User talk:Sharavanabhava/Archive 1

First Contact from Jguk

Hi Welcome to Wikipedia. Just one early note - we do use styles at the start of biographical articles, so please don't remove them. Kind regards, jguk 22:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Styles should not be used at the start of biographical articles unless this practice is universally applied, otherwise it is not NPOV, and does not in any case follow the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) standard. Whig 02:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see where you're coming from - though you are mistaken. The naming conventions apply to the article title - which is why an article would not be styled "HM Queen Elizabeth II". For the article text itself, Wikipedia:Manual of style (biographies) applies, which makes it clear that the style is used.

Note that it is not POV, as the usage required by the Manual of Style is just to repeat what others use in the real world without comment. Someone's formal style is useful and interesting information, which we should report. By putting it right at the start of the article with someone's formal name we also draw least attention to it (that is - we do not make it sound like it's a big deal). Kind regards, jguk 06:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MOS - Revised proposal for comment

I think what you've proposed is a good start; I have just a couple questions. 1) The voting method proposed is one I haven't seen before, and the refered page seems quite abstract. Is there a page you know of that shows how it would work in practice? 2) The options look good, generally, though perhaps we could narrow them a little more. Could number 4 and 5 be combined? If they are kept as is, could we please change the "and/or" in the last alternative to just "or" - it seems from context to be what is meant.

Thank you for proposing something I hope will move the discussion toward a resolution. Jonathunder 01:07, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

Looks like someone has gone ahead and started the voting, so perhaps it's too late to change options. I did, though, make a couple small wording changes ("tabled" to "archived" since "tabled" means different things in different parliamentary traditions, also "and/or" to "or"). Thanks again. Jonathunder 01:35, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

This comment was posted while the survey was being discussed and I informed Jonathunder on his Talk page that it was not yet begun. Whig 08:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

MoS (biographies)

Hi

I thought I'd drop a line here as the Wikipedia space is a hostile environment, but the userspace normally a friendlier one.

I appreciate you're relatively new to WP may not be familiar with standard practices, so it may be helpful to outline the way policy decisions are made - such as the one you are currently proposing on the MoS.

The thing is that policy dictates. It imposes. And people do not like being dictated to and having things imposed on them. And that is why policy develops by consensus. Consensus does not quite require unanimity, but it does require a strong supermajority. On WP it's usually taken as 75-80%. Without consensus, policy fails. It is not accepted, and leads to edit wars and recriminiations when those opposing the "policy" conflict with those in support of it.

We try to avoid votes - the whole idea of consensus is that it shouldn't be necessary to vote - but sometimes they are used. But then a 75-80% vote is needed (at least when the issue is contentious - less contentious issues people are often happy to concede despite 75% not being reached). Also, there should be a fair number of WPians voting (5 or 6 or 7 or 8 is not enough to create policy, for instance). The overwhelming vote is important - it means there is no more than a rump against the policy, plus it means it is more likely to be accepted by those who did not see the vote and were not party to the discussions (which includes both future and existing WPians). This means that very very few proposals succeed - but it does mean that those that succeed in a vote do get generally accepted by the community.

It is for this reason that your approach on MoS (biographies) is unlikely to find a satisfactory answer - and also why an unusual voting system, which could see an option that only has 25% support "win", will not work. Imagine if the vote, under your rules, were to say that the existing approach should be banned in favour of an option gaining 40% support, say. A lot of articles would change. A lot of editors unaware of the vote will disagree and edit back. New editors will come and add styles where they expect them. This will happen not because these editors are being difficult, or even because they have a political point to make, but solely because they are editing an article in a way that seems entirely natural to them. Now, of course, if the situation were different, so that almost everyone agrees that styles should not be used, then we would have no problem. Only a few people would edit them back, and would be easily reversed. But that is not the case here. We can see that through practice and habit and getting used to Wikipedia.

Maybe I could offer a suggestion that you revise your "vote" page to eliminate the voting aspects of it - and only to canvass views on the various "options", and also to note that nothing will change unless it is clear there is an overwhelming majority of WPians in favour of that change. Kind regards, jguk 10:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since the survey is already underway and you proposed no helpful revisions during the entire week of discussion, I think your current stance seems like more attempt at obstruction. The fact is, for the entire time the survey was being discussed and in the weeks before, you opposed any sort of consensus-building measure, even discussion, insisting that the status quo remain unquestioned. Nothing says the outcome of the survey will not be a clearcut consensus, and if the actual counting method is one unfamiliar to you, it is nonetheless a well established method for finding solutions to difficult decisions where strong opposition exists on the extremes, toward a compromise mean that almost everyone can agree to live with. So far, there is consensus that this survey should be taking place, you are the lone objector, so let's see it out and then after two weeks we'll see what opinions the Wikipedia community has expressed. Whig 11:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Honor-mania

That's quite a project you're taking on. In the U.S. alone there are hundreds of senators and members of congress, governors, cabinet members at any one time, all of them "Honorable"." [1] And then there's the thousands of Ph.D.s who are Doctors. At least they keep their titles, unlike politicians who cease to be honorable at the conclusion of their service (if not earlier). And I hope you're up on your knowledge of the Masonic orders and fraternal lodges, some of whom have special honorifics for their senior members. Hey - you wouldn't be trying to make a point would you? Cheers, -Willmcw 09:08, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

PS: Can I vote on this again? -W Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point

PPS: I agree with your stance but please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Thanks, -Willmcw 09:55, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

He's not disrupting it; he's actually following a (theoretical) policy (which is, admittedly, quite annoying and the matter of a great deal of debate). Check out his survey on whether or not styles should be included at the beginning of articles and vote on it if you don't like it. I'm sure he'll follow whatever policy is decided on. Titanium Dragon 11:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

It is disruptive as he is claiming something he knows to be false. Whig is fully aware that Governor Bush does not have a style in the same way as the Queen or Pope do. Indeed, as far as I am aware, the US eschews honorifics for its own citizens, jguk 12:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

jguk is incorrect. The US absolutely uses honorifics for office holders in formal address. If you go into a US courtroom and refer to the judge as "Mr. So and So" you will be held in contempt. The correct reference is always, "Your Honor" in this instance. Likewise when referring to a member of congress or most state legislators, etc., the style "Hon. So and So" is always used in written correspondence, and so forth. Obviously Jguk may have a misunderstanding of US culture, and this is understandable, but he does not have a basis to selectively revert style for cultures other than his own. Whig 20:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

A question

Looking at your user contributions, I'm a bit puzzled. Are you a somewhat irregular user who has just found a cause you are passionate about, or do you have another Wikipedia account by which you are more familiarly known, but have chosen the name Whig to fight this one issue. I think it would be helpful if you could say which - and if you have another Wikipedia account, I think you should be open about what it is so that no-one can allege impropriety about hiding behind names or casting more than one vote. Kind regards, jguk 20:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I've done some edits under my IP address before I had a regular user account. I have no other user accounts, and never have. Whig 03:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

In regards to my particular interest in this issue, it was your own personal intransigence that caused me to seek dispute resolution through general discussion and ultimately the present survey. Whig 03:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Please desist

Please stop going around and adding honorific titles to bunches of articles (i.e. George W. Bush), simply "to inform people of the existing policy and the fact that a survey is underway to affirm it or change it." WP:POINT. – ugen64 01:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

An article on George W. Bush ought to begin with President. I am not going around and adding inappropriate titles, I applied styles in a very small number of articles where I thought appropriate, and to the extent I have mistitled anyone I have corrected it myself. Whig 03:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Quick question

Do you know Lulu in real life, and if so, how? jguk 08:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not. Whig 08:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I would tend to think the appropriate answer to Jguk's question is "None of your damn business." It is well possible that I could either know or not know you IRL, but what on earth relation could that have to Wikipedia? I guess to somehow insinuate there was something wrong in the actual fact (presumably whichever way it was). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Not a whole lot gained by letting him feed whatever conspiracy theory he might have had. Since I don't in fact know you other than as a participant on Wikipedia, I didn't feel there was good cause to let him believe otherwise. For what it is worth, I agree with many of the points you make, and in particular the "use-mention" distinction which you have elaborated upon at several points, but I think you tend to let disagreements turn too personal on occasion and I think it is generally counterproductive to respond with hostility even when you have good cause to be annoyed. Whig 04:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

That's OK, you'd disagree with me even more if you knew me in person :-).

Btw. I kinda wondered if I might be the person who secretly benefits financially from Condercet: I'm the (volunteer, unpaid) CTO of the Open Voting Consortium, and among other things, we are ultimately committed to letting jurisdictions use whatever tallying method they want (we're agnostic). But if you dig through the OVC stuff, you can probably find words that are non-hostile toward Condorcet. It's an idiotic connection to make, but... Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:02, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

So, given your expertise, then, what do you think of the summarized current results section? I tried to make things as clear as possible so that people won't be confused by the method, how it works and why the result is a fair representation of the ballots. Whig 08:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't claim expertise on the particularities of Condorcet tallying. In fact, some Condorcet proponents, IMO, go a bit overboard in claiming that Condorcet solves all the weaknesses of IRV. In reality, following Arrow's Theorem, any tallying method comes up with its own "paradoxes." I do kinda think that for general political elections, IRV is easier to explain to voters--which probably counts for more than any slight theoretical advantages Condorcet has.

You've done a great job in summarizing the current results. Unfortunately, I think the cycle that existed when I last looked at the summary is gasoline on the fire. I understand perfectly well that it's no big thing, and not a shock. But all of those with the Holy agenda--and even others who merely proclaimed confusion with the voting technique--are going to claim the cycle is something nefarious, or is a deep flaw in the system. Before the cycle arose, your job was a little easier... but those are the vicissitudes of an actual vote. Maybe the cycle will disappear before vote close (I kinda hope so, as a practical matter). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:35, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Incidenally, my comment on the talk page was not directed at you, jguk 12:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm crashing the discussion, but I just wanted to mention that what's happened in this survey is fascinating. I think Wikipedia is unusual in letting voters a) see others' votes while the voting is in progress and b) letting voters change their votes after having seen other voters' ballots. The sound-bite "with Condorcet, there's no advantage to voting insincerely" breaks down in this situation when there are a group of people who would rather not have a Condorcet winner than see their own preference lose. I'm just a dilettante when it comes to election theory, but I've not been able to find any literature about this situation. Is this truly new? If so, we may want to alert the real theorists about this and point them at the history for the page so they can pull data. I'd be particularly interested as to whether, given a universe of ballots containing a Condorcet winner, if a group of voters stage a cycle-creating action, whether CSSD or another cycle-resolution system will always decide on the prior Condorcet winner or not. TreyHarris 00:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

My strong hunch is that it will often (always?) be possible for a voting block to create an unresolvable cycle in any Condorcet vote, given such full knowledge of the other votes. The particular required block size, of course, would depend on how the non-block votes are cast. Well, if the "block" is one person, that's too small; and if the "block" is 90% of voters, they pretty much control the election anyway. But I think medium size minorities can muck things up.

Of course, such strategy voting depends on the block understanding what's going on, and accurately casting strategic/sabotage votes. In the existing situation, it doesn't seem like more than half the block (or the other voters, for that matter), really even understand Condorcet to start with. So I doubt they're going to manage a fine-tuned monkey wrench. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:09, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

No, a bloc of smaller magnitude than the most preferred option cannot create an unresolvable cycle against the most preferred option, unless they coalesce around a compromise option which the voters for the most preferred option also rank highly. In which case, that compromise option may tie or win, but that is part of the beauty of CSSD. The compromise works, when people are willing to find common ground. Whig 18:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you are not thinking in nefarious enough ways. Say a block prefers A. In fact, they initially vote "A and only A" (i.e. only a first preference expressed). However, there are not enough A-block voters to bring A to the top preference.

Now say that the non-block voters choose among X, Y, Z in a manner to create a cycle (the B-W options are low in everyone's rankings). CSSD can find the weakest preference in the X/Y/Z cycle, it would seem. But what if the A block voters, at the last moment, vote among X, Y, Z in such a way to create an exact equality in the X/Y/Z cycle? (e.g. X:Y=100:95; Y:Z=100:95; Z:X=100:95). At this point, there is nothing to drop among X/Y/Z. Which doesn't mean A wins (or even moves any lower), but it creates "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" in the vote as a whole.

Succeeding in this plan (for disruption, not victory) depends on A-block voters being able to vote after all other voter preferences are known to them. Sealing votes prevents the attack. But the scenario described is not different from that on WP (except in the math skills of the A-block) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:25, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

A tie is not the same thing as a cycle. It is possible to have tied outcomes, no matter the voting method used. However, if A>Z voters are of a smaller magnitude than the Z>A voters, nothing the A>Z voters can do will cause A>Z to prevail or even tie. Whig 18:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I referred to a cycle above. Well, to a "tied cycle" (maybe there's a better term); if you read my example in the parens you'll see that I'm not talking about a preference tie between two choices only. I also didn't refer to causing a minority option to win, but just to monkey-wrenching. Honestly, my last note wasn't that long, and I think it describes a theoretical problem rather clearly. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:25, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Hm. Yeah. A 3-way tied outcome is possible, but only if the votes lay just right and nothing out of their control tilted the balance. It would be a really stupid thing to try, because they could just as easily put their favored option into an even lower position than otherwise. Whig 19:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Ooh. You are nefarious. Thanks for proving the importance of sealed ballots in "real" elections. Whig 19:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Voting on Titles

I am assuming that if I vote as follows: A-1, B-2, C-3 then it will be treated as A>B>C>D=E. So I don't have to vote for the two choices I don't like or figure out which one I like worse - since I like them both equally worse (if you get my meaning). TIA Trödel|talk 15:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, your assumption is correct. Whig 15:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

thx Trödel|talk

"Vote corralling" discussion

Hi Whig —

I think I must protest on Jtdirl's behalf on this current argument (even though I haven't spoken to him, and I'm sure he doesn't need my help). You've gone out of your way to attack him for the notices he posted on user pages, calling his actions "intentional tampering", saying "some kind of censure is appropriate for Jtdirl", that "he encouraged people to vote deceptively", to "vote dishonestly", that he did so "in order to make your favored alternative look more attractive" and "purely for the purpose of trying to spoil the vote."

Since we all agree that people ought to vote on all options, the issue has boiled down to a question of Jtdirl's intent, which you are describing as deceitful and dishonest. However, I believe that Jtdirl's is quite clear from the message he posted. Jtdirl was clearly under the misapprehension that a "first and only" vote would result in an overall lower ranking of that option:

"But only casting one vote is effectively a vote against Alternative 1 because it means that less opposition is recorded against its nearest rival."

He then explained that to record a vote for your least favorite, you must make votes for every other option. So far, I think, we're agreed that Jtdirl did nothing wrong.

What you have beef with, though, is his last paragraph:

"Just be careful though not to copy everyone else doing it. If everyone gives the same other alternatives the same order of votes they may win..."

Here you have ascribed to Jtdirl's motives a dishonest and deceitful attempt to to destroy the vote. While I can understand your view, I don't believe this was Jtdirl's intent, as I can see that his suggestion has a degree of rationality in it: If

i) You want your option, A, to win,

ii) You don't want your least favorite option, Z, to win, and

iii) You are under the belief, true or not, that if everyone votes for B, C, D... in the same order then one of them might end up above A

then his comments make sense. His belief iii may be incorrect, but it was clearly the assumption he was working under.

But this is all actually beside the point. I wasn't so interested in defending Jtdirl than in asking you to stop the attacks. It's clear that you were angry when you first saw the message and asked everyone whether those votes should be discounted, then you backed down from that and said that no votes would be discounted, but refuse to withdraw any comments regarding Jtdirl's dishonesty. Whatever you believe his motives were, I think that there is a degree of doubt in your belief, and that we should therefore go by Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Saying that he encouraged people to "vote dishonestly" "purely for the purpose of trying to spoil the vote" is clearly ascribing motives for which we see no evidence, and plenty of counter-evidence in his statements. These incessant personal attacks between all parties isn't helping anything. I believe that a good first step in getting coherent and rational discussion going would be if people were to start taking back some of their own personal attacks.

