User talk:TheDoctorIsIn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, TheDoctorIsIn! Thanks for removing the unnecessary pov from the Chiropractic article. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, TheDoctorIsIn, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 19:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chiropractic

You have reverted the science section in whole and not discussed your reasons on the talk page. I would be grateful if you would do so. I look forward to creating an encylopedic article. Mccready 07:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There is little doubt that part of chiropractic's 'fame' is that some believe it works and others don't. Therefore, an important aspect of defining chiropractic is that it is controversial. Hence it is part of its definition within the introductory paragraph. What is your problem with that? It is a 'fact' that it is controversial. As you are a chiropractor you do not believe that it is controversial. As a scientist I believe that it is controversial. We encapsulate the two sides of the debate. By your continual removal of 'controversial' you are claiming that the modality is generally accepted when it isn't. This is not a neutral POV. I look forward to further discussions. Maustrauser 00:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Chiropractic's fame is not founded in contraversy. Chiropractic's fame is founded in its continued success. That something so noninvasive and simple could be the answer to so many health problems that humankind have sought to cure with everything from drugs to leeches to ingesting chemicals is how chiropractic derived its fame. That the solution to much disease was founded in optimizing the body's nervous system so the body could heal itself is how chiropractic became famous. The contraversy is merely a side-effect of people clutching onto their old way of thinking about health and the body. TheDoctorIsIn 05:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Mass Marketing

Was wondering what your thoughts are about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_marketing

I am not sure why the part about chiropractic was added, or why it was added by a physical therapist. Any thoughts? Need changing? Thanks, Steth 23:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Mean-spirited anti-chiropractic edits

Yes, there are others reverting anti-chiropractic POV edits back into NPOV articles. Levine2112 (see Chiropractic talk page)has been doing an excellent job. And yes, there are many who are anti-chiropractic on WP sprinkling the seeds of hate in many articles. I have already made several changes to articles like Chiropractic.
Much of the source of these mean-spirited attacks seems to come from a physical therapist, Fyslee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fyslee
You can see where he has left his scent around WP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Fyslee
His tactics of recruiting editors and hiding any appearance of engaging in a conspiracy by using private emails are, I believe, deliberately meant to circumvent and exploit the NPOV rules of Wikipedia, severely damaging any semblance of a level playing field. Here is the post he sent out which verifies this:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/106337/thread/1140586598/last-1140668862/Skeptics+needed+on+Wikipedia
I am not sure why he is consumed by this extreme form of mean-spirited chiropractic hatred and dehumanization, but let's keep an eye on him (and them) and do our best to maintain a NPOV.

Steth 04:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solving disagreement

Dear TheDoctorIsIn, Are we getting to a point where we cannot agree? If so, would you like to suggest a way forward? I will, as usual refrain from making edits, until this is resolved. It seems that every compromise I offer, you reject. I don't think that factual statements about chiro can be labelled POV. The only question is where they belong if at all in the article. What we want it to inform the reader about chiro, not delete, or unduly highlight, anything negative about chiro. Mccready 05:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Which edit specifically are you talking about? And what was the compromise that you offered? I offered a compromise for the topic sentence "controversy" debate and you rejected it. Is there something else you are referring to? TheDoctorIsIn 17:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I refer to the top section of the article. Please remind me of what compromise you suggested. Thanks Mccready 08:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I added "Chiropractic is controversial by some within the medical community" to the Introduction section to appease you. Now what was your compromise?
Also, you should see here for why an amazingly lucid argument why "controversial" should be left out of the topic sentence due to its inherent POV.
Also, I told you my credentials (I am a chiropractor). What are you credentials to edit the Chiropractic page? TheDoctorIsIn 18:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Doctor Let me get this straight. The two positions in your views were: 1. No mention of controversy in the article - your preferred position 2. Mention in the body of the article - your compromise position. Is this correct? Mccready 03:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision of Chiropractic article

Have you seen the revised changes going on? It obviously will need a lot of help from us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=759816

