket (so to speak) of the significance of water. Pete St.John (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Then how do you account for the researcher of the foo plant who comes to the foo article and finds nothing on its widespread homeopathic use? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There are cases where the use should be mentioned in the article on the item; such as, sulphuric acid is an important use of sulpher. And there are cases where the use should not be mentioned; as, sulphuric acid is only one of numerous important uses of water, so merely mentioning it in the Water article would be undue weight to sulphuric acid. The general case isn't particular to homeopathy. So, I'd consider it on a case by case basis; is foo particularly significant because of use bar, or not? Pete St.John (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I would reword the test to: Is bar a significant use of foo? If so (which can be shown by description of said use bar of foo in a reliable source), then include it in article foo. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You agree that the article on Sulphur should mention Sulphuric Acid, but that the article on Water should not mention Sulphuric Acid, even though there are citable references to the use of both sulphur and water as necessary ingredients in sulphuric acid? Pete St.John (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, it needn't be either-or. A list wouldn't have any of the problems you're encountering, and could then be used possibly as a "See also" link in other articles. Perhaps even a category could be used as well. --Ronz (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm no expert in homeopathy and as you know I am not even a believer in it. Perhaps the list article should be started by someone more versed in the topic. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did you post the query? I didn't see anything on the link. Anthon01 (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WT:NPOV. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polling as a substitute for debate?

Hi Levine, I just reviewed WP:PSD and wanted your thoughts on what one editor (unhelpfully) characterized as a "slow motion train wreck". In this case I think we need to give some time for reasoned arguments to sink in and responses to be formulated, and at this point I think continuing to "poll" just makes everyone more intense. Also, I'm personally not happy with any of the proposals on the table and I think we're (as WP:PSD says) missing an opportunity for an altogether better solution.

In the meantime, some totally relevant humour.

Thanks for the hard work...

riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the input (and the humor). I have called of the poll in the meantime. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Homeopathy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I also warned myself, just so we are both aware. Baegis (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interposting

Don't do it. Quite simple really. •Jim62sch• 06:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what that means. What is interposting? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Please note. Uses without any references. How is the text in the uses sections being justified? [13] Anthon01 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What level of prominence (LOL) is required to insert any uses into the plant database? Anthon01 (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROMINENCE is just a redirect which ScienceApoligist created today. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

He created it two minutes after I wrote this [14] Anthon01 (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please chill

Comments such as these are inappropriate [15], especially in article talk pages. Please consider deleting it. --Ronz (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will consider deleting it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, improve the wording. Instead of saying, "I don't want to get in edit wars with users who ignore NPOV, e.g. this diff" (paraphrased), you could say: "IMO this <diff> violates NPOV". Most of us are trying to avoid vague insinuations, and we can do that by making specific objections. Unlike some people, I vaguely insinuate. Pete St.John (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think PSJ has better advice. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Singling out an editor like that on an article talk page is inappropriate. Your history with this editor only makes it worse. Given all the related ANI and ArbCom, it's an extremely poor decision to add such information to an article talk page, much less argue to keep it. --Ronz (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, Ronz. When you start coming down on this editor for calling me and others "POV-pushers" and "Pseudoscience supporters" then you can come here and offer me advice like this. Until then, your advice appears to be disingenuous, in my opinion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHILLOUT. Don't defend yourself by saying that others are also doing similarly improper things too. --Ronz (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, please stop antagonizing me. If that means that you cease posting here for the time being, so be it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it to WQA if you honestly think I'm harassing you. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If Levine writes "this edit violates NPOV," that is Levine expressing his opinion of an edit, and not in any way commenting on the editor. Anthon01 (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to call bullshit on this. You're very simply wrong. See my comment above, 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC). --Ronz (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I reread your comments and my comment stands. Your one-sided admonishions makes it hard to take you seriously. Anthon01 (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Anthon01. Ronz, I don't think that WQA would recognize the way you are harassing me. It would require intimate knowledge of our history together; one filled with you placing one-way "warning" messages on my talk page. Consider your own talk page, where an editor today has accused others of POV pushing - a personal attack specifically frowned upon by WP:POVPUSH. Yet, do you warn that user? Nope. In fact you seem to agree with that user. In essence, Ronz, I am asking you not to post these one-way warnings on my page because from my point-of-view, they are disingenuous and seem only to serve the purpose of trying to provoke me. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"One-sided admonishions?" If this is not about another editor, then why are you complaining about it being one-sided? --Ronz (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ronz, I don't think that WQA would recognize the way you are harassing me" I don't recognize it either. If no one recognizes it, then it's not harassment. --Ronz (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. I recognize it. Anthon01 recognizes it. Hmm, therefore it could be harassment. Now please. Go away until you have something constructive to say. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon is still trying to figure out if this is or is not about another editor. --Ronz (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I know it is one-sided. You know it is one-sided. Let's not kid ourselves. Just today, the editor with whom you have admonished me for being "inappropriate", has referred to my edits as "POV-pushing". Did you warn him too? No. And on your talk page, another editor referred to my editing as "POV-pushing". Did you warn him? Nope. Sorry. But I'm the one calling bullshit now. So, again - and please do your best to respect this this time - go away until you have something constructive to contribute here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So you justify your improper behavior by pointing out what you find improper in others' behavior. Thanks for making it crystal clear. I suppose they're all justified in their behavior because they can simply point to yours? --Ronz (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop twisting my words, Ronz. This is more harassment from you. Just go away. You have abused your right to post on this page. Bye. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this about your statement "Singling out an editor like that on an article talk page is inappropriate"? Anthon01 (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)