— Asbestos | Talk 15:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

His belief iii is correct, not incorrect. He was asking people not to vote their true preferences, i.e., to prevent any option but A from winning, by voting dishonest preferences for B, C, D, in order to block Z. Votes for B, C, D will not block Z. A vote for A and only A is a vote against Z, a vote for A>B>C>D>Z is also a vote against Z, accorded no greater weight for having ranked B, C and D. His mistaken belief that the system could be gamed in this way is not the point, except insofar as it demonstrated a flaw in the Debian modification of CSSD. Asking people not to vote their true preferences is asking them to vote dishonestly, whatever his motivations may have been and however ill-founded his expectations.

And yes, I was angry, but I am not made to feel he acted in good faith simply because he was in error about the consequence. I gladly assume good faith where an advocation to dishonesty is not made. The record to the contrary speaks for itself. Whig 17:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't help but think it a little hypocritical, though, that you and Lulu appear to be discussing votes that you state are not your actual preferences, while criticizing Jtdirl for suggesting that other people do the same. Changing your vote "to try to avoid an inconclusive survey result" may be laudable, but above you note that not voting your true preferences is voting dishonestly, and it is on this categorical principle that you have attacked Jtdirl. As both sets of actions are designed to influence the survey by not voting for one's true preference, but instead by calculating the effect of a ranking on the over-all outcome, I can't help but notice a level of hypocrisy in your attacks.

FWIW, though, I've changed my votes so that 3>1: Options 1 and 2 are clearly illogical and I freely admit that I don't know what I was thinking. — Asbestos | Talk 21:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to Alternative 3, and I prefer to compromise in favor of the "non-Alternative 1" consensus than to allow those who might swing their votes at the last minute to intentionally create a deadlock from using my vote to help them be able to do so. Call it defensive strategy if you like, but it is my honest preference, given Lulu's insightful observation above. Whig 23:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Btw, if you'll note my last comment on the now-archived thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/Vote Corralling in reply to Bratsche: "A compromise can be considered tactical, but it isn't dishonest." Whig 03:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Time to archive and move on

IMO, of course. I think you let your anger get the better of you in starting and continuing the whole vote corralling thread. It is better just to assume good faith (albeit an annoying manner) by Jtdirl. I would recommend you move the whole thread to an archived subpage (as I've done for a couple other topics), and wash your hands of the issue. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:56, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Style vote -- current results

Hi, Whig. Maybe it's me, but some info seems to be missing.

You wrote: "Currently, with 63 votes counted, Alternative 3 is preferred 33:30 to Alternative 1 (52% strength), Alternative 1 is preferred 33:22 to Alternative 4 (52% strength), and Alternative 4 is preferred 28:27 to Alternative 3 (44% strength). Dropping the weakest defeat to resolve the cyclical ambiguity, Alternative 3 is currently most strongly preferred. Alternative 5 is currently defeated by all other options."

What happened to Alternative 2? Maurreen 07:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Alternative 2 defeats Alternative 5, but is otherwise defeated by Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, therefore it is neither the Condorcet loser (5) nor a member of the Schwartz set (1, 3 and 4). Whig 11:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Wait for ratification?

You aren't going to wait for ratification before making changes - that is improper IMHO. Trödel|talk 04:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The ratification is as to the convention, not as to whether styles should be prefixed. The latter question is resolved. There is no convention at present, until ratification is completed, but a lack of convention does not mean that the styles remain prefixed until then. Whig 04:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

QEII

You know I'm all for getting rid of styles but there's no immediate hurry. Leave people some time to think about what recent events mean. People are generally more likely to change their mind if you let them do it in their own time. So, please, in the interest of keeping everybody's wikistress down, slow down a bit. Zocky 10:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your frustration, and I'm not about to try to go through and change articles willy-nilly, but I feel it is important that the results of the survey be acknowledged to create a genuine NPOV dispute. Leave it flagged, and discuss on talk page, and we don't have to get into edit-wars while it's being discussed. I think this is the best solution. I spent the better part of a month trying to resolve this issue, a survey has been taken, and if we just ignore the results the "defenders of the crown" aren't about to let up in a few days or a week or a month. The issue is current now, and should be addressed, though in the least intrusive manner, I agree. The NPOV flag for this article is minimum intrusion. Whig 10:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you appreciate the frustration on the other side. There are people who spent months finding out all the right styles and putting them into articles and they will probably soon have to face having them removed and all that work wasted. We're not fighting for the sake of fighting or even for the sake of winning. We're fighting for the sake of making the encyclopedia better and happy editors are an essential part of that.

I wouldn't have called the ratification vote in your place yet either. Once the vote starts, the debate is over and people are not going to change their mind on polarized issues. If you had waited for a while, style supporters would have had time to reconsider what has been said and I'm sure many would have supported the compromise proposal.

So, don't rub the salt in and try to go for a quick kill. We're in this for a long haul and we can't afford bad blood among good editors. Zocky 10:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Be bold, but stay cool. The last word has obviously not been spoken on the style issue. While everyone is still talking, please don't continue to revert insertion/removal of tags on Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Revert wars never fixed anything. The dispute is very well known and there is no point to single out one article to highlight it. I do not want to protect this page, and I will be very disappointed if that turns out to be necessary. If you would consider stepping away for just a moment and having the Wrong Version up while we talk it over, I would be grateful. JRM · Talk 10:24, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

I'm going to bed, anyhow. I've raised the issue, let it be threshed out for a bit. I think the tag should be there, but I'm not going to revert war over the tag either. Whig 10:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Kim Jong-Il

I'd give up on the prefixed Chairman title. I know Jguk has an extremely biased POV, in religious, political, and geographic ways. And his prevalent vandalism is really annoying. However, in this case, I don't think the point your making is even correct. The title is indeed neutral, but it's hardly mandatory to use at the front. E.g. see Junichiro Koizumi, who gets his Prime Minister title at the end of the intro sentence, or likewise (President) Hugo Chávez, or Fidel Castro who doesn't get his title anywhere prominently. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:06, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

I expect those articles should be fixed too. I think that it is important information to convey to the reader. The main problem right now is that we cannot have a twelve-front revert-war with Jguk, Jtdirl, Proteus et al. I expect that the situation with Jtdirl is going to have to go to an RfC shortly given his repeated personal attacks (see Talk:Pope Benedict XVI) in calling me a liar, etc. Whig 20:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

But I definitely do not want the articles on Koizumi, Chávez and Castro to begin with their job title. I want that information somewhere fairly early in the articles (which it isn't for Castro, but is for the others), but not prefixed. I'm not singling out those politicians, of course, if you prefer, say the same thing of Chirac, or Martin, or Howard, or Blair (hmmm... I think he's probably mis-styled), or Fox, or Putin, or Fahd, or whoever. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:25, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

A way forward

We have previously discussed, and others have advised you, to calm down on the prefixed style issue. Unfortunately, this does not seem to have happened. WP is a broad church, and we, quite rightly in my opinion, encourage edits from editors with a wide range of backgrounds and views. This, however, means that we need to be tolerant of others - and in particular, tolerant of those we disagree with most. I would very much welcome it if you would allow the style-wars issue to die down. I have no problem with you raising the initial points, or with you asking the initial questions. But we have now had a wide-ranging discussion, and it is clear no consensus exists. Please do not force the issue. Let others decide how to take it forward.

Let me, even at this stage, offer a potential solution. If you and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters agree to step aside from the style wars (thereby allowing other editors to determine what happens), so will I. I appreciate you are unable to speak for Lulu, but I look forward to your acceptance in principle as a good way to move forward, and to allow both of us to make more constructive edits elsewhere.

In the meantime, I am asking for outside comments on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig. This is just a request to ask you to leave off the style wars for now (and, as noted above, I am willing to do the same myself). Finally, may I express my sincere hope that you take this note in the manner in which it is intended: an attempt to put the wars behind us so we may both continue to edit WP in a constructive manner. Kind regards, jguk 20:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe your RfC was made in bad faith, and contains numerous inaccuracies which I intend to address shortly. Your suggestion that you are willing to "leave off the style wars" if both Lulu and I do so is disingenuous. For one thing, I cannot compel Lulu to comply with your "compromise" and therefore even if I personally withdrew but he did not, you would not be bound by your own word to leave off. More importantly, you are not the only involved party on your side of the disagreement, and your offer would not bind others like Jtdirl and Mackensen, et. al. to disengage. This dispute was long simmering before I got involved in the B16 article, and whereas others have not seen the need to try to work towards a resolution of the impasse, I have been an active organizer, and now, after long discussion and a survey in which a majority agreed that the prefixed use of styles violates NPOV, you and those who now find yourselves defending a minority position seek to impose your will anyhow by filing an RfC and attempting thereby to let your defeated status quo ante go unopposed by the lead organizer of the survey which you lost. This RfC is not a "way forward" — it is a way backward. Whig 02:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

styles and stuff

Could you please comment on my idea at the style survey ratification page? Cheers. Zocky 02:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm off to bed shortly - I've been up working all night. Whig, please reconsider your position on the interim policy. I agree with you on the editorial issue - styles should go. But I'm also looking at it from another perspective. I know I'm repeating myself, but there really is no deadline. It doesn't have to be done correctly tomorrow, or next month, or next year. There are other more important issues on Wikipedia, not to mention in real life. Whether Wikipedia uses styles or not will have zero effect on your life, as well as on mine. But continued vehement pursuit of the issue will both fail to change things, at least as things stand now, and make editing less enjoyable for you, me, and many other users. The level of animosity in discussions on wikipedia is too high as it is, there's no need to make it any worse.

So I'll try to address what I think are your remaining concerns:

Take no action

All the action taken so far hasn't really succeded in removing any styles. A freeze would relieve everybody of a quite dull edit war, plus it would stop more styles from being added.

No policy

As said elsewhere, I think that it would be a more NPOV position than the current state of affairs which allows people to claim that obligatory use of styles is an undeniably accepted policy. It would be possible to contest and overturn individual usage - certainly the most controversial ones, and in time, maybe a new convention will arise that will be more agreeable with you.

Styles vs. other honorifics

In your poll many people thought that they were voting about honorifics like "Sir" and "Lord" and some objected to their use. The current guideline and it's detailed version don't shed much light either. That shows that Wikipedia editors don't have a good understanding of what different kinds of honorifics are, and certainly not a clear idea about how they apply to an encyclopedia. Considering that my aim is to collect and digest information about honorifics and their use, it seems to me that it would be useful to include all honorifics just for this reason.

There is also another important reason. In the light of the obvious lack of knowledge about honorifics, I'm worried that people will use other honorifics as battlegrounds for proxy wars over this issue. I'd like to avoid that.

NPOV

There is a genuine disagreement over whether the use of styles is NPOV and over whether that is at issue at all. The interim policy proposal is written so that it's text is acceptable to as many people as possible. I intend to use the "stuff" as a starting point for the ensuing debate. Note that "controversial" simply means "potentially POV" without throwing absolute and non-negotiable policy at people.

Good faith from other editors

If one wants to cooperate in a project like this, there is simply no other way than to assume good faith, even when prior experience shows otherwise. We don't know other editors in real life. There's no way to tell what made them think or behave one way at one time and no way to tell if they'll do the same at another. The main point: people who want to add styles are neither spiteful nor political extremists - they obviously genuinely believe what they're saying. Possibly because of an underlying misunderstanding or a genuine difference of opinions.

All that said: doing this right will require a lot of grunt work before we even start writing proposals, and I have to make a living in addition to spending my time here. I could really use help.

Regards, Zocky 10:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Zocky, I really do appreciate the effort you are making to reconcile things. I don't expect or require that styles be removed from all entries immediately or in the next week/month/whatever. We are definitely not talking about honorifics, don't go there, because it's a whole different ball of wax, and even I would vote against removing neutral titles of office like "Queen" or "Pope" or whatever. Ultimately, the style guide should not leave this up to individual page editors, one way or the other, or we will just have an endless edit war on each and every page where prefixed styles are used. Nothing could be more disruptive to Wikipedia than that outcome, but that is precisely what your "default" solution would impose.

Frankly, I don't know that another survey, or multiple surveys, will ever come to a consensus. I think that the already completed survey established that a majority feel that prefixed styles are undesirable and violate NPOV. Even if someone wants to contest that something less than 100% of the participants in the survey who preferred Alternatives 3 and 4 did so on NPOV grounds, there remains a substantial NPOV dispute. Please read the NPOV article, it isn't really something that we can compromise. Find a solution that a consensus accepts as NPOV, and I yield. But I'm tired and frustrated, and I don't mean to come across as impatient with you. I just don't see the point in disregarding the survey that's already been concluded, when "disregard this survey" came in dead last, and you haven't given me anything that hopes to achieve a "more final" resolution a month or a year from now.

I think what might end up being the best (perhaps only) solution is to let the current ratification vote conclude, then make an RfA on the MoS (bio) assuming we still can't come to a consensus. Whig 11:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is an excellent excerpt from the NPOV policy:

Anglo-American focus

Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?

Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or British perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and British citizens working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them are online. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter. This is not only a problem in the English Wikipedia. The French Language Wikipedia may reflect a French bias, the Japanese Wikipedia may reflect a Japanese bias, and so on.

And with that, good night. :) Whig 11:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Whig, the aim of the RfC is not to have a go at you (although I know RfC unfortunately has some negative connotations). It was to get some views to show you that I am not alone in thinking you have been a bit over-eager in the "style wars" and to suggest that it's best to leave them alone for now (and let others pick up the issue if they so wish).

The other aim was to get further comments on your approach of calling the vote and the way it progressed. I appreciate that before these recent episodes you were an infrequent editor, and probably unfamiliar with the WP approach. Now you are more aware, I'm sure there are things you would do differently in the future.

I certainly do not see the RfC as something hanging over you, and would not want you to feel that way. That is why I am seriously suggesting that you (like Lulu) give the whole thing a rest - and also why I am offering to do likewise. We can then, all three of us, go about improving WP in other ways, rather than spending far far too long discussing what at most is three words in a small number of articles. Kind regards, jguk 11:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Really, I think you should read my response on the RfC itself. I won't follow-up otherwise here except to say again that I hope you will reconsider. Whig 12:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I think your response considers the style wars arguments more than whether we should all (myself included) give it a rest for now. The RfC is not about the arguments rehearsed in the style wars. We can all see that we are not going to get consensus for much now, and to be honest, I think any improvements to the current position are more likely to be made without our contributions. I'd appreciate your agreement to calm down, leave it a while and let others take on any banner we may have. Then we can get back to good productive editing on other pages. Kind regards, jguk 18:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently letting the ratification vote run out on the convention before I consider whether there is any forward progress on other approaches to find consensus in this matter. Not seeing any consensus forming at the present time, I'm still willing to give others a chance to address the issue in a way that leads to some future resolution. I've addressed my concerns with respect to Zocky's approach, and hopefully he will take them into consideration, but I appreciate very much his efforts. I think if you brought an RfC in order to somehow thereby persuade me that I ought to let the status quo ante stand, it was unpersuasive and a great waste of my personal time and that of others, and very much seems like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point at the least. Whig 23:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Withdrawal

I think I withdrew because I was unsure about the Rfc itself. I noted a lot of chaos at Elizabeth II and then got involved at Juan Carlos. then we were getting into a dispute about whether to say Selassie is God or Jah. I was maybe precipitate in assuming the good faith of those who were making the Rfc against you, but am now not sure they were acting in good faith. I think we should discuss any differences on the talk pages of the various Rasta articles. I thought long and hard before reverting you when I did, --SqueakBox 02:19, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ratification

I put together what I hope is a neutrally presented view - would appreciate if you copyedit it to make it more neutral where possible. I hope that pointing out the issues will help avoid them in the future. However, I am frustrated with the changed presentation of the vote from the Survey to the Ratification and doubt I have been as neutral as I should be. Can you take a look?