History: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&action=history&limit=50&offset=20030319160337 Steth 03:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! My error, it was from 2003, a small detail that I overlooked! They were so naive back then. Apologies Steth 03:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chirotalk article

Thanks for alerting me to this. I think it would be one thing if another person started the article, but considering that Allen Botnick is responsible for the creation of an article that essentially about Allen Botnick, it reeks of - how you aptly termed it - shameless self-promotion... and what I call egotism. You should do a web search for "Allen Botnick". You'll see him plugging his website in the wierdest of places, trying to boost his PageRank. Levine2112 23:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Pretty obvious self-promotion. Hope it gets a speedy deletion.--Hughgr 00:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry I can't be more of a help in general with editing. Fortunately my practice (and my family) isn't affording me the time I would like to put into this. Additionally, I find editing here so very frustrating at times and it can put me in a bad mood that is hard to slough off even after I have logged off. Anyhow, I like checking in time-to-time on my pet list of articles and I think you guys are doing tremendous work on the chiropractic article. Pat yourselves on the back... (but not too hard). TheDoctorIsIn 00:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice re: Chirotalk. Come again soon! Steth 11:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chirotalk AfD

Abotnick has twice today tried to delete the AfD template from the Chirotalk page. He has also tried to change the outgoing link to his forum site to have very "spammy" link text - something that he has been warned about previously. I have reverted his edits twice thus far. Anything that you can recommend doing? How much longer until the article is in fact deleted? Levine2112 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How about a little help on the Vertebral subluxation page? Check out the recent edit history and I think you'll see the problem. I guess it takes us all a while to understand that Wikipedia is a repository of verifiable information, not a collection of essays and opinions. Thanks! Levine2112 19:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I put my two-cents in. Hopefully it is worth something. I don't know about you, but I'm growing weary of editing here. TheDoctorIsIn 20:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Vigilance, my good Doctor. But if you are growing weary, no one would fault you for taking a break. Thanks for your help on this matter. Levine2112 20:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mccready is issued a 30 day community probation related to Pseudoscience articles

Hello

Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log [1]) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I [2] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. FloNight 01:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of articles related to scientific skepticism

Care to weigh in and votehere? Levine2112 22:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. Whatever happened with your book? TheDoctorIsIn 23:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I couldn't resist[3];) --Dematt 16:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You are too much! Thanks! TheDoctorIsIn 05:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your email is not active

Hi TheDoctorisIn, I like your edits very much and I would like to send you an email. If you activate your email and I send a mail, your own email is hidden until you reply. So it is risk free. MaxPont 14:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I will think about it.. Thanks for the idea. TheDoctorIsIn 05:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's time to meet the puppets...

Check this out too. Levine2112 06:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted, I must say. I really am. TheDoctorIsIn 06:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder about QuackWatch

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. GigiButterfly 06:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree here. TDII, before this gets too hostile, take a break (and have the proverbial cup o' tea). Let sleeping dogs lie. All will reveal itself in time. Levine2112 06:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Tea?! I hope you are joking. I am at least going to start this inquiry. TheDoctorIsIn 06:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop making false accusations against me.

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. GigiButterfly 06:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop vandalizing my user page. I do not give you permission to damage my reputation.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise the userpages of other users, you will be blocked. GigiButterfly 06:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cease fire

Both of you please refrain from *any* negative comments, starting right now.--I'clast 07:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Pls email me before any edits.

I read you loud and clear. I am just weary about emailing still. Sorry. TheDoctorIsIn 23:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Nothing to be weary about. You set up your email in "my preferences" and then I'clast (or whoever) can email you. He won't see your address unless you reply. Levine2112 23:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Pls "activate" youe email. I want to fire off some emails to discuss future edits. Talk is good.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by GigiButterfly (talk • contribs) 00:06, 24 January 2007

DocII, we've missed you, please let us know if things are ok. Several previous contestants have left for hopefully more productive pursuits.--I'clast 06:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am still here. Just unusually busy. I do notice a pending AfD that warrants my attention though. TheDoctorIsIn 07:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

During the arbitration case involving Fyslee and Ilena, Fyslee has made it clear that he no longer wishes to have his real name discussed on Wikipedia. You are probably not aware of that having been gone for a while. If you must discuss him, please respect his privacy and do not use his real name. Thanks. Thatcher131 04:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I have no idea why I have been blocked. I am not anonymous. What gives?"

