User talk:MaxPont
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomolecular_medicine
[edit] A request
Please consider removing your accusations of "Ronz (and some others) has a tendency..." [1] per WP:CIVIL. If you would like me to explain myself in more detail, please do so in a civil manner. --Ronz 19:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've refactored it [2]. I'd still like to discuss the matter with you. --Ronz 21:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess you're interested in escalating the stituation instead? [3]. Again, please consider removing personal accusations against me from an article's talk page. --Ronz 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course I am not interested in escalating. In my mind, my remarks were not personal attacks but an urge to elaborate better when refering to various Wiki-policies. MaxPont 11:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Then I'm asking you to be civil when I refactor your statements. Thanks. --Ronz 16:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quackwatch
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you to adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Quackwatch. Thank you. [4], [5], [6], [7]--Ronz 16:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have been active on Wikipedia since August last year. Concerning NPOV, its not that easy. On controversial topics different authors have different opinions about what constitute NPOV. The edits you refer to have all been my attempts to move the text closer to what I think is a NPOV for the full article. MaxPont 19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind then if I point out a few things you might find useful:
- How do I create a user subpage? - probably useful for the links above.
- Notability - describes how "All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability."
- WP:SOURCE - describes how to properly source content, and what content is allowed.
--Ronz 19:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Health freedom movement
Introducing numerous external links is in violation of WP:NOT#LINK, WP:SPAM, and WP:EL. Sorry if you see it otherwise. --Ronz 14:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I disagree and will respond on the Ronz Talk page. MaxPont 16:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the spam warning is necessary given that I think we can settle this quickly and easily. I'm asking for assistance in how to best handle the links. --Ronz 02:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barrett Mediation
Your comments should probably be moved to directly under the one you're responding to. --Ronz 23:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Mind if I move it to the correct section? --Ronz 16:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit summary & BLP concerns
Max, please be more careful with your edit summaries. Unlike BLP violations in articles and talk pages, they cannot be deleted. Your edit summary:
- (Restore: remove unsourced claim, presumably false (see: Talk))
is very close to libelous, and you have no legitimate reason to presume that the statement is false. We have deliberately limited how many awards and other notable things we care to document about him. Many more could be added and documented, but we stopped with a few. As it stands the statement is NPOV since it clearly identifies it as his claim on his website, which is allowed to be used in an article about himself. We don't take any position on the truth or falsity of the statement. We just quote the website. No one has seriously been able to show any falsity to such statements, so you need to be very careful. BLP applies to articles, talk pages, edit summaries, other editors (Barrett is an editor here), and actually anyone, even outside of Wikipedia. -- Fyslee/talk 12:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- It might be NPOV, but it is also factually incorrect. Or would you claim that Barrett has written 50 books (which is the natural implication of the statement "His 50 books" on his bio page)? By the way, who are "we"? MaxPont 17:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Good faith
So you're accusing me of making edits in bad faith now? [8]--Ronz 15:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like an apology, or a very detailed explanation of what you are claiming I did in bad faith at least. --Ronz 16:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quackwatch
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Quackwatch. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. --Ronz 21:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are highly involved in this controversy yourself. An edit war warning message is only OK if it is justified and a neutral party posts it. You are not in the position to patronize me. MaxPont 09:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Please note that adding warnings to others talk pages in error is considered vandalism. I've been following WP:DR and WP:CON trying to get you to do the same.
I'll give anyone a 3rr warning when I think it fits. If you don't like that, take whatever action you see fit. If you choose action that's disruptive or worse, I will let you know yet again.
I'm not patronizing you. Please AGF. I've tried to settle these disputes and you've been uncooperative. I'm not the one here reverting your edits with the comment, "good faith further edits are welcome" --Ronz 14:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:Stephen Barrett
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [9] [10] --Ronz 23:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Public figure
Very good point. [11] I agree. --Ronz 15:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redirecting to Health freedom movement
What's your rationale to redirecting all those sites? You're going against consensus without discussion as far as I can tell. -- Ronz 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- All references to QPW were removed from the Quackwatch article. A redirect to QW is therefore pointless. The closest article seemed to be the HFM article. The alternative is to delete the Redirect pages. MaxPont 18:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- The "alternative" is to keep those consensus redirects in place. The purpose (even indicated by the title!) of QPW is to smear Quackwatch, but since it fails all inclusion criteria here so miserably as to be banned as a source or reference for any purpose, the solution was to leave redirects there, in lieu of an actual link to the site, since doing that would violate multiple policies. Please respect consensus and restore them. Rather than redirects to QW being "pointless", that is actually "the whole point." Only those who participated in the long and arduous struggles about that subject can be expected to fully understand, so please respect their decision. -- Fyslee/talk 20:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- What long worked out consensus? Show it to me. If I understand it right there was a proposal to merge the Quackwatch and Quackpotwatch articles that was rejected. Later the Tim Bolen and Quackpotwatch articles were deleted but QPW was still mentioned in the QW article. Finally all references to QPW were removed. A user searching for “Tim Bolen” will be redirected to an article on a different subject and there is nothing in that article to explain why the redirect was made. Totally confusing. The redirects to the HFM article was in my opinion the closest match I could think of. However, a delete of these redirects would be fine with me, though I don’t know how it is done (request for speedy delete?). MaxPont 10:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Ordinarily, redirects to deleted pages can be speedy-deleted (see WP:CSD, R1). I'd be happy to do so, but given that there's some controversy about QPW, perhaps listing them at redirects for discussion would be more appropriate? I don't want to act unilaterally here, so I won't delete them unless everyone is OK with their speedy deletion. MastCell Talk 23:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Either deletion or discussion is fine with me, though I'd rather the discussion given what's already been said here. -- Ronz 23:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes please, a speedy delete is fine with me. I think it is a clear case: (all references to QPW removed all over WP, etc.) MaxPont 07:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
If you can list them here for me, I'll take a look at them with an eye toward deleting those that are clear redirects to QPW (e.g. Tim Bolen). MastCell Talk 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
These are the redirect pages that ought to be deleted:
- Quackpotwatch
- Tim Bolen
- Quackpotwatch.org
- Quackpot Watch
- Quackpot watch
MaxPont 12:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've deleted them, and I'll leave a note at Talk:Quackwatch to this effect. Since they were initially redirects to Quackpotwatch, a now-deleted article, and the Quackwatch article contains no mention of QPW, I think the deletion is appropriate. If anyone has a problem with it, let me know and I'm happy to undelete the redirects and send it to WP:RfD instead. MastCell Talk 18:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Good point re: Talk:Stephen Barrett
You have a good point. In the future, I'll just make it clear that I'm not changing my opinion from that expressed in my previous comments, or that the issues have already been addressed in past discussions. -- Ronz 19:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re: QuackGuru on Talk:Stephen Barrett
I think you should take another look at your recent comment [12]:
- "In spite of the incivility by Mr Guru, I will comment on the posting."