Also, please note that I support the closure on the Requests for comment and will be commenting there as well. Trödel|talk 23:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. I regret I don't see Zocky's proposal as addressing my concerns, and I've responded on the ratification page to your proposal. Whig 08:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Closing the RfC

Whig

Just a note to say I am also eager to close the RfC, but I would like some comment from you that, in retrospect, the way the vote was conducted did not work, that you acknowledge that WP operates by consensus and that you will not edit to delete (or reinsert styles) (I'm willing to make a similar editing commitment - except for reserving the right to reverse any edits Lulu makes in the same area). I'm not after blood, and I don't want this to escalate, but I do feel the issue won't be resolved without some conciliatory comment from yourself that recognises the concerns I and the others who supported my comments on the RfC have. Kind regards, jguk 08:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Close the RfC. My comments have been made, I need not keep making them repeatedly. Your concerns were not accurately expressed, do not rise to a violation of Wikipedia policy, and are unsuitable for a RfC. I do not agree that a consensus is necessary to enforce the NPOV rule, which expressly overrides even a consensus in the opposite direction. Your lack of good faith is grounds for an RfC itself. I am not prepared to escalate to that at this time, but I think the style dispute will best be resolved by a RfA to review the matter and make a proper and binding determination. Whig 08:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

FYI

There has been a RFAr against jguk opened at [2]. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I happened to notice this fact right here (Whig's page is on my watchlist, since I've edited it before). I made a comment to User_talk:Grunt about Jguk's overall pattern of behavior. It seems like his behavior in the BCE/CE issue is much like is behavior relative to other usage issues (i.e. ignorant, obnoxious, and self-righteous). As I mention to Grunt, I have not specific experience with the date issue, so I cannot comment directly on the RfA. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:16, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on the RFAr, just like I never commented on the RFC against you and Whig. I just think some mediation, and some outside intervention, will probably prevented half of the mess that is going on. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Names of the Emperors of Ethiopia

Hi Whig, I noticed that you've been trying to bring some order & fill in the blanks of the rulers of this country. Much as this work is badly needed to be done, there's a couple of things I'm sure you'd like to know about:

1. There is a fairly comprehensive list at Rulers and Heads of State of Ethiopia that I've been working on, which provides the current forms of the names, dates, etc. of these rulers. While I'm not inflexible about most of the material here (please note my comments about the Zagwe dynasty), if you think this material shuld be improved on, please discuss it there. (And I admit that the table itself needs further work -- but my priority has been on the next item.)
2. I have, myself, been working on biographical articles on these rulers. The ones for the Solomonid dynasty up to Iyasus II have been added to Wikipedia; the others from Iyoas I forward are under work as we speak. So you may want to hold off on further contributions in this category until I add those articles -- many of which are not stubs -- to Wikipedia.

P.S. Your Talk page is about 47 Kb in size; you may want to archive part of it. Feel free to ask me if you need help doing this. -- llywrch 20:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the links, I will try to incorporate and/or supplement what you have. I'd like to have each of the entries themselves show the succession at the bottom of the page as a navigational aid, or alternately/additionally an infobox, as is done for other dynasties. I stopped adding entries once I got back to where I could only stub each entry, so if you can flesh those out and add additional entries as appropriate, that would be great.
• Re: archiving, I'll look into it. I think a lot of the present comments here show a context and continuity with present Wikipedia issues (viz. the survey and the unfortunate RfC filed against me (by jguk, who apparently has a RfAr accepted against him as well, not involving me).

Please don't move any more articles about the Ethiopian Emperors without discussion first; you've started making changes in an area where the usual rules of titulature don't work well. This whole issue of which names should be used is very complicated -- & one that I am still learning as I go along. However, the usual rule from my research is that Throne names are used less often than their personal names, & often introduce many problems of their own: some Emperors had more than one Throne name, some never adopted one, & there appears to be some disagreement over which was the personal name & which was the throne name. (I've left this issue untouched, because so far it looks as if only one author disagrees with the rest, & then only on some Emperors.) Thanks -- llywrch 17:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

RFC

Hello. Persuant to your actions on his user page, I have created a second RFC against Lulu. It is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 2. Perhaps you could check it out. Cheers, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 11:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Uh....why two? If there is one against him already, and it is still going, you can add evidence, then sign it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 12:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, no, not true. This is over a different issue, ergo, different RFC. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 13:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Template:British Royal Family

And I must protest your accusations of misbehavior. I did not revert the template, and protected it only to prevent further edit-warring. The idea of protection is to force discussion, and it need not be the result of any discussion. Also, please consider m:The Wrong Version and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and know that I did not consider beforehand which version to protect. — Dan | Talk 03:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry for misinterpreting your action, although contextually your protection followed your addition of "evidence" in my RfC, and I do protest your accusations of misbehavior as well. So let's call it even, I'll grant that your actions were in good faith but please do me the same respect. Whig 03:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

RfC

You probably realised that you'd caught me away from the computer (I had to go to London for the day). I've never actualy closed an RfC, so I'll have to read up on it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Damn! I forgot all about promising to read up on it. I'll do that now (though you might want to ask someone who's done it before — then I could see what they do...). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfAr re: Styles

Whig, sorry I couldn't help you. Part of the reason is that I haven't been at Wikipedia much lately, for various reasons. Maurreen 04:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC

Hi, Whig. I've read your alternative proposal and I'm ambivalent for now. Best, Maurreen 02:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

As the current NPOV dispute at AIDS had grown to 42 it was clogging the talk page - this may have been the intention ;)

After your comment I improved the links at the top of the page.

I wonder if the archive it better resorted by topic?

Sci guy 13:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Help me hummy!!!

I'm trapped in UCLA on a friggin' Mac. Having fun tho. (Arrived safe and sound). Any notion how to get email from the aforementioned friggin' Mac?

• check your mike@b... email 128.97.86.13 00:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cannabis/LSD

Hello Benna, thought I'd drop over to your Talk page to discuss what you're saying on the Talk:Cannabis (drug) page regarding what you claim to be the spiritual or non-such effects of these materials. It is indeed not my business to know too much in the way of specific detail, but I enquire anyhow, whether you base your position on external research, assumptions of some kind, reports of actual cannabis/LSD users, or personal experience. Whig 09:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

All I was saying with regard to LSD is that it is more reasonable to believe that someone using LSD would become unaware that their experience is chemical induced that it would be with cannabis. I don't think this is a controversial position. LSD is certainly a more mind shattering substance. There is a massive body by both cannabis and LSD experience reports that makes this quite clear. LSD tends to have an ego-loss effect that is far less pronounced in cannabis. My own experience bares this out but that's not important. I don't think you could find anyone would would argue that cannabis distorts reality more than LSD. Benna 10:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

AIDS article needs your help to make it a Featured Article

Hi there! In an effort to make the article here on AIDS the best possible before trying to submit it as a "Featured Article", I've looked up some active submitters in the last month or so and found you. Please, take a little time to go by the AIDS article and it's Talk page to see how you can help. One rather large source of confusion and complication, the References/External Links section, has just been cleaned and polished, thus your experience should be much more tolerable in general ;).

AIDS is a very serious world wide issue; never before have we needed to spread AIDS education as much as we do now. We need as many people as possible working together to make this article on AIDS the best it can be. Hope to see your contributions soon! JoeSmack (talk) 23:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jguk for admin?

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/jguk CDThieme 20:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

styles

Given the endless debate/rows etc over styles on royal and papal articles I've been thinking as to what is the best way to come up with a consensus solution. Styles have to be in an article, but using them upfront is, I think, a mistake and highly controversial. I've designed a series of templates which I think might solve the problem. There are specific templates for UK monarchs, Austrian monarchs, popes, presidents, Scottish monarchs and HRHs. (I've protected them all, temporarily, because I want people to discuss them in principle rather than battle over content and design right now.) I've used a purple banner because it is a suitable royal colour and is also distinctive. They are eyecatching enough to keep some of the pro-styles people happy; one of their fears seemed to be that styles would be buried. But by not being used they are neutral enough to be factual without appearing to be promotional. I'd very much like to hear your view. I'm going to put them on a couple of user pages and ask for a reaction. There needs to be a calm debate on them this time. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Royal styles of Sharavanabhava/Archive 1

Papal styles of Pope Paul VI

Monarchical styles of Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary

Styles of James V of Scotland

Presidential styles of Sharavanabhava/Archive 1
File:Ie pres.png

Styles of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

Talk:Christmas_tree#Cannabis

FYI: I just put up a question in Talk:Christmas_tree#Cannabis about your latest edit... your comments might be helpful too. Best regards! ++Lar 14:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote for drug chart

Hi Whig :) Happy Holidays and Happy New Year :) I was wondering if you might be up to voting for my psychoactive drug chart on Wikipedia featured picture candidates? --Thoric 01:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Thoric. It looks interesting, but I'm not entirely comfortable with this graph. Cosmetically, the chart text is partially overlapping and makes it hard to read. More substantively, it's hard to precisely say that a given substance belongs in a specific location on the diagram, especially where (as in the case of natural psychoactives like cannabis) there may be multiple interacting chemicals with potentially differing and interrelatedly modifying effects. Whig 05:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

CFD renomination

For info: a cat you previously voted to delete has been recreated. Please see:

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_26#Category:White_people

--Mais oui! 17:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bong_Hits_4_Jesus.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bong_Hits_4_Jesus.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Pittsburgh crime reports

You recently added this edit to the Pittsburgh page:

"But recent crime statistics may contradict this claim.".

The information it's contradicting comes from (according to the source) "FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005". The reference cited in your addition says its data comes from "2003 FBI Report of Offenses Known to Law Enforcement". Isn't 2005 more recent than 2003? Tlesher 19:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be rephrased in some way, but it is important to present that the crime rate is not substantially lower than other cities if recent data suggests otherwise. Whig 02:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dementia

Hi tried to remove the word dementia from the article. But I mdoing something technically wrong can you help? no .......evidence ! was found that somebody ...disagrees with after the discussion we had in the talk page. Can you take a look. thanks

If you want take a look at Sources Interpretation #2

--Sm565 05:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Was this meant to be put on someone else's talk page? I'm not sure what article you are referring to. Whig 06:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Thanks for good chat. I agree it works but the issue is how to show this and trials have been a very mixed blessing for homeopathy over the years. Yes you are right about the 'sky is blue' analogy but all the anti folks are ant because they disagree with the possibility of such small doses from the armchair of theory, NOT from trying it. And fed solely on a diet of garbage articles from their fellow molecular zealots they recycle the same garbage ideas and objections ad nauseam. It's a waste of breath talking to them. Hahnemann was an incredible person and deserves close study. Happy to chat further. Peter morrell 08:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose looking out the window would be original research, and here indoors the air seems perfectly clear so it's impossible for the sky to be blue. Proven by some kind of interesting reasoning that rejects empiricism. But okay, I understand quite well that we have to be encyclopedic and document things properly. Still, you can go to the corner pharmacy and get a product called Sinus Buster. It's a capsaicin based sinus spray, it irritates the sinuses and causes them to clear. It works, at least as a temporary remedy. That is homeopathic, and non-controversial. It's like saying "water is wet." Whig 08:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That stuff you took is not strictly homeopathy but it is a sort of law of similars in a crude form...what potency is it? it illustrates the idea of proving and a similarity between the induced sickness and its therapeutic use...sinus congestion. It is also similar to the eyes running while peeling onions which is a remedy used for hayfever in homeopathy. There are numerous examples of 'medical similars' and this had been known for centuries long before Hahnemann. What Hahnemann then did was to greatly refine the use of this principle and so experimentally adjust the dosage down until it acted safely and therapeutically while minimising any aggravation or kick-back effect. However that preparation you have used probably does not cure deep down but only temporarily alleviates the symptoms. The true homeopathic cure would not simply alleviate the condition temporarily but remove it fully. thanks Peter morrell 12:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter. I am still learning at this point, and have had some discussion with a naturopathic doctor but have barely scratched the surface thus far. I determined what I thought to be the most similar remedy and found a single 30C dose had a noticeable effect. This is not encyclopedic, but it is personal experience. Whig 17:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

On the Sinus Buster product, I do not know what potency it is. In homeopathic terms, presumably quite low, and a very crude remedy, but capsaicin has the advantage of being non-toxic at the dose they use and that really is the point, isn't it? Whig 17:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It should say on the packet surely? No matter let me know when you find out. cheers Peter morrell 06:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't sold as a homeopathic remedy, it is a spray bottle with a liquid that goes up your nose to clear sinuses directly. It works according to the homeopathic principle of similarity, however. The ingredients, as listed on the bottle, are: Purified Water, Oleoresin Capsicum (Pepper Extract), Eucalyptus Oil, Rosemary Extract, Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), Sea Salt, Vegetable Glycerin. Whig 16:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

For convenience I shall reply here hope that's OK? I have worked on this article over the last 18 months and it never gets any easier because of these POV folks who know naff all about homeopathy constantly reverting stuff and being rude. It is hard going. But yes I understand your points. I will intervene now and then as time permits. cheers Peter morrell 08:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That is fine, I would enjoy talking with you further and learning more about homeopathy. Please do not be impatient about fixing the article, it may take awhile to deal with the politics and establish the proper ground rules again, right now there is a group of editors who are insisting that it be mainstream, which is a violation of Wikipedia NPOV rules which require incorporation of minority viewpoints (without undue weight). Whig 16:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah & all fools who know nothing. I don't intend to contribute any more. By all means chat as you wish thru email if you wish from wiki up to you cheers Peter morrell 17:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that homeopathic principles of attenuation are as applicable to discussion on Wikipedia as anything. Allopathic opposition to the disorder is not as helpful, because the immune system of the community responds by suppressing the remedy quickly and the POV shifts more against neutrality. What must be done is to strengthen the underlying immune response to restore neutrality. Whig 17:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how to contact you by e-mail. Whig 17:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

From my talk page on the left side there is an 'Email this user' tabe and any msg sent thru that comes thru to my normal email system. Or check out my website easily found online. thanks Peter morrell 18:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, and for anyone else following this homeopathy conversation as well, User:Friarslantern/HomeoIntroDraft seems to be a good start at a revised article. Whig 18:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please have a read of WP:NPA. Vanished User ^talk 19:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You should learn what a personal attack is before you delete comments. Whig 01:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Iwill rad it I think I will report the event thought with the other previous events. I dont think Vanished is prepared to modearate this discusiion though.

I I mot a fanatic prohomeopath andI would accept every critisim and rethink on what I believe. but this is too much.

best wishes--Sm565 05:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody owns Wikipedia article talk pages. Whig 05:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Yes .

I think we could do it though. The arguments are very strong they are trapped in their own resourses. Iasked them to write what thier sources say and they blocked me. What better proof that the whole thig is biased ? thanks keep in touch --Sm565 05:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I prefer that you reply to my comments on your Talk page on your Talk page, and to my comments on my Talk page here, because it keeps things in better context. Whig 05:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[3]

Do you know what does this message from Daniel Case mean?

thanks--Sm565 05:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No idea, except refers to WP:AIV and WP:ANI I guess. Whig 07:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I think they don't want to admit that a part of scientists have a different opinion. THis mainstream idea is absurd. Having being in the academic environment in Europe and in the US I assure you that many MDs and Medical professors do not really have negative opinion about Homeopathy - they just say they don't know - and they read whatever the mainstream medical journals say.