Decline reason: "No response to the question below. If you would like to be unblocked, please issue a new request and answer the question. — Sandstein 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Please stand by as I contact the blocking admin. Sandstein 07:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You weren't blocked for being anonymous, you were blocked for revealing Fyslee's name in a RfA. IrishGuy talk 07:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is the rationale for the block. Such behaviour is 100% unacceptable and Wikipedia cannot function if people post personal information against people's wishes. If you promise not to reveal such information I don't have a problem lifting the block. -- Tawker 08:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The DoctorIsIn as stated in his or her own words: I have no idea why I have been blocked. This is very serious. This person does not have any idea that revealing a person's real life name against their wishes was absolutely wrong. Further, this person has not given justification for unblocking. No reason was given to unblock. QuackGuru TALK 15:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I had no idea that Fyslee wanted to remain anonymous. Had I known I would not have done so of course. You are acting as though I was being malicious. I assure you I was not. I was just in the dark on his desires. Tawker, now that I know, I will most definitely follow his wishes. TheDoctorIsIn 17:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Given the circumstances, I will also request comment by Fyslee. Sandstein 20:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, TheDoctorIsIn appears to have missed the point here. The assurance we require from you is that you will never again, for any reason, reveal the RL identity of any other editor of Wikipedia. Promising to not re-reveal Fyslee's ID is not what we're after. 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I will AGF and trust TDII. As far as I'm concerned, you may unblock him for this no-doubt-unintended offense. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 21:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of AGF, I would hope that TDII would extend me the same courtesy by drastically revising this comment, which definitely does not AGF. It contains a number of factually inaccurate statements made in an attempt to damage my case. If TDII is going to AGF about me, it would be best to ask me directly before making such statements. Assumptions don't make good evidence. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 21:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Very well. As mentioned by Redvers: Will you, TheDoctorIsIn, never again, for any reason, reveal the RL identity of any other editor of Wikipedia without their prior consent? Sandstein 21:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Sure. Positively. TheDoctorIsIn 22:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

<<unblock|I positively agree not to reveal the reaf life identity of any other editor of Wikipedia without their prior consent>>

This may be a little premature. I have a few simple questions. Is this your alternative account? Are you CuTop as well? You did imply that is also your account. This is very serious. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia. I hope you will assume good faith toward other contributors and collaborate. Your past remarks at Arbcam was assumptions and not AGF. Will you make an effort to be more polite and understanding of other people here at Wikipedia from now on. Please be honest and sincere about this. After you have answered the relevant questions and you want to turn over a new leaf I see no reason why you should not be unblocked. Everything must be judged fairly and weighted before an unblock due to the circumstances. Thank You. QuackGuru TALK 23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, with all due respect, I don't think that you have the authority to make such a demand, QuackGuru. I mean, you can certainly ask him if he has a sockpuppet account, but I don't think that you can say that his unblock is contingent on him answering you. You are not an admin. Judging by his tongue-in-cheek response to your accusation on Kesh's talk page that CuTop, Steth and DoctorIsIn, I would assume that none of these are sockpuppets. But if you have evidence, you should present it to an admin. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
With the utmost respect, TheDoctorIsIn, I am giving you valuable advise. If you did not follow Levine2112 to the Arbcam we would not be having this conversation now. I recommend to you to turn over a new leaf and start fresh. I hope you won't continue your path like some editors have. An editor has been blocked. There is been nasty comments. This is not what Wikipedia is suppose to be about. Everything must be put into consideration. May you have your second chance. I wish you the best. QuackGuru TALK 02:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I would not say that I followed him there, but thanks for the advice. I shall take it under consideration. For the record, Levine2112 was right, I was being sarcastic. Sorry you didn't pick up on that QuackGuru. I did not really appreciate the accusation, but whatever. I do promise not to reveal anyone's real life identity and I hope that my block gets reversed. If not, that is okay to. I am kind of burned out here. TheDoctorIsIn 05:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Assume good faith that TheDoctorIsIn will never again reveal the RL identity of any other editor of Wikipedia without their prior consent.

Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  07:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

With gratitude, Netsnipe. By the way, how do you get such a cool signature? I want to be part of the cool kid club too! :-) TheDoctorIsIn 02:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:Talk:Stephen_Barrett

In light of your comments [4] and infrequent editing, you should probably read WP:Consensus(or reread, if you're already familiar with it). You might also do the same with the many other guidelines and policies that have been pointed out in the discussion. Your appearance of ignoring them all, along with the entire discussion that you responded to, could come across as purposeful to those who don't realize that you're don't edit here much despite having been editing for over a year. --Ronz 00:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That is what I was doing... reaching a consensus... what policy or guideline was I overlooking? I read the page and it just seems like a lot of straw grasping... trying to keep this sentence out... in the past I have seen the term "white wash" thrown about... maybe it will rear its head once and again. I do not see what the big issue is... the article includes far less provocative information than the sentence in question. TheDoctorIsIn 16:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The issue is that we try to follow the guidelines, and certainly follow policy. There's no way we can achieve consensus if some editors appear to be ignoring guidelines and policy. The following guidelines and policies have been discussed as relevant to the issue: WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:SYN WP:RS WP:V WP:NOR WP:NOT WP:BLP and WP:ATT.
I agree that it shouldnt be a big issue, but Levine2112 thinks otherwise, obviously by the amount of effort he's put into it. --Ronz 18:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you assuming that I did not consider those? I did... I do not think any of them apply... not enough to preven this info from being presented. TheDoctorIsIn 20:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what to assume. I started this conversation because your comment, which you now label as partially "sardonic", seemed unhelpful in reaching consensus. I think your comments above, that you did consider them and dont think they apply, is much more helpful than what you wrote. I appreciate your time in discussing this with me. --Ronz 22:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I've slightly edited my original comment above to more clearly convey my intentions. I don't want to assume what familiarity you have with the guidelines and policies in question, only to point out that your original comment appeared to ignore them and the discussions about them. --Ronz 17:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're comments are inappropriate when you say, "Otherwise this is a total whitewash."[5] Again, you appear to dismiss the guidelines mentioned above. Your comments appear disrespectful of the editors involved in the discussion and of the applicable guidelines and policies. --Ronz 15:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of dismissing the guidelines... I did not dimiss them... I considered them and weighed in my vote in the consensus accordingly... I am sorry if I am not on your side of this debate... but that is no excuse to accuse me of being disrespectful. Your abuse is getting aggravating and is an example of the main reason why I edit on Wikipedia so infrequently... you do not make it very welcoming. TheDoctorIsIn 19:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
"Otherwise this is a total whitewash" is inappropriate and disrespectful. I don't see you arguing otherwise, only ignoring this problem.
Your comments do not include any mention of the many guidelines that have been discussed, so as a statement of fact your comments appear to either ignore or dismiss them. I've repeatedly qualified my statements "if some editors appear to be ignoring guidelines and policy", "your original comment appeared to ignore them", "you appear to dismiss the guidelines," and changed comments to be less ambiguous. I'm trying to make it clear that I'm not making inappropriate assumptions here, and will continue to clarify and rewrite my statements if you feel they still come across as otherwise. Sorry you don't appreciate this.
In what way is anything I've written abusive? I'm happy to clarify and rewrite, but I'm not going to let you make accusations of misbehavior against to cover up your own behavior. Shall we discuss this further, or do you want to try other methods of dispute resolution? --Ronz 20:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, Ronz. Your frank rudeness is scaring away another editor... I came here to do some research and maybe help contribute to areas which I know something about... I did not come here to engage in childish debates and to deal with bullies like yourself. I hear Citizendium is a kinder, gentler place. Maybe I will give it a try. Farewell cruel world. TheDoctorIsIn 20:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry you're unwilling to discuss problems here. --Ronz 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Doctor is Out?