-- Ronz 23:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Coral calcium
As you are probably aware, there has been edit-warring concerning the very edit you made to Coral calcium. Please contribute to the talk page and work toward consensus rather than participating in an edit war. Thanks. -- Ronz 02:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RfM Stephen Barrett
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/Stephen Barrett, 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. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Mediation
 |
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/Stephen Barrett.
|
[edit] Mediation was declined
Your request for others to "Please explain your grounds for not accepting the DR mechanism" borders on harassment. The dispute should be long over. Your saying, "The result of your refusal to accept mediation is that the dispute will continue" almost comes across as a threat. There's certainly no reason why the dispute should continue. Please carefully consider WP:DR WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, and WP:DE before pushing this issue any further. Thanks. --Ronz 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Your continued focus on individuals and the decisions they've made that you personally don't like is becoming a serious problem. Please stop. --Ronz 14:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to document the following: Ronz archived the talk page section.(diff) (diff) After you had reverted both edits, I removed the section once again from the Barrett talk page (no consensus required to remove stuff like this. how does violating WP:TALK, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARRASS help build an encyclopedia?). You are invited to make your points without (restoring) policy violations that poison the atmosphere. Avb ÷ talk 21:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Health freedom artists
[edit] Health freedom artists
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Health freedom artists, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}.--Ethicoaestheticist 00:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Warning
 |
Your revert on Quackwatch declared consensus without analysis. It also reinstated a definitive violation of the rules of proper citing of sources by reinstating a statement that the review asked for peer review of the website in accordance with the advocacy of the website itself. Such behavior is one of the hallmarks of disruptive editing. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] Sockpuppetry
Are you a sockpuppet of User:TheDoctorIsIn? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I would appreciate a straightforward answer to my straightforward question. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Harassment
Note that harassment (as you put it in your edit summary) is defined explicitly in Wikipedia guidelines. If you believe my warning was harassment, perhaps you can outline exactly why. I would hope that you would assume good faith that my warning to you was meant to make sure you understood the implications of your actions. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for your edit
The first sentence has a link to the main article: Since its inception in 1895, chiropractic has been the subject of scientific research. The main pointer seems a bit unecessary. QuackGuru (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sub-articles should have a pointer to the main article on that form, and vice versa. MaxPont (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I put the word chiropractic in bold. I think this resolves the issue. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Your removal of the Twinkle access for Levine2112
I'm sure you've messed up your readings of the logs somewhere along the line. 
I didn't block either QG or Levine, but came across both their unblock requests because of a bot that spams the admins' IRC channel and declined them both. Regarding Levine, he's only made six or seven vandalism reverts in the past month, and they're not even that good. [13] I'll keep an eye on his editing though, and will either give it back to him myself or at any other admin's discretion. east.718 at 20:30, March 6, 2008
[edit] Effective communication
I understand, and share, your concerns about the title of Prevalence and legality of homeopathy. Personally I find it very useful in online communication (especially in a charged context) to understand the principle of cognitive bias. It explains how conflicts can arise between good-faith editors. Cognitive biases can be (ab)used to steer a discussion in an intended direction, but more often we steer discussions in an unwanted direction involuntarily, by not accounting for the other participants' cognitive biases. I guess you will find this comment very cryptic. I hope that after reading about the reactance bias you will understand what I mean, and what I am trying to achieve with my response to you on the article's talk page. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC) PS: This message is perhaps not an example of effective communication, but so what. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for your comments I have not left wiki, just left a load of screaming over-opinionated and under-informed pushy morons behind and that I'm afraid is permanent. Enough is enough; they can do what they like to that article and all others connected to it. I don't care how degraded it/they get cuz I am no longer part of that. There is no question of reconsidering. cheers Peter morrell 09:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Studies
Dear Max, If you really want to help the pro-science Lobby on the article on Homeopathy, please mention the word studies in a positive way in Para 2 of the Lead and tag the references I'm providing:- e.g.studies[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][35][36][35][37][38][39][40][41]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Selection (talk • contribs) 08:07, 19 May 2008
- Please notice that User:Selection is a most probably a sockpuppet of User:Dr.Jhingaadey and that any cooperation with him would make you act as a meatpuppet --Enric Naval (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