That varies considerably worldwide and in some European countries the university "mainstream" supports all alternative therapies unofficially since they use it for themselves . So this is not a referendum and these POV people will not go back or even think logically. HAlf of the cited sources I looked into and posted in the forum are totally misinterpreted and some actually support the homeopathic idea.

I thought that Tim was more objective since he is educated but If he cannot see how the inconsistent is the article and accept that a part of scientists believe in homeopathy then then the only way to argue is citing sources. There is no source stating that overwhelming majority bla bla bla I researched. They say many or a lot.

Besides non one can claim that he can collect............ "scientific weight" internationally besides the WHO. How about India? and China? all these are not scientists? They have universities as well. The overwhelming majority is associated with a n international .....referendum which if we suppose it could happen it could produce unpleasant results for the POV people. --Sm565 03:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just leave off the personal issues and deal with the content. You're doing fine, as long as you don't get upset. Whig 06:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

in my opinion it not worth arguing on how the homeopathic medecin works.

Take a look how Vithoulkas is arguing I think it is the only way. [4]

The basic argument is that if you cannot detect something in the labaraory does not mean that it does not exist. We just dont have the way to detect it. Electrons cannot be seen but we can assume their existence in special conditions....

So evaluate homeopathy on its theurapeutic results.You can rephrase and use it. Jsut an idea but look at vithoulkas first if you want.

best--Sm565 07:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Right now I am reading and evaluating Samuel Hahnemann. Once I have completed the Organon, I will be able to look at later practitioners and their approaches. Whig 07:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I will too. I dont know how to do it though. I will have to look.

I think though I will to put the under dispute sign. POV sign.Since we did not reach a consensus itis right to be there. I think. --Sm565 01:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Try to investigate www.vithoulkas.com - he is one of the most serious homeopaths in the world. He provides training to hundreds MDs around the world every year.University proffesor and very well respected figure. Take a look at his resume and you decide. Best. --Sm565 01:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You keep telling me about him. I'm reading Hahnemann right now. If you want to bring other resources into the article, you should do so or discuss them in talk. Whig 01:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Please be careful of the three revert rule. JoshuaZ 19:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm watching it. I've made two. I don't make four in a day. Whig

October 2007

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. And intentionally working around a rule is still breaking it. You're at 4 reverts in a couple of hours.

OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop bothering me. You can see I already discussed it above. I made three reverts. That is how many I am allowed to make. Whig 21:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to review WP:3RR before your reliance on it gets you into trouble. The most important passage is in the introduction:

"The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period...."

In other words, you absolutely should not rely on any guarantee of being able to make three reverts per day on a regular or ongoing basis. You would be much better off engaging in discussion with specific examples on the talk page instead of edit warring unproductively over a tag on the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You should pay better attention to what I did. I added an NPOV flag. The NPOV dispute exists. It was a good edit. Whig 01:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If you actually look at my edit history you will see no history of edit warring. So again. Please stop bothering me unless you have a real complaint or question. Whig 01:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman

Could you send me an E-mail so that we could discuss some things concerning the Homeopathy article? Perhaps I can help resolve any disputes that you see with the article in a way that no one else objects to. Please E-mail me (my e-mail is on my userpage). Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman discussions

(Moved from Homeopathy talk page to keep things on topic)

Your repeated requests for repetition including e-mail harassment demanding that I not delay to fill out your imaginary forms and explain to your satisfaction what is wrong with the article over which you exercise WP:OWN behavior continually, despite a clear NPOV dispute maintained by multiple editors, is not only annoying but is getting closer to warranting an RFC on your own behavior. Please feel free to respond constructively to any part of the discussion above, or summarize your understanding of it if you like, but stop making imperious demands. Whig 16:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of e-mail harassment, WP:OWN or threaten me. All E-mails sent aside from initial ones are responses and are always civil. Please don't make such accusations as they are not constructive. Moreover, No one is demanding anything. I'm simply requesting that you help me understand your problems with the article so that I (or other editors) can make changes so that you have no more problems with the article. This is how Wikipedia works. If you fail to provide any summary of your problems with the article despite my numerous assertions that I can not determine them based on your previous comments then there is nothing that I or anyone else can do to fix the POV, if it exists. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You continued to send me e-mails after I told you to stop, repeatedly. I will not set them forth here but as I have told you I did not want to have a private conversation with you, I will make them public as needed. Whig 16:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking you to fix the POV. I am not expecting you to fix the POV. We are working on it above. Please see the discussion. If you cannot understand, I won't repeat it for you here. Whig 16:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I stopped sending E-mails after you asked me to stop. In the same E-mail that you asked me to stop coincidently, you also threatened to make the E-mail correspondence public because you claimed I was "harassing" you. I generally consider E-mail correspondence private, however please feel free to publish any E-mail correspondence between the two of us. Also don't forget to include the E-mails that you sent me where you threatened me and insulted me and where I always responded with civility. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not threaten you. Please stop acting like an RFC is a threat. Whig 16:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You're essentially using it as a threat. Not to mention threatening to make private E-mails public (which I have no problem with you doing BTW). Also feel free to request a comment on my or any users behavior here or anywhere else. I personally took the initiative to request for outside comments on my behavior on this and other articles which can be see here: Wikipedia:Editor review/Wikidudeman. If you want to request a comment on me, Feel free to do so. I would start the request for comment myself, however I don't believe that users can start RFC's on themselves since specific procedures must be gone through prior to RFC. Those procedures include yourself and another editor having had attempted to resolve the dispute on my talk page or this talk page and having failed. See WP:RFC. If you need any help filing the RFC, please let me know. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't need help from you to start the RFC, but if you would like me to go ahead and file it, I would be happy to oblige. I have repeatedly attempted to resolve the dispute here and in e-mail, and am doing so again now by asking you to please leave the POV tag in place and allow us time to edit constructively. This is not a race, and the tag may remain for awhile. Sorry if that disappoints you. Whig 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:RFC, the attempts to resolve the dispute must be done by at least two editors and they must be done on the talk page of the involved article or on the user talk page. Also, I can't file the RFC since I have no disputes with myself. Notice also that I have not removed the POV tag. I have simply been attempting to get your problems with the article articulated so that it can be improved so that the tag can be removed that way. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't filed an RFC yet, so complaining that I have failed to meet the requirements is annoying. Whig 16:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well in an attempt to save you the time of filing the RFC, Let's go through the required processes that must be done prior to filing the RFC and resolve the dispute so that it doesn't need to be filed. I think that this can be done best if you summarized your contentions with the article and include details for me. I don't want to sound like a broken record but I think that would help drastically. Please consider it. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You are a broken record. I have responded to this demand repeatedly. This is part of the basis for the RFC. Whig 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, It's a request not a demand. I'm asking you not demanding you. As far as "responding" to it, Yes you have "responded" to it in the same way you are now doing. You're declining my request that you summarize your contentions with the article. I fail to see why you are declining it. I have stated that I can not determine your objections based on the discussions at the homeopathy article so that won't be of any help. What is there left for me to do exactly? I could continue to ask you to summarize your comments or I could stop asking you. In either case, I won't figure out your objections to the article and purported POV will remain. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What is to be done is for you to leave me alone and let me have some time to make constructive edits. If you can or cannot understand my objections is immaterial. At least three editors have a problem with the article. There is an NPOV dispute ongoing. We are working on it. Whig 17:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Where are you working on it? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There is ongoing NPOV discussion in Talk:Homeopathy. Whig 17:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean this discussion? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That is part of the discussion. There is a lot more in other sections throughout Talk:Homeopathy. Whig 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that I've been browsing through the past few days of discussions and I can't make out what exactly your objections to the article currently are. I know you've made a lot of comments on the talk page in the past few days but I can't determine exactly what your objections are. The article has also undergone a few changes in tone and wording since then. This is why I ask that you summarize your current objections to the article. Both because I can't determine your objections based on the discussions and because a few good changes have been made since they occurred. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am done repeating myself for you. You do not exhibit good faith. You do not seek to maintain NPOV. You willfully refuse to understand what I have said. It does not matter if you personally understand. At least three editors have complained of NPOV violation. YOU DO NOT OWN THE ARTICLE. Please understand that. Whig 17:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If I can intervene here briefly...please cool it and assume good faith here please for the sake of some peace and quiet. You are both good people and good editors with a calming approach why not bury the hatchet and start working together? If I can help do please let me honest broker. cheers Peter morrell 18:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter, no, you can't be a broker on the Homeopathy article as your recent meltdown shows.

Whig, do you have a purpose on Wikipedia other than to be an insufferable ass? WDM had every right to ask you to specify your objections and you have refused. "I object" is hardly a valid argument. •Jim62sch• 18:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I was invited here by Whig to comment and try to help, Jim, that's all. Meltdown? huh? what's that? Oh well. Maybe Whig you can answer WDMs basic request to say what is wrong with the homeopathy article, for example and then state why you don't trust WDM editorial judgement, which you seem to hold in question. Beyond that I don't see what can be done to resolve this stand-off. Just agree to work together harmoniously and try to keep things cool between you. Don't disrespect each other. Just shake hands and move on hey? Peter morrell 19:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Very true Peter. I just don't know why he takes so much offense to my repeated request that he elaborated and summarize his main problems with the article as it stands. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Because I have elaborated them at length, and determined that the best way forward was simply to try to correct the POV issues in the article with careful edits and then discuss those edits in Talk. This is what I am doing. I am not interested in repetition for the sake of repetition. Whig 00:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. I'm inclined to think that your stick-in-the-mud-ness with respect to Talk:Homeopathy is bordering on that. I suggest that you either learn to communicate with those with whom you disagree or take a wikibreak. ScienceApologist 01:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Whig 01:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC question

We suppose to comment below at the discusiion page? I dont know how it works. thanks--Sm565 05:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never done an RFC on an article before. I think there's no point repeating what's already been said above. This is a request for comment from Wikipedians that wouldn't otherwise necessarily know there's a problem with the Homeopathy article. Whig 05:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked this account from editing for disruption on Homeopathy. Please use the talk page for discussion. To contest this block {{unblock|your reason here}} to contest this block. Regards, Mercury 12:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sharavanabhava (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have done nothing to disrupt Homeopathy

Decline reason:

Please stop making disruptive edits and work out issues on the talk page. And be glad it was only a 12 hour block.

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

-- But|seriously|folks  16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite true. Please see these edits of yours:

• 18:05, 9 October 2007
• 18:37, 9 October 2007
• 19:23, 9 October 2007
• 21:30, 9 October 2007
• last edit

Please see WP:EW and WP:3RR. You've also been Gaming the system the past few days by avoiding the 3rr limit each time and also Canvassing other users to help aid in edit warring. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your issue with my last edit above? It is clearly not a reversion of anything.

In reply to myself, I cannot figure out what happened there at all. It isn't a reversion, but it looks like a deletion I don't remember making and if I did it was accidental. It was while I was in a non-war cooperative editing process with another editor last night and was going quite well until Vanished User replaced everything in the paragraph requiring a new analysis be done for POV. And it was too late for me to want to start a new process of language refinement before bed. Whig 16:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As to the others, it may be a fair cop, but inadvertent. I am trying simply to maintain a POV flag on an article with an ongoing NPOV dispute. That is proper and required and the refusal of a group of editors with a NON-NPOV agenda to respect it is the reason I went to RFC instead of continuing to argue about it. As to the gaming and canvassing allegations, I deny them completely. Go to RFC on me, please. Whig 16:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The last edit was another (for the 4th time in a few hours) addition of the POV tag which several other editors disagreed with. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for the explanation. Because any time I add the POV tag, even while making other proper edits, I am "reverting." That makes perfect sense now. I have said, and reiterate, your objective seems by all evidence to maintain a NON-NPOV article. Whig 17:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to second Wikidudeman here. Vanished User ^talk 16:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course you are, and everyone in your can pile on. I suggest going to RFC. Whig 16:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[Expanded comment: Edit conflict] I'm going to have to second Wikidudeman and Mercury here, though as an involved admin, I'm not going to officially deny the unblock request. Whig has spent a great deal of time - almost a ridiculous amount: I noticed at one point he was posting on Talk:Homeopathy about once every four minutes for several hours, and fairly long posts too - complaining about science on the Homeopathy page, while doing nothing productive for the article. Vanished User ^talk 16:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I spent a good deal of time on this article over the weekend. I was distressed by its heavily slanted POV. When I tried to make careful edits to the article text, they were always reverted within minutes. I determined it was not productive to edit the article text further until issues of NPOV were sorted out in Talk:Homeopathy which is where I have spent 99% of my time. I have made only a very small number of careful edits to the article itself in that time, or at all. Whig 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, sorry, no. I've asked you to summarize your objections to the article, at which point you responded with an unexplicated reference to an extremely esoteric passage in the Organon and a personal attack[5]. I'm sure we can work out whatever issues you have, but you need to stop filibustering and respond to other editors' concerns. I'm surprised someone who's been around for as long as you have is behaving like this. So far I can tell that you don't like the article because 1) it does not allow for the possibility that homeopathy works and 2) it does not include a desription of a so-called quantum mechanical explanation of homeopathy. Am I wrong? Cheers, Skinwalker 17:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. I determined that it was not productive to follow the process that Wikidudeman proposed. I was engaging in an ongoing discussion with editors on the Talk:Homeopathy page about the NPOV issues. Whig 17:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also note that the "extremely esoteric passage" was an excerpt I had previously given directly to Skinwalker in reply to some misinformation he was stating. It is still present in the discussion, so it wasn't that esoteric. Whig 17:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Whig)

Hello, Whig. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig, where you may want to participate.

-- Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Whig 20:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to post my response until the block is lifted. However, this is my entire response:

This is an NPOV dispute. Whig 20:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Well your block will be lifted today so you can post that as soon as it's lifted. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It might already be lifted. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it has not been. I am pleased to have this matter in RFC. It needs wider comment. Whig 21:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC

You may want to expand your response in the RfC to explain what you mean in more detail. JoshuaZ 01:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. The record speaks for itself. Whig 01:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Whig, if you don't point to the relevant sections of the record it will have a lot of trouble speaking for itself. I've seen a lot of RfCs and it never ends well when someone either does not respond or give a very short response with no difs. Among other problems, uninvolved or marginally involved users who look at the RfC will not take the time to look through every single edit you've made, so if they only get detailed evidence for one viewpoint, they will be much more likely to accept that viewpoint. JoshuaZ 01:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've already made my response. Whig 02:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering: I will work on a sentence for the introduction and I would like you to tell me your opinion about it.

It would state the main homeopathic objections briefly about the individual prescription. Then I would ask to be included and critisized if they want.

What do you think? Best

--Sm565 04:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC) oh I just read the puppet thing. it feels like a ...police investigation. dont want to participate in this kind of thing - it is not serious..I dont belong in any group which supports me online when I edit something I m just by myself.