I am deeply saddened by your apparent departure from Wikipedia. You have been a valuable contributor and I hope that I can convince you to come back. I realize that the internal bickering and bullying may be stressful at times and seem to be the cause of your taking leave. If that is the case, then for your own health, I advise you just to try to avoid confrontation, but continue to contribute to Wikipedia in all of the positive ways you have over the past year or so. Your unique point of view would be sorely missed. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know. This is all so silly... and sad... and serious. I love what you're doing here and all... but some of these people are just a joke... you ought to look them up on the Usenet... the same clowns here are out there promoting the same propaganda. I'd love to stay, but not with these jokers. TheDoctorIsIn 23:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I hear you. I don't participate in any blogs or boards or anything on topic elsewhere other than Wikipedia, so I only know these people from here. I figured that a lot of them are out there doing as you say they are. What can you do? It was nice having you back. Hope you change your mind and stay. Please? Pretty please? ;-) -- Levine2112 discuss 23:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc, it's good to have you back, but you got to WP:CHILLOUT on the Chiropractic article. I feel your frustration about NACM. But save it for the discussion page. Thanks. As a chiro, I'd appreciate your input. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This site is still bullshit... same old people getting away with the same old agenda pushing. I know exactly who QuackGuru (aka Mr.Guru) is...he fashions himself as somewhat of a celebrity. So lame. Anyhow, if you can stand this crap... good for you. Later. TheDoctorIsIn 01:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Welcome back. I appreciate the tone and content of your recent contributions. --Ronz 15:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanx. TheDoctorIsIn 15:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Barrett 1

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 20:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like others are too. --Ronz 20:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, definitely. Others may not be making three reverts in 24 hours, but they certainly making a large number of reversions. Hopefully your warning put the brakes on QuackGuru. I'll help with the diffs for a report in case he continues. --Ronz 20:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't it seem rather odd for someone to include warnings against edit warring in their edit summaries while repeatedly engaged in edit warring? -- Fyslee/talk 20:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are the edits that I think are relevant to showing QuackGuru's been edit-warring. He's now at three revisions, and was yesterday as well:

--Ronz 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that I am not denying that QuackGuru is edit warring. I'm just noting the hypocrisy of TheDoctorIsIn's actions. He is not in a position to complain. -- Fyslee/talk 21:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Who are you people and why are you fighting on my page about things I know not? The only hypocrite in this case would be Fyslee... If you have nothing nice to say... you know the rest. TheDoctorIsIn 08:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is fighting here. Why are you assuming so and making such accusations? You warned Quackguru of editwarring [6]. I provided you with the information to follow up on the warning in case it would be needed. Fyslee pointed out that you were edit warring yourself. --Ronz 17:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QuackGuru & Talk:Stephen Barrett