If you want to suggest a change here for my comment, I'd be happy to take a look. Whig 04:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RFC, Perhaps you should acknowledge some things

At your RFC there is basically a total consensus from your fellow editors concerning a few facts about your editing habits and your knowledge of Wikipedia policy. As of now, 10 users agree that you have made threatening remarks towards, engaged in edit wars to further disputes, refused to acknowledge any attempts to resolve disputes despite exhaustive attempts, replied with threats and filibustering when attempts to resolve disputes were made and that you have a history of such behavior. 10 users agree to that (not including myself who wrote the statement, so it would be 11 including myself). 12 users also agree that you do not have an understanding of NPOV policy, as Tim's statement has elaborated upon. The desired outcome of the RFC is that you drastically alter your editing style and procedures as well as your attitude toward wikipedia. The desired outcome is ALSO that this you apologize for your threatening remarks, incivility, and edit wars. I hope the this RFC has been constructive and hopefully you will apologize for the edit wars, threats and insults and will change your editing habits respectively. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an RfC which should be applied to the submitters. Thank you. Whig 17:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC brings the light of investigation upon ALL participants. If you want to make a comment concerning the other editors and provide your evidence then please do so, however it seems that you have chosen not to say much. Regardless of anyone else's issues, upwards of 12 people agree with the statements concerning you. This is why I hope the this RFC has been constructive and hopefully you will apologize for the edit wars, threats and insults and will change your editing habits. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop bothering me in my Talk page. If you have a new comment or question, that is fine, but your repetition is annoying. Whig 17:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me just get a straight answer and then I will leave you alone and won't comment about this again. Do you refuse to apologize for the edit wars, threats and insults? Do you refuse to acknowledge the consensus of your fellow editors concerning your behavior? Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Whig 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh... do you really want arbitration?  – ornis⚙ 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not oppose arbitration. This RfC is garbage. This is an NPOV dispute. Whig 17:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have of coursed reverted the attempt to bait. I won't start an arbitration at this time just because of that. However perhaps an admin notice board notice would help for a temporary solution if you continue. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It was called placing the proper POV tag on an article which is under NPOV dispute. Please respect that an NPOV dispute exists and leave the tag in place until there is a consensus that the article has reached NPOV. Whig 18:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't even pretend to understand your threat. Whig 18:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Feedback re RfC

Hello Whig: - Regarding your note just added in the RfC talk: "You should note that I have already endorsed your view as posted on the project page."

I certainly did notice your endorsement and I appreciate it. I am hoping that some of the people who have not seen fit to endorse my comments will indicate why. Wanderer57 23:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that they are seeking to eject me because I have asserted NPOV. Whig 23:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

?

Do you like to rephrase and propose a metanalyses summary sentence. I m sure it will be appreciated .

Best--Sm565 01:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How about you give me the original sentence you want to rephrase specifically, and what you think it should say, and I'll try to work it into something that makes sense to me. Whig 01:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

ok I will do.thanks again,--Sm565 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I just cannot comprehend how the results of the previous studies conclude that Homeopathy is a quackery; the fact they suggest more research on "promising studies'" automatically gives it credit. I m trying to work to new sentence. --Sm565 06:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're trying to argue the case instead of the text. We cannot say whether homeopathy is or is not quackery. We can only quote or paraphrase someone who says something, we do not take a position. Whig 06:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont take a position.I agree.They take a position based on selective reading. I think that the metanalyses summary in the introduction is totally inaccurate. How these sentences [6] which are part of the conclusions are reflected in the summary? They arent. And based on that the article concludes: The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against conventional medicine, are the reasons why homeopathy is often described as a form of quackery.[22][23][24] I havenot seen studies on quackery suggesting for more studies Dont you agree?.--Sm565 06:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. We shouldn't be arguing over whether it's quackery. It's not our place to say. At all. Whig 06:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The article states that homeopathy is form of quackery, not me ;and it uses the conclusions of the above studies to support it; omitting any existing positive remarks about homeopathy which exist in the conclusions ofthe studies. The conclusions of the studies dont dismiss homeopathy at all.[7] They suggest more studies because of positive trend and because they find a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy. This is not reflected in the summary.It should. Right? [8] this was my original question.

--Sm565 06:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

--Sm565 06:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article should not do that. Whig 06:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are trying to work in a case for more study, that is no more proper than for it to say that it is quackery. Whig 06:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You may have a POV you are trying to articulate here, and in a neutral way, but I don't really know what you want me to say. I cannot advance anyone's agenda, I can only say that the current text is non-neutral and it needs work. I don't want it to be POV in the opposite direction, however. Whig 07:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion In primary care, homeopathic treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints was not inferior to conventional treatment.

What is not clear.No study in the article states "firm conclusions"

The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition. This is not a "firm conclusion" but it is reported.--Sm565 08:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is convincing but not.............. enoug.

All these are cited in the article as ....evidence that homeopathy does not work. Firm conclusions. This is a joke.........

metananalyses inconclusive - positive trend 1.[9] it shows positive but not conclusive. indicates that there Most trials seemed to be of very low quality, but there were many exceptions. The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used. Overall, of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 trials indicated positive results whereas in 24 trials no positive effects of homoeopathy were found. The results of the review may be complicated by publication bias, especially in such a controversial subject as homoeopathy. At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.".--Sm565 06:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)--Sm565 06:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

2.[10] INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo'. However, we found 'insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic--Sm565 07:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)--Sm565 07:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

3.[11] CONCLUSION: The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo. The evidence, however, 'is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies.' Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomized studies should be preceded by pilot studies--Sm565 07:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You see what I mean?--Sm565 08:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, give me some time to look at these and get back to you. Would that be alright? Whig 08:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I dont want any POV. The finding of the Studies and metanalyes which qualify should be reported as they are and critised.

NEgative and positive. No comments needed from pro homeopathy point of view or antihomeopathy point of view.

Is this a POV? I dont think so.--Sm565 09:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Fine I will talk to you later I have to go.Many thanks. --Sm565 09:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I'm going to look at the studies you gave me and see if I can make sense of them enough to say whether I think they merit inclusion based on what you have said. It's going to take me a little time though, so be patient. Okay? We aren't going to fix the article in a single day. Whig 09:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop attempting to edit war to add content to the article against consensus. I've reverted your POV tag addition (accidentally identifying it as vandalism, although that is probably not far off the mark anyway). The POV tag is totally against consensus and you've failed to provide any valid reasons for it's addition and at least a dozen other editors agree. Please do not attempt to edit war to add anything to the article. Please discuss it on the talk page. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If I assert the POV tag once in a day, it is hardly vandalism. It is reassertion of a live NPOV dispute that you are seeking to suppress with processes you should not be using in a content dispute. I accept in this case you say it was an accident that you left an abusive edit summary about me. Whig 17:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I said that reverting it as vandalism was an accident. I clicked the wrong button. However you're editing against consensus. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an NPOV dispute. Whig 18:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that, as neither you nor anyone else can actually elaborate on what exactly the POV problems are, despite dozens of requests from myself and numerous others. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this ground repeatedly. You are a broken record. Whig 18:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to at least get some sort of compromise from you. You insist on specific additions to the article and refuse to provide detailed explanations for your reasoning for doing so. You simply say vague things such as "it's all in the record" or simply "I disagree" without providing any details or explanation and then insist on introducing your edits. What is everyone else supposed to do exactly? How are we supposed to deal with this? If we can't even get an explanation for your edits then how can we possibly even improve the article if it's actually POV? How can we see things from your perspective if you don't even provide your perspective? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you look at and participate in the Talk:Homeopathy discussion about the Live NPOV dispute or any of the other NPOV headings where we have been discussing the problems. Whig 19:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I should perhaps just keep out of this, but I keep hoping that these problems are amenable to discussion. The last comment is perhaps a bit unfair to Wikidudeman. It seems to me he has been active in the discussion in Talk:Homeopathy; also one of the more reasonable in his views. Wanderer57 20:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My issue with Wikidudeman is that he refuses to acknowledge that a dispute even exists, despite it being discussed continuously. Maybe he is not as unreasonable as some, but I found him to be fully obstructive from the beginning of my own participation in this article. Your mileage may vary. Whig 20:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge that one or two people say that there is a dispute, and say that the article is POV, however I dispute the placement of any tag without any adequate and detailed explanation of how and why the article is POV. Without such it can never be improved and thus the tag serves no purpose. You continue to direct me to the homeopathy talk page, as if I haven't read it. I've been one of the more involved editors there and I still fail to see any justification for the placement of any POV tag. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not being helpful by repeating yourself ad infinitum. Whig 20:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You are claiming that I refuse to acknowledge that a dispute even exists when that's simply not true. I acknowledge that a dispute exists(though the validity of it is in question) but I don't acknowledge that the POV tag is helpful or justified in being used on the article when no valid or detailed reason has been given for it to be there. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How about we discuss the NPOV issues in the Talk. And please stop bothering me with your repetitive nonsense. Whig 20:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Please see a discussion concerning your recent edits at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Whig. It is important, regardless of the correctness of your position, that you remain civil in your interactions with other users. Edit summaries like [12] are inappropriate. --B 00:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It was an abusive revert that I removed, because it stated policy reasons which I did not violate. It was correctly tagged in my opinion, unless "abuse" is a bad word even when accurate. Whig 00:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Abusive" is not a bad word for something that really is abusive, but "many scientists describe" is a weasel term, as noted by OrangeMarlin in his edit summary. --B 00:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is but it was replacing EXISTING weasel words. Whig 00:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Whig is correct in that both versions had what WP:WEASEL describes as weasel-words. That does not however make an edit abusive. JoshuaZ 00:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I consider it to have been abusive. Your opinion may differ. Whig 01:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I was replacing "is often described" which is just as much a violation. I did not violate WP:WEASEL, I just made the existing violation obvious in order to cause it to be fixed. Whig 00:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, that makes your edit a bit pointy. JoshuaZ 00:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not remotely. I intended to fix it, by making a series of careful edits. Whig 00:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And in order to be "pointy" as you say, it would have had to have disrupted. Since I didn't violate any policy, I wish you would stop trying to find some basis to accuse me when I have done nothing wrong. Whig 01:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You said that you deliberately introduced content that you know is bad. Regardless of your motivations, that is creating a disruption to make a point. And regardless of the correctness of your edit or the intentions to fix it later, OrangeMarlin's edit was clearly not abusive and calling it such is wrong. --B 01:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

False, I have introduced content that was not perfect. But it was replacing bad content. So what? Whig 01:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I maintain, it was a good partial edit. It wasn't finished. It was abusive to revert. Whig 01:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify that it was abusive to revert for the policy reasons stated. Whig 01:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Topic ban

Please note that consensus has been reached to apply editing restrictions. The following restrictions apply:

• 6 months of 1 revert rule, If you revert content in an article more than once per week, will result in a block. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• The editor is placed on civility patrol for 6 months where any threat or insult, even vague, will result in a block. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• You are prohibited from editing the Homeopathy article for 6 months, you may use the talk page. You may revert simple vandalism.

It is hoped you can contribute constructively, and you are welcome to do so in this context. Regards, Mercury 23:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to protest this editing restriction. Would you please advise where and how I may lodge a dispute resolution request regarding this matter. Whig 00:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes... I would suggest filing a request for arbitration. Are you up on the process? Mercury 00:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I request assistance in doing so. Whig 00:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at WP:RFAR current requests to see how others are doing it. There are also instructions here... Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to. Mercury 00:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it proper to involve you as a party for instituting the editing restrictions? Is there a place that I can request an advocate? Whig 00:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is proper. And I don't know of a place you can request an advocate. Mercury 00:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, If you need further help, please don't hesitate in asking me as I have a lot of experience with arbitrations. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but you are an adverse party in this proceeding. Whig 00:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If you start an arbitration, I would involve myself as a party. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Any which way you slice it, Wikidudeman. Whig 00:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if he is, he may still be able to help you with at least the format. I'll be on later to discuss how to get your request posted, and that may include unblocking you for the purposes of posting the request only. Mercury 00:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

He isn't blocked from requesting arbitrations. He's free to do that. He's only blocked from editing the Homeopathy article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, my head is falling out. You are not currently blocked. Ignore my comment about unblocking you. I apologize. Mercury 00:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you for correcting that. I would like to be clear in understanding that my restrictions are voluntary. I have been advised that blocks would be placed under some conditions, but none are in place now. Whig 01:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You are technically able to violate the restrictions, however doing so would result in a block. If you edit the Homeopathy article within the next 6 months then you will be blocked. If in the next 6 months you revert an edit that isn't vandalism more than once per week then you will be blocked. If in the next 6 months you use any threats or insults towards any other editors then you will be blocked. The restrictions are in place and if you violate then then you will be blocked, however right now there are no actual blocks in place as you have not violated the above mentioned restrictions. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In other words, my understanding is completely correct. Thank you for confirming, and I do ask you to kindly cease posting to my Talk page in this matter unless you have a question or new issue to address. Whig 02:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be denying that you are prohibited from editing the Homeopathy article. In this edit you assert that you are "not blocked whatsoever". This is incorrect. You are blocked from editing the Homeopathy article. Perhaps it's a problem of semantics, however I don't mean to say that you're blocked in the conventional sense, but you are indeed prohibited (blocked) from editing the Homeopathy article for six months. I hope this clears it up. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I deny that I have been blocked. Please do not say that I have been blocked. I am not blocked whatsoever. Whig 18:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not allowed to edit the Homeopathy article. Call that a block or a ban or a prohibition from editing it, whatever you want to call it. I'm just trying to make sure that you understand that. This seems to be an issue of semantics. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we have determined above that I understand quite clearly and correctly and you have previously confirmed my understanding. I have asked you before please not to continue posting to my Talk page unless you have a question or new issue to address. Whig 18:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well with this edit you gave me the impression that you weren't aware of your block from the Homeopathy article. I was just double checking and clarifying that we were on the same page. That's why I commented. I won't comment again until some new issue comes up. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You gave an impression that I was blocked. In fact, you said I was blocked. I am not blocked whatsoever. Please stop. Whig 18:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a topic block, not a total block. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. I am not blocked whatsoever. Whig 18:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, per the request on my talk page. Whig is currently under editing restrictions per my very first above message. I think s/he understands that. Whig is not currently blocked by the software. Whig has only been blocked once. If there are any questions about the editing restrictions, let me know. Whig is still able to appeal to the arbitration committee.

Whig, some folks use the block and ban loosely. Best regards, Mercury 20:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Appreciation

This is to let you know that I appreciate your support in the homeopathy discussion where I am accused of harassment.

Thank you. Wanderer57 07:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your assistance request

At this point, quite honestly, the best advice I can give you is to sit out the ban (which, having looked through the issues here, I believe to have been placed fairly). You are not sitebanned entirely, simply banned from editing in areas where your behavior has been exceptionally problematic. What I would advise you to do, is during the period of that ban, work on editing in other areas, perhaps ones in which you don't have such strong views. Perhaps with that knowledge of the collaborative editing process, you could then return to more contentious areas after the ban expires with better behavior, and put this behind you. I do not believe that the ArbCom is likely to remove the sanctions at this time, they are honestly much more likely to endorse or even strengthen them. Good luck on getting things turned around. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion, but I think that the underlying issue here is not my behavior but an ongoing NPOV dispute in an article where I don't have strong views. Whether or not ArbCom should or would remove my editing restrictions, I am not limited from participating in the Talk on this article, and forward progress continues to be made in addressing the NPOV issues at the moment. Thank you for your input, it is certainly welcome. Whig 15:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Your EAR

Hello,

This is a courtesy follow-up to a request for assistance that you opened a few days ago, in which you sought guidance relating to arbitration. There was a reply to your post, and I would like to know if it was helpful in resolving the issue.

Feel free to reply regarding this matter to me personally, or — preferably — update your request by replying there. Regards, --Aarktica 12:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI request

I have asked an uninvolved admin to assess if your recent actions are disruptive editing. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Whig. Tim Vickers 19:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to take whatever steps you deem proper, and I still welcome arbitration if it comes to that. Whig 19:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Alex Hanley

Hi Whig:

I think I have been fair and NPOV throughout the homeopathy discussions. Perhaps that might help you trust me on this issue.

Hanley in those two papers has nothing to say that has scientific credibility. He doesn't have good references or logical arguments.

Please feel free to delete this.

Best wishes, Wanderer57 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not delete this, but I hope I can respond without it being considered disruptive. I am not competent to disregard a paper written by a published physicist which claims a plausible physical mechanism for homeopathic potency. I would welcome any other similarly qualified source which disputes this. Whig 22:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the process works the "other way" - i.e. unless there is positive support for his views from "reputable sources, scientists" we MUST disregard it under Wikipedia policy. I can't imagine finding that kind of support for those papers. Wanderer57 22:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. We should not take him as a reliable source to say that homeopathic potency is physically plausible, we should however attribute that view to him according to his expertise. So we should say something like, "According to physicist Alex Hanley, Ph.D., a physical explanation of homeopathy is plausible.[cite]" Whig 22:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd put two cites there, one for the first and one for the sequel paper. Whig 22:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Noted. Wanderer57 02:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Many thanks for the unexpected barnstar! It's very kind of you. cheers Peter morrell 16:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Question for Whig

off-topic discussions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Moved from Talk:Homeopathy by Fyslee. It was off-topic.) Whig, are you User:Sm565? I am very serious. Your editing style, argumentation, circular reasoning, and lack of knowledge about basic science and about how to determine the reliability of sources are practically identical, hence my question. -- Fyslee / talk 19:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC) No, I am not. I believe this is a personal attack. Whig 19:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Fyslee - 1) That is an awfully rude suggestion. Please withdraw it. 2) I read all of Whig's and Sm565's October contributions here. In my opinion, there are huge differences. In the earlier discussion, some of their arguments were 90 degrees or further apart. Wanderer57 20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC) It was a question, not a suggestion. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC) (outdent)I doubt that Whig and Sm565 are sockpuppets of each other. Both are disruptive, yes, both misunderstand basic scientific concepts, yes. But, after having been exposed to large (very large) quantities of prose by each of them, I think their writing style and syntax are very different. When challenged, Sm tended to get a little hurt, and then restate his point, while Whig just gets angry, and changes the subject for a little while. Sm's use of english was fairly idiosyncratic, while Whig's seems that of a native speaker. Cheers, Skinwalker 20:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Thank you for AGF. It was indeed a question. -- Fyslee / talk 20:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Wikidudeman - Are you familiar with the term "splitting hairs"? I think it applies here. As I said just a little back, Gentlemen, please pull back a little bit and take some time to think this over. Wanderer57 20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC) It was a question, not a personal attack, and thanks for the clear answer. I believe you. I had forgotten about Sm565's language situation. My bad. -- Fyslee / talk 20:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC) There's no need for all this. Whig means well he is pushing a point and why not? homeopathy is a 'deviant science' that has never had any access to peer reviewed anything for 200 years, so please get real. All modern sciences are NOT in that category and do not understand what such 'social exclusion' means, so to insist on peer review is an impossible mountain for homeopathy to climb as of this time. In future this might change but it is a slow climb. Can we just cool it and accept the fact that we are on the brink of GA again and be happy enough with that? thanks Peter morrell 20:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC) This kind of discussion is completely inappropriate for an article talk page. It's probably more appropriate for a Whig's user talk page. However, if Fyslee wishes to pursue this accusation, I suggest that he follows the instructions at WP:SSP carefully. Otherwise, he should assume good faith here rather than disrupting this talk page with this. This discussion should be moved to archive and not be continued here. Agreed? -- Levine2112 discuss 21:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC) I agree that is was inappropriate for the talk page and have moved it here. It was a question, not a "suggestion" or an "accusation". Please AGF. I am perfectly satisfied with Whig's clarification and need no more discussion. Case closed. -- Fyslee / talk 22:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing due to the RfC and your refusal to accept any compromises or behavioural changes in the administraor's noticeboard discussion. This block is for a period of one month. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. Vanished User ^talk 20:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sharavanabhava (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have not violated terms, per Mercury's ban. Mercury has said he would oppose blocking or banning me further from talk pages. Whig 20:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No reason to unblock provided. You are blocked as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2. Your unblock request does not refer to that discussion, and no ban by anyone called Mercury is apparent in your block log or in that RfC. — Sandstein 22:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

User:Mercury is present in my block log. Whig 23:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

After discussion with Vanished, I'd be willing to unblock if you will agree to mentorship with me. Mercury 01:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, may I archive your talk? Mercury 01:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what mentorship means in Wikipedia. You may archive my talk. Whig 02:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically... we make a deal. I help you, and give you advice here or via email. You take my advice. :) I'll hear and vet complaints regarding your behavior. If there is a behavior concern on your talk page, you stop the behavior until we can talk. I'll be your second set of eyes... the ones with the eyeglasses. Thats where we start. There will be more conditions, but I want to know if you are welling to attempt this before I propose an agreement between the two of us. Regards, Mercury 02:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem having more eyes. I welcome your help. Whig 02:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is manifestly preferable to resolve disputes if they arise in this way, rather than going through repeated ANI. Whig 04:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, as I don't want him getting in trouble for something I encouraged him to do: Mercury's actions have my approval. If Whig can be given the opportunity and support to develop into a good contributor, I would like that; however, Whig has shown reluctance to even acknowledge the problems brought up in the RfC, which is why a block was necessary. If we can move beyond this, great. Vanished User ^talk 12:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is my proposal:

• You agree to send (refer) all complaints about your behavior to my talk page.
• I agree to handle those complaints.
• When you receive a complaint about your behavior or edits, you will stop the disputed behavior until you and I can talk here or via email.
• I agree to check and see whether the behavior is valid or not.
• You agree to heed my advice.
• I agree to give you the very best advice I can.
• I will unblock you.
• I will reblock you if we breach our agreement.
• You and I will re evaluate our agreement after one months time.
• You agree to explicitly comment on edits, and not comment on editors. You also agree not to use profanity on talk pages unless quoting a source or another editor.
• You agree that you will not edit Talk:Homeopathy until we can talk via email.
• This agreement is in addition to the current editing restrictions.

I have designed this in hope that I might be able to help you understand where folks are coming from, what I believe may be valid complaints, and that I believe are not valid complaints. If you like I will also give you my interpretation of your RFC. If you enjoy this project and enjoy making the articles, then I can help you. I can not help otherwise. I truly believe that you intent is not malicious but each individual is different and their approach is different to the project. You are under no obligation to agree to any of this, as am I under no obligation to unblock you. As always, you can appeal to the Arbitration Committee. But I think this arrangement may be best for all concerned. Would you like to give this a spin? Mercury 12:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It does no harm to give this a try. I'm willing to work with you. Whig 15:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Forgive my intruding on your talk page Whig, but I wanted to tell you (and you, Mercury) how delighted I am at the proposal and acceptance. I look forward to seeing your future work! docboat 00:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again

Being given probation does not give you carte blanche to run around do ing everything that got you banned in the first place. Goodbye. Vanished User ^talk 20:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No reason to block has been provided. I would like this block to be reviewed. Whig 20:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sharavanabhava (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

No reason to block has been provided.

Decline reason:

This is not true. The following reason was provided: "reblock of user unbanned on probation. Being unblocked is not a reason to go doing everything that got you blocked in the first place all over again." — Yamla 22:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"go doing everything" is not a reason. Whig 22:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears [13] that Vanished User blocked me for concurring [14] with David D. in a thread which then quickly resolved consensus [15] in favor of David D.'s position. Whig 22:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This block is under discussion at WP:AN/I#Reblocked_User:Whig. If you wish to contribute to this discussion Whig you can either e-mail me a response or put it here and I will copy it over. Tim Vickers 16:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

TimVickers actually beat me to the punch. Same offer applies. Its preferable that you post it here however, IMHO, and it can be copied from the talk. I won't comment on the block untill I can read over what happened. For clarification, our agreement ended when the reblock occured. Regards, Mercury 17:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how our agreement ended without being breached, Mercury. I can't even defend myself since there are no reasons given for this block. -- Whig (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

An important facet (albeit unspoken) was Vanished's willingness to allow me to reverse his block. If he is now unwilling to do so, then I can not mentor any longer. I consider the action of reblocking, a reversion of his blessing if you will. Regards, Mercury 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Mercury. As I understand wheel wars are undesirable, I now request ArbCom review. -- Whig (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, you came back after a month. Ignored - as far as I can tell - Mercury's prohibition as part of the unblock to lay off Homeopathy without talking to him first, and were trying to shove in homeopathy everywhere, into articles with the most tangental connection. Vanished User ^talk 22:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I took a two week break at most, Vanished. -- Whig (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As for Mercury's advice, I took it as far as I thought it was appropriate and I have heard no complaints from him about my recent behavior. -- Whig (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I request assistance from any editor who will place my request for ArbCom review on RfAr. Whig (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As an Arbitration Committee Clerk, I am willing to provide you with a limited unblock for purposes of filing an arbitration case, provided there are no objections from other administrators. You would be restricted to editing pages relating directly to the arbitration. Alternatively, if you prefer or if there are significant objections to your being unblocked for this limited purpose, then you can request an unblock review from the arbitrators by e-mail. You can send the e-mail to me using the "e-mail this user" feature on my talkpage, and I will forward it to the Arbitration Committee mailing list for their consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was unable to access Wikipedia from my normal browser since last night, I do not know if that is due to a block or some technical problem, but I am now able to connect from a different browser.

This is my statement to the ArbCom, which I have already e-mailed to Newyorkbrad:

I request review of my editing conduct and for restoration of editing privileges. To the extent that this requires the investigation of the editing and admin conduct of other users, I encourage the Arbitration Committee to look at the participants in the RfC which was brought regarding me [ Whig 2 ] and consider all responses carefully.

Whig (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am forwarding your e-mail to the Arbitration Committee for their consideration. If one of the arbitrators elects to unblock you to pursue a case here, you will be notified. Otherwise, you should hear directly from an arbitrator regarding their opinion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Whig (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I also request the ArbCom review the adminship of Vanished User, an involved participant in Homeopathy and who is the blocking admin. Whig (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I cannot write to Vanished's talk page, what noticing procedure should I follow at this time? Whig (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail to Newyorkbrad, which might be the proper procedure after all. Whig (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have also noticed Vanished by e-mail. Whig (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make an offer of settlement with Vanished User. Please remove my block and allow another admin to review it. If you do so I will withdraw my request to include you in arbitration. I will also e-mail this offer to Vanished. Whig (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is tantamount to extortion. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Tut tut, Whig - this is not acceptable. I have to agree with Raymond. I do feel that Vanished User has been unwise, I feel his re-block was unjustified, but this approach you have taken is not tantamount to extortion, it is extortion. And it will be treated as it deserves - with an unlimited block. There would have been much better ways of dealing with it, but this was not one of them. Sorry, man. docboat (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is somewhat debatable whether this comment by Whig is best characterized with a word as grave as "extortion," though I agree it would have been better left unsaid. Whig's allegation, which I am not agreeing with, is that it was inappropriate for Vanished User (AC) to block him because AC was involved in the underlying conduct dispute. Assuming that Whig believes (rightly or wrongly) that AC should not have been involved in the block, the appropriate remedial action would be for AC to post the block for independent review by uninvolved administrators. The statement that AC's supposedly wrongful action might be brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee if he did not rectify it, but would not have to be raised if he did, is not a particularly decorous or appropriate way of framing the situation particularly in view of the fact that the block has already been reviewed by several admins, but I don't think rises to the level of extortion that itself would warrant a sanction. I hasten to add that I am aware of no evidence that AC engaged in any misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No extortion was intended. I meant exactly what Newyorkbrad has said here. Vanished User as an involved participant should not be using his admin authority to block. If other admins concur then it should be no problem for another one to institute a new block in place of Vanished's. Whig (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is my hope to avoid making more accusations or involving more editors in a dispute than necessary. I wish to give any person an opportunity to consider whether conflict can be avoided and whenever possible to settle differences before arbitration. If I have misunderstood some rule in making such an offer, I am sorry for doing so. No extortion was intended, but Vanished's behavior in blocking was in my opinion incorrect. Whig (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My position is that if the ArbCom accepts review, this is going to arbitration one way or another. There are editors who want me banned from the project and I am satisfied if the ArbCom reinstates my editing privileges without further sanction toward any other admin or editor. It is not a threat or extortion to say that if an editor or admin corrects the behavior that I am complaining about, I have no complaint against that editor or admin. I hope that this explanation is satisfactory to those who have accused me (quite unfortunately and wrongly) of extortion. Whig (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is also my understanding that Wikipedia encourages resolutions short of arbitration whenever possible. I ask for accusations of extortion to be retracted. Whig (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is also the case that I consider the RfC brought against me to have been misconduct. Whig (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that Vanished User will not agree to remove my block whether it was somehow inappropriate to offer a settlement, then I would make this complaint against him and I would like to begin submitting evidence that this entire dispute (however characterized) began between Vanished User and me on October 3, 2007. [16] I would also submit that Vanished User brought the RfC which I have already characterized as misconduct. It was admin abuse for Vanished User to block me both times he did, as an involved participant and upon the strength of the RfC he initiated himself. I am not listing the other editors on the RfC at this time because they are not currently preventing me from editing. If it is proper for me to include other editors, and I am informed of the protocols so as not to be accused of things, then I may do so. It may be proper to include all of Homeopathy as this originates as an NPOV dispute. Whig (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Whig, it is relatively unlikely that many, if any, arbitrators are reading the dialog on this page. If there is anything you wish to add to the e-mail previously forwarded to the arbitrators, please send me another e-mail (just one please) and I will forward it to the committee. It will probably be to your advantage to focus primarily on whether you if unblocked you would be able to edit in accordance with our policies, and less on the more procedural type issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I violated 3RR once. I am not aware I have violated Wikipedia policies or procedures in any other way. I will compose these together into a paragraph or two and e-mail it to you to forward to the ArbCom. Whig (talk) 06:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have sent an e-mail to Newyorkbrad summarizing briefly, which he may forward to the ArbCom. Whig (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Email received

I got your email. Thanks for pointing me at one more place to look. Not so much thanks for my now needing to look in even more places ;) this thing is consuming more time than I ever wanted it to. GRBerry 20:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing glaring struck me. Can you provide evidence (diffs) for the "used as a weapon against other" editors bit? GRBerry 02:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see my Fifth response in the RfC and observe this diff. Whig (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to item 2 in today's email. I am not acting because I'm not certain that acting would be in Wikipedia's best interest. See the second to last bullet in the relevant portion of my evidence. I also don't think my escalating matters would be a good idea. GRBerry 17:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom MatthewHoffman case

Any user is welcome to add me to this case if it is appropriate to do so. Whig (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, I would like WP:VANISH to set forth evidence why I should be permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. Whig (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I will address this to the clerk. Whig (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request renewed

Any admin who considers the evidence submitted so far in the MatthewHoffman case may wish to review my block and restore my editing privilege as long as it will not interfere with ongoing or pending arbitration. Whig (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Use the {{unblock|reason}} template. Your page may not be watchlisted by many. This will add it to CAT:RFU. Mercury 18:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I already posted an unblock request some time ago, which was declined. The message states, "Do not replace this message with another unblock request or add another unblock request." Whig (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sharavanabhava (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Can another admin review the above? Mercury 22:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Request unblock from ArbCom at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org — Lara❤Love 12:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If nobody will unblock you (I shouldn't because I am unfamiliar with your case, and I am tangentially involved in the Hoffman matter), I think you should email Arbcom and ask to be unblocked so you can participate in the case. Go to WP:ARB and you will find an email address there, somewhere. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not, but administrators are volunteers with limited time on their hands. Please state very clearly and very briefly, providing links where necessary, why your block violated the blocking policy and should be lifted. Sandstein (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I think reading Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Vanished's recent blocking history is spotty - subsection on Whig - and the later section "Vanished and Homeopathy" would be enlightening to whichever admin reviews this request. The first has links to all the prior community discussion that I could find about this block, the latter contains some relevant context. I also am a party in that case so am not opining on the merits. GRBerry 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I strongly agree with Sandstein. At this point, I think that it would be best to pursue unblocking by contacting WP:ARBCOM. I also can't say I'm thrilled with stuff like this: [17]. However, that was almost two weeks ago, I suppose. SQL^{Query me!} 22:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it make sense for someone to propose a motion to the committee to include him in the case? That would put the decision ball squarely in their court. GRBerry 22:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(ecX2)Yeah, I think, that would make sense. I'll hunt down an arbcom clerk, and point them here. They can unblock as well, if needed for this user to participate in a case. SQL^{Query me!} 22:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein here. If you could briefly condense. Mercury 22:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein and Mercury, I'm not sure what diffs I can provide since there is not even a concrete allegation of having done anything wrong. Please read the Matthew Hoffman evidence which GRBerry has supplied, as I believe that contains most detail necessary to determine that I am improperly blocked by an involved administrator in a content dispute over Homeopathy. Whig 22:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

GRBerry, I welcome any such motion if appropriate. Whig 22:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Up until an arbitration official intervenes, I'll follow standard unblock request protocol and ask the blocking admin to comment on this unblock request. Please stand by. Sandstein (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have been standing by a few weeks now, and do not mind waiting a bit longer if it is necessary. Whig 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like any unblocking admin to consider the comments and responses at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2. This RFC, coupled with Whig's reactions to it, led directly to his block. I have no problem whatsoever with Whig being unblocked to edit in other areas, or to participate in the arbitration, but he needs to stay away from homeopathy. He was a seriously disruptive presence there, both before and after his ban from editing the main article, and it wasn't only Vanished who had a problem with his behavior. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Whig, what, if any, of your actions/behaviors do you believe were incorrect and plan to change? To be perfectly honest, I was sympathetic when this came up 1.5 months ago, but the way you seem above under #Blocked again to be as interested in going after Vanished User as you are in being unblocked isn't doing you any favors. I could be wrong, but as it stands now, I doubt you will find any admin willing to unblock you. --B (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless otherwise noticed I will refrain from editing the Homeopathy article in accordance with Mercury's original ban. I will also comply with his original 1RR parole. I should not have reverted more than three times in one day but I would welcome advice on how better to draw attention to a suppressed NPOV dispute. Whig 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My only interest in Vanished User is that he is the blocking administrator and is involved in a content dispute with me. Whig 23:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is mightily confusing. IF this section is a discussion of process (which is how it began), I'm staying out of it. IF it is turned into a discussion of the merits of the case, which is what a couple of the recent contributions (Skinwalker and B) seem to be doing, then I have a few comments.