Please consider striking out portions of your recent comment. Your attack on Quackguru does nothing to help the situation and puts your own contributions into a bad light. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. [7] --Ronz 17:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That which would be most helpful would be other editors (especially those of Mr.Guru's side of the debate) calling out his behavior rather than standing by idly and only lashing out at other infrequent contributors such as myself. As you well know, I would be much more encouraged to contribute here less sporadically if behavior such as this was kept better in check. TheDoctorIsIn 19:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any editors taking Quackguru's side. I see no difference between Quackguru, I'clast's, and Levine2112's behavior, and I don't see any solution short of having them all permanently banned from editing all Barrett-related articles. Since getting such a ban is practically impossible, there's little else that can be done. However, we can all help by not encouraging their games. --Ronz 19:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for changing your comments! Didn't notice until just now. --Ronz 19:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Just as I removed my own comments, I would venture to say that you too should take responsibility for the poor behavior there too. I group you in with the editors you mentions as well as a couple you have not. TheDoctorIsIn 20:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
So what? You, without providing any discussion or evidence, lump me in with others. You're giving me nothing to act on, but again are putting yourself in a bad light. Have you read WP:AGF yet?
Please take a moment to reflect on what you are writing and what you have written. You identify three editors above whose behavior your criticize without providing any discussion or evidence. Now you come down on me for grouping you with the those same editors? You and I have a history together so you should know that I don't need to rehash it with specific examples of your frank rudeness. Generally, I found you to be a bully and you are the main reason why I left Wikipedia for so long. Accept responsibility for your own behavior before you point fingers at others. That is all. Good night. TheDoctorIsIn 22:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If you're unable to follow them, this discussion is over. Others here have accused you of hypocrisy. Perhaps you should reflect on these criticisms. --Ronz 03:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Doc, just ignore. Ronz, stop baiting. You're the master of it. Truly. You are gifted. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Evidence against Levine2112 provided above by Levine2112. --Ronz 03:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please join the discussion

Your recent edit contributed to an ongoing editwar in Stephen Barrett‎. Please join the discussion on the article talk page instead. Thanks! --Ronz 00:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And your reversion of my edit continued the edit war. After which, you seem to have conveniently bowed out of the conversation. Considering what you wrote me here and in the edit summary which reverted my Stephen Barrett edit, this makes you appear highly hypocritical. We have had a run-in before. If you are harboring some vendetta against me, please stop. I am perceiving your behavior as bullying. TheDoctorIsIn 19:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You appear to perceive any behavior you don't like as bullying. I'm sorry that you don't like to be reminded of the policies and guidelines here.
I made an edit based upon current consensus. I've already participated in the discussion as much as I feel necessary. Sorry that I haven't contributed as much as you want me to. --Ronz 23:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe that's how it appears to you. But to everyone else, you twice reverted the same content on Stephen Barrett. The second time, you reverted my very first reversion there and had the audacity to say that I was edit warring and went to so far as to drop an edit warring warning on my talk page. Your hypocrisy runs thick. I am glad to be reminded of policies, but not from someone who abuses those very same policies and parades around like some authority figure here. I have said it once and I will say it again. You are a bully. Please discontinue conversations with me effective immediately. TheDoctorIsIn 02:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider re: your editing practices

I'm very concerned that you appear to mirror Levine2112's edits, and assist him in his edit warring efforts. Please consider reading WP:SOCK, especially WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets. While you certainly don't have to discuss it here, I do want to give you a chance to do so informally. Perhaps we could find a third-party to mediate? Thanks! --Ronz 15:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, why are you doing this? It looks like a threat? Or are you trolling? -- Dēmatt (chat) 16:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF. See [8]. --Ronz 17:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Stop bullying my. If you think I am a sockpuppet, please report it. At least it will clear things up and perhaps you will stop trolling and bullying me. TheDoctorIsIn 07:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Has That RFC been filed on Ronz yet? Let me know where it is, I also have a complaint against Ronz. See this section for more details. Thanks. -Buttysquirrel 16:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but if you start one, please let me know. There are a lot of people outh there who he bullies and they would like to have their voices heard as well. By the way, Ronz is not an admin. Like some failed actor, he likes to present himself that way but I assure you he has no more permission rights at Wikipedia than you do. Again, please let me know when you file the RFC. TheDoctorIsIn 19:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Quackwatch‎

Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the discussions in Talk:Quackwatch‎. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Quackwatch‎ is a controversial article with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not. [9] Thanks again! --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Pot calling the kettle black! :-) TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:67.86.33.246

Please do not use user talk pages such as User talk:67.86.33.246 for general discussions. They are for discussion related to that user. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:Ronz#Quackwatch_disruption