I think it would be best to get the process clear before getting into discussion of the "merits of the case." Wanderer57 (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that, out of good faith, we should consider unblocking this account. However, if the incivility issue is not addressed this time around, I will not be opposed to an indefinite community ban. Maser ^(Talk!) 04:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you be specific and provide a diff where I was uncivil prior to the present block? Whig 04:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I missphrased, I'm sorry.You were known for incivility at one point, however after viewing your contributions I feel you should be uunblocked in good faith. I don't believe you were recently uncivil - I was referring to past actions. I think that you have tried hard to improve your conduct - and that is why I think you should be given one more chance. :) Maser ^(Talk!) 06:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I don't think I see anything particurly blockworthy when I review the contributions from the point of my unblocking/mentorship to the point of the reblocking. Unless I'm missing something, someone please point it out to me. I am willing to unblock and resume mentorship per our earlier agreement. This is a link to the mentorship conditions. What are the thoughts? Regards, Mercury 16:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to yell and scream too loudly. If you are willing to work with him, it's a zero-risk proposition, since he is gone at the next infraction. A community ban exists only when no admin is willing to unblock. If you are willing to unblock, then that's not a community ban. --B (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punative. If Mercury wishes to work with him, and Whig understands that a repeat of this behaviour will result in another block, then go for it. The editor seems to have calmed down since the block, and is responding civily and constructively to resolve the issue. Pedro :  Chat  16:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I should add that if Mercury is willing to resume Mentorship under the prior terms then I would be willing to resume that relationship as well. Whig 16:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we will continue for 14 days then. May I ask that we stay away from all medical articles, including alterative medicine and its associates. (for 14 days). I really want to work with you on other interests if you have them, and we will be able to address the editing style without editing those article currently in dispute. What do you think? Mercury 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I do have a lot of other interests but many of them are not Wikipedia. I will certainly stay away from the articles you request for the next two weeks, and if another article seems in need of editing I'll go ahead and you can let me know what you think. Whig 17:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I can understand that. I have a hard time with editing outside my interests. Nearly all of my new creations are medical or scientific in nature. So, lets just stay away from Homepathy alltogether. Other medical articles are ok. I don't really see a need to restrict medical articles entirely. I'm going to unblock you. Since we were 16 days in our 30 program, I'll go with 14 days. After that, those restrictions outlined for mentorship are gone. these restrictions will remain, but I don't think they should be extended due to the block.

I'll archive your talk page if you don't object in a few days to clean it up. Please use my talk page for questions, and I'll be watching your talk page for concerns of other editors.

I would ask that any administrator let me know before blocking Whig, and give Whig a warning, before a block. Lets try to work.

Mercury 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk archiving...

Whig, how long do you want sections to remain before they are archived to an archive by the bot? Mercury 01:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never really archived apart from your own encouragement and don't know what is appropriate to do automatically. Whig (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mine is set for 24 hours from the last comment, because I can check very frequently. If say you don't check for two days sometimes, you might find 72 hours appropriate. Alot of people do it different ways. WP:ARCHIVE has some thoughts on the subject. If you like, I can set up the automatic stuff. Regards, Mercury 02:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you make it 14 days? I like to keep some context even when I'm checking regularly, and I might not check every week if I'm doing other things. Whig (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mercury 04:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quack watch

You said "Anynobody, you have an excellent point but who could possibly be a more reliable source on whether or not Quackwatch is a peer reviewed resource than Quackwatch." Did you mean that facetiously? Anthon01 (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No. If Quackwatch says they are not a peer reviewed resource, they should be considered reliable on that unless there is verifiable evidence to the contrary. Whig (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

But Quackwatch never says that, IOW that is OR. It never addresses the point because it is a moot point because no one expects websites, especially sites with such an obviously clear and critical POV, to be peer-reviewed. They only make a short statement and if we are going to address the point of review at all, we have to stick with that. Anything more is OR. -- Fyslee / talk 17:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that they do not say so. I think they clearly say they are not a peer reviewed resource by stating they have advisers who review articles on request. Whig (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two things going on here, "affirmative" statements, and "denial" statements. We can make an "affirmative" statement: "Yes, they have a form of review of some articles," (my careless wording to get the point across), based on one citation. We can't make a "denial" statement: "They are not peer-reviewed," because we have no legitimate citation.

I agree that they are not peer-reviewed, but we aren't in the business of writing the "truth", only what is "verifiable" using V & RS. (Look up that wording here.) Fortunately truth us usually verifiable, but not always. Unless it is, it doesn't belong here, and that is rather fortunate since one person's idea of truth may not be another person's idea of truth. Quackwatch does not use the phrase "peer-reviewed" about themselves at all. That may seem like a minor detail when looking at the truth of the situation, but precisely those words have been misused (by its enemies) regarding the status of Quackwatch. While that would normally not have any bearing on whether or not we would make an edit here, it happens to make this issue more sensitive because those enemies are in active lawsuits with Quackwatch and the allies of those enemies are editing here and trying to get the wording of those enemies included. We do not run errands for libellers or other questionable persons. If Quackwatch doesn't use those words, and no other reliable sources use them, then any discussion of the matter in any article is OR. OTOH, if we can find sources that are V & RS, we might be able to include it. I have nothing against that. It must not be done as a criticism because it is a totally improper criticism designed as a straw man attack, no matter how it is phrased. (While inclusion of such types of criticism isn't always forbidden here, in this case the existing sources of that criticism happen to be so bad that they are already blacklisted here at Wikipedia.) If a good source just states it neutrally, then we could quote them and include it as a well-sourced factoid. So far I haven't seen such a statement, simply because good and sensible sources are usually scholarly sources, and they wouldn't engage it making such a denial statement when it is totally malplaced. It is as malplaced as stating that cow's milk is not shocking pink in color. Of course it isn't, but no reasonable person would ever claim it is, so that is a moot point and is ignored, rather than denied. -- Fyslee / talk 22:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, I have asked Mercury to comment here as well because I do not want to have a conflict with you about policy. If I understand the V & RS requirements both are satisfied in my opinion by Quackwatch as the source of our knowledge that they are not peer reviewed, a fact you concur in above. Whig (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt about Quackwatch being allowed as a source in its own article, but unless you can find the precise words where Quackwatch explicitly and very exactly addresses any issue about its articles being "peer-reviewed" (exactly those two words), you (or anyone else wishing to include it) are engaged in OR. It doesn't address the question because it is not a legitimate question. Why? Simply because websites aren't peer reviewed (with one exception), only scientific research papers (and that exceptional website is an exclusively on-line scientific journal publishing scientific research). It's a non-issue with everyone except those who wish to use a "denial" statement (see above) as a subtle means of denigrating Quackwatch, and there are a number of enemies of Quackwatch here who wish to include such an editorial statement. Keep in mind I don't have any objection (as clearly stated above) to inclusion if we can find a neutral and reliable source stating it as a matter of fact. To the best of my knowledge reliable sources don't address the matter because it's a non-issue. It is only an issue to those who wish to denigrate Quackwatch. We don't help them using editorial freedom. We need reliable sources. -- Fyslee / talk 01:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

...Are you just ignoring anything anyone says to you? Vanished User ^talk 23:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not. Is there something you wish to say to me? Whig (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Woah. Folks, lets address the subject matter. I've taken a look, but I'll have to look at the talk page as well. Mercury 00:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I see where Fyslee is coming from as far as reliable sourcing and V, although I do not agree or disagree with the dispute about inclusion. There are no policy violations in discussing what may or may not be OR. A violation occurs when we insert OR into the article itself. Now don't misinterpret me, I'm not saying the content under discussion is OR, I have no opinion there. I do have a suggestion, would y'all like for me to coordinate a uninvolved third opinion? Mercury 01:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mercury, I don't think WP:3O can apply when it's not a dispute between two editors. This is a content dispute involving at least a half dozen editors. Whig (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are correct. Color me red. Article requests for comments would be better here. Has one been attempted? Mercury 01:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know, we should find out on Talk:Quackwatch. Whig (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this content dispute belongs on my Talk page in any case. It might be helpful if some of the comments here could be moved so they can have wider consideration and discussion. Whig (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Whig, I agree. This is actually part of the discussion at Quackwatch and should be copied there. May I copy parts of it? So as to not involve too many people, how about just yours and my comments? I'll make a suggested new section (shown below) that can be moved to Quackwatch talk. -- Fyslee / talk 05:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• What I see going on here is quite simple. Whig made a statement - quite innocuous as far as I can see, although one may disagree with it, as with much of the comments on a talk page - and he is being hounded now by people with a vested interest in getting him banned again. Vanished, Fyslee - this is unacceptable. Consider yourselves to be closely watched now. POV warriors are not needed on Wikipedia. docboat (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement? Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To copy to Quackwatch talk page

If Quackwatch says they are not a peer reviewed resource, they should be considered reliable on that unless there is verifiable evidence to the contrary. Whig (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

But Quackwatch never says that, IOW that is OR. It never addresses the point because it is a moot point because no one expects websites, especially sites with such an obviously clear and critical POV, to be peer-reviewed. They only make a short statement and if we are going to address the point of review at all, we have to stick with that. Anything more is OR. -- Fyslee / talk 17:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that they do not say so. I think they clearly say they are not a peer reviewed resource by stating they have advisers who review articles on request. Whig (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two things going on here, "affirmative" statements, and "denial" statements. We can make an "affirmative" statement: "Yes, they have a form of review of some articles," (my careless wording to get the point across), based on one citation. We can't make a "denial" statement: "They are not peer-reviewed," because we have no legitimate citation.

I agree that they are not peer-reviewed, but we aren't in the business of writing the "truth", only what is "verifiable" using V & RS. (Look up that wording here.) Fortunately truth us usually verifiable, but not always. Unless it is, it doesn't belong here, and that is rather fortunate since one person's idea of truth may not be another person's idea of truth. Quackwatch does not use the phrase "peer-reviewed" about themselves at all. That may seem like a minor detail when looking at the truth of the situation, but precisely those words have been misused (by its enemies) regarding the status of Quackwatch. While that would normally not have any bearing on whether or not we would make an edit here, it happens to make this issue more sensitive because those enemies are in active lawsuits with Quackwatch and the allies of those enemies are editing here and trying to get the wording of those enemies included. We do not run errands for libellers or other questionable persons. If Quackwatch doesn't use those words, and no other reliable sources use them, then any discussion of the matter in any article is OR. OTOH, if we can find sources that are V & RS, we might be able to include it. I have nothing against that. It must not be done as a criticism because it is a totally improper criticism designed as a straw man attack, no matter how it is phrased. (While inclusion of such types of criticism isn't always forbidden here, in this case the existing sources of that criticism happen to be so bad that they are already blacklisted here at Wikipedia.) If a good source just states it neutrally, then we could quote them and include it as a well-sourced factoid. So far I haven't seen such a statement, simply because good and sensible sources are usually scholarly sources, and they wouldn't engage in making such a denial statement when it is totally malplaced. It is as malplaced as stating that cow's milk is not shocking pink in color. Of course it isn't, but no reasonable person would ever claim it is, so that is a moot point and is ignored, rather than denied. -- Fyslee / talk 22:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, I do not want to have a conflict with you about policy. If I understand the V & RS requirements both are satisfied in my opinion by Quackwatch as the source of our knowledge that they are not peer reviewed, a fact you concur in above. Whig (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt about Quackwatch being allowed as a source in its own article, but unless you can find the precise words where Quackwatch explicitly and very exactly addresses any issue about its articles being "peer-reviewed" (exactly those two words), you (or anyone else wishing to include it) are engaged in OR. It doesn't address the question because it is not a legitimate question. Why? Simply because websites aren't peer reviewed (with one exception), only scientific research papers (and that exceptional website is an exclusively on-line scientific journal publishing scientific research). It's a non-issue with everyone except those who wish to use a "denial" statement (see above) as a subtle means of denigrating Quackwatch, and there are a number of enemies of Quackwatch here who wish to include such an editorial statement. Keep in mind I don't have any objection (as clearly stated above) to inclusion if we can find a neutral and reliable source stating it as a matter of fact. To the best of my knowledge reliable sources don't address the matter because it's a non-issue. It is only an issue to those who wish to denigrate Quackwatch. We don't help them using editorial freedom. We need reliable sources. -- Fyslee / talk 01:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

How does the above look? I have deleted other people's comments and redacted mention of Mercury from your last comment above, as it is irrelevant to a shortened version away from the context of this talk page. Can I just copy it? -- Fyslee / talk 05:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd only point out that there has been subsequent discussion about this issue on Talk:Quackwatch and this should be marked in some way as being out of context. —Whig (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. It could just be added as a new subsection and people can add their comments as they see fit. How about just calling it "From Whig's talk page" and a short introductory sentence stating the same? -- Fyslee 05:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no real preference for how you do it. Sounds fine. —Whig (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Let's give it a try and see if it generates anything new. Right now the discussion is going in circles. -- Fyslee / talk 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch

Could you clarify who you're talking about when you say "our understanding"? [18] It's best to refer back to previous discussions with a link to the section, a diff, a quote, and/or a name/time reference to what you're referring to. --Ronz (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. I prefer not to have to cite every past diff for every reply, but I have attempted to seek some clarity here. [19] —Whig (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking to time to response. I'm sorry, but I don't understand though:

I still think our understanding of the mission statement is correct, contra the notion that their mission is to review external papers upon request.

Quackwatch states on their website, "Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request." Quackwatch is a reliable source for the purpose of quoting or accurately rephrasing this statement, and no synthesis is required to do so. The question seems to revolve over what this statement actually means. I apologize for repeating this question again, but does Quackwatch review external articles upon request?