If you have a problem with what is written there, please follow WP:DR. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Barrett 2

Now that you know exactly where the discussion is that I referred to in my edit summary, please revert your edit per WP:BLP. Thanks! [10] --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • You beat me to the punch. . . though I do not perceive any agreement in the discussion you point to. . . it seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't me that reverted it.
You might want to read WP:BLP in detail. It's very specific and intentionally biased toward keeping inappropriate information out of such articles. --Ronz (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

Let's all work together and stop the edit warring at Quackwatch. It is delicate right now and we are trying very hard to reach a consensus after long debate. I hope that you can help be part of the solution and refrain from future edit wars. Thanks! -- Levine2112 discuss 00:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ANI

Hello, TheDoctorIsIn. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix (talk • contribs)

[edit] Re: Quackwatch, and 3RR

Just to let you know, you can be blocked even if you did not technically violate 3RR. 3RR is not a rule or a pass that allows you to revert 3 times, and it's not like a line you cannot pass; it's more like an electric fence or a wall of fire. So just warning you, next time you edit war there might be a possibility that you could be blocked. nat.utoronto 00:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Sockpuppetry

Are you a sockpuppet of User:MaxPont? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not. TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Three reverts is a limit, not an entitlement. If you continue to disrupt articles by reverting, you may be blocked from editing. 10:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Loud and clear. TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 22:38, 14 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) 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:DR

Please follow WP:DR re [11] --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Barrett 3

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Stephen Barrett. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. --Ronz (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is referenced in the King bio lawsuit.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other accounts?

Could you provide a list of other accounts you are currently using, or have used in the past week to edit? Thanks! PouponOnToast (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no other accounts.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:DoctorIsOut is not your account? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No. . . that is not my account. . . I HAVE ONLY ONE ACCOUNT!!!!TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take appropriate action to block the impersonator account but be aware that the autoblocking mechanism would make it difficult for you to edit if TheDoctorIsOut is logging in from your IP address. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what that means but I hope it helps you realize that TheDoctorIsOut is not meTheDoctorIsIn (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have ever edited from the same IP Address as User:DoctorIsOut, it is likley that an upcoming autoblock on that impersonator account will make editing difficult for you. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. . . as that is not me then there will be no problem.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC) DoctorIsOut has been blocked for impersonating my name. . . not sure if that makes sense but I hope it goes to clear my name. . . I AM NOT A PUPPET!!TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Probation (civility)

The article Deadly Nightshade is under article prohbation per Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. Your edit here could be considered a violation of civility and your revert here removed the {{content}} tag that had strong support on the talk page. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh? I did not know.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy probation: Deadly nightshade edit summary

Your recent edit to Deadly nightshade had the summary "Modern medicine - no. . . just no.". Please restrict your summary to summarising the edits. This is not a good edit summary, and is inflammatory considering the current homeopathy probation --DrEightyEight (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. . . now I know.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the second warning. Feel free to remove. :) --DrEightyEight (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not mind it.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of probation

I have brought up your possible violation of the homeopathy probation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Deadly_Nightshade. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Talk page BLP

You edit to the Stephen Barrett article was a blatant BLP violation.[12] Your comment on the talk page is also disruption because you alleged he was "discredited."[13] Please review Wikipedia policy on BLP and consider refactoring your comment. BLP applies to the talk page too. Thanks for your understanding. Quack Guru 18:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I will get right on that for sure.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done it. Hope you don't mind. --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility warning

Hi. Your insulting and uncivil edit summary here is not helpful and disruptive. Please keep the inflammatory language off of Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I was not insulting anyone here.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Please follow WP:CIVIL. Just because you're not insulting anyone directly doesn't mean you're allowed to be insulting, especially in edit summaries. --Ronz (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editwarring in Quackwatch‎

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. --Ronz (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has nothing at all to do with NPOV as it claims to be. It is about consensus. Consensus can change too. QuackGuru (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Quackwatch has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks.   jj137 (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deceptive edit summary

You were engaged in a struggle for editorial control when you made this edit [14] that included an edit summary "see talk", but you did not make any talk page comments or otherwise try to resolve editorial differences. Given the conditions stated at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation of which you are aware, I am banning you from all Homeopathy related pages for a period of 7 days. Jehochman Talk 04:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I said "See talk". . . meaning Scienceapologist should consider looking at the talk and see the ongoing discussions do not support his reasons for removing the content. Yeah. . . I could have added to the talk. . . but what is the point? It is just going in circles there with Scienceapologist refusing to listen to very reasonable argumentation. . . besides everything I want to say has been expressed already. Please consider lifting this ban. . . If it means that you would want me to participate in talk. . . I will.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't participate in repeated reversions without discussing the underlying issue. The reason ScienceApologist wasn't banned also is that he went to the talk page and explained why they were reverting. At least an attempt was made to discuss things. I will also note that your edit summary "See talk" was an exact copy the prior edit summary of another editor who made the same revert. That sort of tag team edit warring is not good. I recommend that you edit some other topics, there are so many, and come back to homeopathy a little later. I will consider lifting the ban after a few days. Jehochman Talk 12:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Per discussion at WP:AN the editing restriction is modified. Instead of being banned, you are placed on 1RR (one revert per day) limitation for all homeopathy related pages, and must explain any reverts on the relevant talk page.Jehochman Talk 22:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=199506345 The version you reverted to is the unstable version and made without consensus. Your edit summary claimed in part: edits against consensus Your edit did not gain consensus. Your edit does not match your edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The version you reverted to has WP:COPYVIO problems.[15] Please do not add copyright violations again or you could be blocked from editing Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Your edit summary said in part: as it stood it was rich with vandalism What was the vandalism? Please be honest. Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Chiropractic

Thank you for your comments on Chiropractic. Please continue to edit in a balanced and civil way, as your contribuations are valued on this page. DigitalC (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding this disruptive editing that occurred tonight on chiropractic. Claiming the material is vandalism is in very poor taste and, IMO is totally intellectually dishonest. I appreciate your efforts in trying to make the article truly NPOV and using high quality sources as inclusion. EBDCM (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for that.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You wrote in part: Get a stable version of Effectiveness inserted at Dentistry. . . then we will talk.[16]

This is not how Wikipedia works. We do not expand another unrelated article to then talk about inclusion of NPOV material on the chiropractic article. Agreed? QuackGuru (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Sports Chiropractic

The usual gangbusters are trying to delete the article (thats very well sourced to boot). If you know of good papers we could use your contribs would be appreciated. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008 (chiropractic)

Please do not gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. [17] QuackGuru 01:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That was clearly a good faith edit, and not vandalism.DigitalC (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Nothing clear about it at all, though I agree it's not any type of simple vandalism that would be appropriate to label as such. --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Consensus has been previously reached on the respective talk page that the information regarding objective straights and reformers not be inserted into the page, because there is not any evidence that the groups currently exist. Reverting an insertion of contentious material into the article, against consensus is NOT vandalism.DigitalC (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You may also wish to move your comments in the recent RfC section, as they are down in the cost-benefit section. There are some comments on the massive edit directly below the RfC section. Cheers, DigitalC (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit deleted the effectiveness section against the advise of third-party input. And the safety section was also deleted. The safety section has been in the article for a very long time and it was vandalism to delete the safety section. The safety section was not part of any RFC. There has been long term consensus for a safety section. No explanation was given for deleting the safety section. The safety section is unrelated to my edits. Please explain your safety section deletion. I would also like to know your deletion of text against the advise of external input. QuackGuru 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Cheers QG, I actually hadn't noticed the large blanking of effectiveness, cost-benefit, and safety sections. On the other hand, I would have reverted them too, per WP:CON on the talk page that all large contentious edits are discussed on the talk page first.DigitalC (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)