I see that you're asking if they review other articles. I don't see how this relates.

What I'm trying to understand is why you oppose the proposal. I don't understand what you mean by, "I still think our understanding of the mission statement is correct", nor why this is rationale for opposition.

As for, "Quackwatch is a reliable source for the purpose of quoting or accurately rephrasing this statement, and no synthesis is required to do so." You're referring to the current statement rather than the proposal, correct? It's not clear.

Finally, the current Quackwatch reference is not a source that verifies what's in the article, because the article uses not only different words, but entirely different concepts. You can only verify what is said. --Ronz (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot: I don't care how you refer to previous discussions, and I don't do it often enough myself. --Ronz (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Ronz, you are quoting me from obsolete diffs and not the refactored text on the Talk:Quackwatch page. I very quickly reverted my language of Oppose and replaced it with Disagree. Please do not bring this to my Talk page unless there is something I have not specifically addressed on the Talk:Quackwatch page. I cannot respond intelligibly to copies of obsolete text. —Whig (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the word, as it is completely irrelevant to our discussion in any way. --Ronz (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You removed "original" as well, but I thought it might be easier for you to respond to what you first said. Ignore it if it's a problem. --Ronz (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following what you are asking me. I think I've explained myself well on Talk:Quackwatch. Please take further discussion there. —Whig (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'd like to understand your position:

1. Could you clarify what and who you're talking about when you say "our understanding"? --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
2. What I'm trying to understand is why you oppose the proposal. I don't understand how, "I still think our understanding of the mission statement is correct", is a rationale for opposition. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
3. The current Quackwatch reference is not a source that verifies what's in the article, because the article uses not only different words, but entirely different concepts. You can only verify what is said. Do you disagree? If so, why? --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Without trying to go back and analyze diffs, I'll just try to explain what I think.

1. A number of editors, including Levine2112, Anthon01, and I seem to have a common understanding that the Quackwatch mission statement means that their own articles are reviewed upon request.
2. I disagree with the proposal because it chooses to remove a verified fact from the article on an incorrect basis that there is some violation of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH involved here. There is no such violation.
3. The Quackwatch mission page is a source that verifies what's in the article, in my opinion. —Whig (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I understand now. I think you should change your "Disagree" comment to include what you've said above in (2), because you haven't made that clear.

As for (3), I think that viewpoint requires a complete rewrite of WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, all policies fundamental to Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My Barnstar

You are too kind. Hopefully we have reached a peaceful resolution finally. My appreciation for all of your helpful input. Thanks! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please revert

I consider this to be edit-warring: remove POV-section flag, no justification provided in Talk. The justification is there and in the edit summaries. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that you have responded to repeated requests for specific justification. I have self-reverted per your request, however I again ask you to make your specific objections and not simply link a bunch of policy pages and demand we search for the relevant parts. —Whig (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing and mentorship

Hi,

I noticed that the admin who was mentoring you may not be around. This presents a slight problem for you, in that you were unblocked on condition of a number of editing conditions and agreements, which were designed and agreed by the community, to help you stay out of problems.

To sum up, these were as follows, as best I understand it:

15 October, following community consensus at WP:ANI: [20]

• 6 months of 1 revert rule, If you revert content in an article more than once per week, you will be blocked. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• Civility patrol for 6 months where any threat or insult, even vague, will result in a block. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• You are prohibited from editing the Homeopathy article for 6 months, you may use the talk page. You may revert simple vandalism.

29 October, mentorship: [21]

• You agree to send (refer) all complaints about your behavior to a mentor to discuss, who will handle them.
• When you receive a complaint about your behavior or edits, you will stop the disputed behavior until you can talk to the mentor.
• You agree to heed the mentor's advice.
• The agreement will be re-evaluated in a month.
• You will be reblocked if you breach this agreement.
• You agree to explicitly comment on edits, and not comment on editors. You also agree not to use profanity on talk pages unless quoting a source or another editor.
• You agree that you will not edit Talk:Homeopathy until discussed and agreed by the mentor.
• This agreement is in addition to the current editing restrictions.

If mercury is not contactable, then this seems to be the situation:

(1)

The community decisions of 15 October remain. They were decided by the community, not by mercury.

(2)

You are aware of the norms and conduct expected of you under the mentorship agreement. This was intended to advise you, and guide you as to avoiding problem areas you know exist. Whilst the mentorship is no longer working, these were not so much restrictions to punish you, but restrictions to protect you as you learned to avoid problems. You are aware of them; the purpose for which they were set up still exists; it's still not okay to make personal attacks or edit war or the like as you may have once done, and hopefully from your work with Mercury you have learned to avoid these in future.

If they recur then the community will be intolerant most likely; I therefore do advise that you ask for another administrator to act as mentor or sounding-board, so that if problems do arise, you aren't alone and can avoid problems. But that's your choice. All mentorship does is protect you, so long as you wish that protection. I leave it to you. The points from 29 October were not areas of punishment, but more, areas Mercury felt you needed much protection from your own habits in. I leave it to your own judgement if you would benefit from help - it's free if it would be useful, there will be people willing.

This is posted in the attempt to make it easy to continue avoiding problems. A straw poll of administrators suggests strongly you are advised - for your own benefit - to ask some admin to be a mentor or sounding board, so you continue to avoid problems. Please let me know if you need any suggestions or input on this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As FT2 has said, a nonbinding vote among uninvolved administrators has suggested that you seek a mentor. I'm willing to mentor you if you want; I have never run into you before, don't edit in the same spheres as you, and don't interact with people you are in conflict with. Please get back to me on my talk page if you have any comments or questions. east.718 at 04:02, December 16, 2007

OK, how do these terms sound? They are slightly tweaked from Mercury's old mentorship.

• A 1RR restriction until 4/15/2008, enforceable by blocks. The blocks will escalate in duration after each violation.
• A broadly defined civility and profanity parole until 4/15/2008, enforceable by blocks. Again, the blocks will escalate in duration after each violation.
• You will not edit homeopathy until 4/15/2008, except for reverting simple vandalism.
• You will refer all complaints about your behavior to me and I'll handle them.
• When you receive a complaint about your behavior or edits, you will stop the disputed behavior until you can talk to me.
• You don't have to heed my advice, but it's encouraged that you do so.
• This agreement will be re-evaluated in January.
• You will be reblocked if you breach this agreement.
• You will not edit Talk:Homeopathy until discussing it with me and getting my permission.

east.718 at 18:35, December 16, 2007

I've never seen you "in action" before, so I'll reset the month timer. If you're good, it shouldn't be a problem as it's just another week and I can lift the mentorship early. east.718 at 19:43, December 16, 2007

Re: Quackery AfD

Thanks for letting me know. It's a really POINTy nom in my opinion, but I'll let you slide for now. Don't try something disruptive like that again though. east.718 at 19:57, December 17, 2007

I'm not trying to disrupt, so tell me what I did wrong, please. In e-mail if appropriate. I think that this article is incapable of being other than a disparagement of certain people and practices which are simply unpopular. There is no standard of what is or is not quackery. —Whig (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears you have been emboldened by Mercury's absence, and are back to your previous behavior. I will defer just this once to you new mentor's judgment, but if anything like this happens again I will press vigorously for your indefinite ban from the project. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate that. I will refer your comment. —Whig (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, that was a colossal mistake at best; more likely it was you trying out subtle disruption. A dispute of that sort would be best resolved by posting a polite and narrow message on the talk page, requesting third opinions, and then going down further steps of dispute resolution if conflict persists. Please don't repeat such behavior. east.718 at 20:09, December 17, 2007

I was not trying out subtle disruption. I don't appreciate that. If I made a mistake, then correct me and help me do better. —Whig (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I do AGF, but it's tempered by your past history, which unfortunately precedes you. Creating an AFD like this isn't a good first impression on me. I gave you some advice on what to do if you come across this situation again. You don't have to heed it, but just consider that it's in your best interests. Cheers, east.718 at 20:21, December 17, 2007

I do appreciate the advice. My past history is not a subject I want to get into here but if you would like to comment on it I would be interested, as I have told you. —Whig (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for digging that up, my confidence in you has increased. I'll stay in touch if I find anything. east.718 at 22:26, December 17, 2007

I suggest tagging the article with {{POV}} and consiscely and politely stating on the talk page, in a new thread, about what specific problems you see. If there is discussion, just stay cool and try to work towards a neutral compromise version. If nobody responds in a reasonable amount of time, make whatever changes you deem appropriate to the article. Just get back to me if you get reverted, treated incivilly, or if somebody complains about your behavior. east.718 at 22:48, December 17, 2007

Have you ever been in any conflict with Shot info? I've seen the name on various noticeboards before. east.718 at 05:15, December 18, 2007

I don't believe so. —Whig (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so either (FWIW). Shot info (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As they are not an admin, I would not put much stock in that comment. It is unfortunate, but you should just take it in stride and not get heated. Water and ducks' backs and all that. east.718 at 07:38, December 19, 2007

I do not appreciate this double standard of civility. If I am not to complain of it then will it not simply continue? —Whig (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If it gets bad, I will ask an uninvolved admin to take a look. For now, you should take this as an opportunity to boost your stock by being the better man. east.718 at 07:38, December 19, 2007

Blood electrification

Blood electrification Afd. Oldspammer (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had no involvement in this article to my knowledge. —Whig (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not to canvas. The article subject is being downplayed as quackery. I see that you have been involved in some discussions about quackery, and quackwatch. A group here on WP tend to jump to a conclusion of quackery without any scientific experimental verification one way or the other. This ends up with this group of contributers applying their reasoning skills as to what sources, what pub-med articles apply or not to sections of an article, and if judged by them as improper, entire sections of article are boldly edited. After waves of such bold editing, such articles end up with a big question of WP:notability, and with all WP:RS removed by bold editing, the article's WP:V is brough into question, and so is Afd nominated.

If nothing else, you could have a look at the article talk page, the article edit history, the Afd discussion, and weigh in with your thoughts.

Also, I'm still trying to bravely edit the article, but bold edits are still being applied. You may have had more experience in these matters, and could advise me as to what you find useful to do in these instances. Oldspammer (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll stay out of this as I have no expertise in the subject and have a lot of other things on my plate. —Whig (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackery

Aren't you supposed to be on a 1 revert rule probation? You're at the least skidding at the edges of it by your recent edit warring there. Vanished User ^talk 09:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have referred your complaint. —Whig (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I just replied to your comment about running the sources for Hahnemann by WP:RSN. I'd like to give you some advice on this. If you pursue this avenue be sure that your reasoning listed there is a little more substantial than the reasoning you gave for the AfD. It will make other editors more likely to assume good faith if you lay out a clear argument as opposed to something short and pointy like "inherently POV". Also I'm kind of interested so see how that process works, I've never used WP:RSN before. I'm pretty sure though if you are successful in getting those sources viewed as unreliable then it will be really hard to use them in any other article. I noticed that they are both Homeopathic web pages so if those web pages are used in any other homeopathic article they won't be able to be used anymore. That might have major ramifications for the other homeopathy articles. You might want to keep that in mind. Anyways, if you do decide to pursue that avenue I'd like to wish you good luck! Elhector (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Whig, I am disappointed that you chose to do two partial reverts just 25 hours after your initial edit concerning Hahnemann. Although this doesn't violate the letter of your 1RR probation, it is certainly against the spirit of it and may be perceived as textbook tendentious editing. I will not take action this time because this was only a minor slip, but will remind you that your 1RR probation is not part of our mentorship agreement; it was imposed on you by the community in exchange for your unblocking and as so, any administrator who is a member of said community can enforce it as they see fit. In the future, continue to use the talk page to foster discussion and propose changes and if you find yourself outnumbered, c'est la vie. east.718 at 19:16, December 19, 2007

I am seeking to be BOLD without being reckless. The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is one popular way to use the "Be Bold" approach responsibly, especially when other editors have questions over your ideas. I will try to be more careful. —Whig (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks good to me. One thing you should explain though is is why you do not consider the sources reliable. The RSN regulars may not be completely up to speed on the dispute. Would you like me to contact one of the admin regulars there for a second opinion? east.718 at 06:52, December 20, 2007

Honest mistake :) east.718 at 07:02, December 20, 2007

No problem. I'll wait to hear if you find another admin to comment. —Whig (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please give me a couple hours to catch up on what's been going on. east.718 at 01:53, December 24, 2007

From what I have gathered, you have not been behaving disruptively. This is where your 1RR restriction will bite you in the ass - I have little advice for now except to keep cool if you want to fight an uphill battle. east.718 at 00:40, December 25, 2007

Well, that restriction was one of the contingencies of the release of your indefinite block. Protesting it will likely be an unwinnable uphill battle. east.718 at 00:45, December 25, 2007

What is the comment you're planning to post? east.718 at 01:36, December 27, 2007

Yes, please do. east.718 at 01:46, December 27, 2007

Shower them with love. I will be keeping my eye on the discussion. east.718 at 08:36, December 27, 2007

I am taking a look at it. east.718 at 11:05, December 31, 2007

OK, from what I've seen you haven't been disruptive. Just continue discussion as you are now, and keep in mind that sometimes you lose uphill battles. east.718 at 10:56, January 1, 2008

It was not a personal attack on your part, and the discussion on OM's talk has spiraled away from you (and out of my purview too). For the last bit, editors are generally afforded a wide berth for control over their talk page, and blind reverts are generally allowed. You haven't done anything wrong here. east.718 at 01:59, January 2, 2008

I spoke with Vanished and he felt that it was a representation of what he said on the last conversation on your talk page. east.718 at 17:59, January 3, 2008

I think you should talk it out with OM and disengage if the situation devolves into ad hominem. Jumping from third party to third party, while not inappropriate, doesn't help to resolve a dispute any faster. east.718 at 09:22, January 5, 2008

QW Shortened text

Thanks. I will reconsider. Anthon01 (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

This edit constitutes a personal attack, since I have no legal issues with anybody. Your continuing to attack editors such as myself will not benefit you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It does not constitute a personal attack. It is a direct reply to your own bringing up of legal issues which do not concern me. —Whig (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him to look at it again. I'm pushing a point and not backing down over it and I think I'm stressing him out. I'm sure he will see that what said was not a personal attack. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

TK, once again, performing a medical evaluation over the internet. You probably shouldn't do this. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying that I am sterssing you out isn't and certainly wasn't meant to be a medical diagnosis! However since you are offended by it I withdraw my comment. However please do consider withdrawing the innapropriate warning above. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. How does this involve me? —Whig (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken I'm outta here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin's revert.

I think it's because that order sets out Hahnemann's dilutions as being a factal, iundisputed concept. It's down to the words - "Hahnemann believed" and "Hahnemann said" are rather different things, and only one clearly sets out that we're stating opinions from the start. Vanished User ^talk 05:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the edit again with your suggestion we keep "Hahnemann believed". —Whig (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

revert

Your edit didn't read well, and, frankly, I see no real reason to put them in your order, as you've never said why they need to be in that order. If you could give a good reason why putting them in one order didn't violate Synth, but the other did, maybe you'd be able to get a case, or at least get others to deal with your concerns in some way. You have an awful habit of keeping your concerns very close to your chest, when they could be dealt with easily if you ever clearly said what the problem was. This is one of the major reasons people get so upset with you: You take a fairly extreme measure to fix a minor problem, then when you're reverted, the minor problem is still there, so you're understandably upset, and complain about it - but take ages to say what the actual problem was, and which could have been easily fixed long ago by simple, non-extreme measures. Example: Removing a whole sentence from Quackery because it neglected to mention succussion - a problem that was fixed by adding two words once you finally said what the matter was clearly - but because you took such an extreme measure to fix it, out of proportion with the problem, noone was looking for something so small.

Also, my comment on what Orangemarlin might have meant was an informal one - it would probably have been better to check on the talk page with the people you're actually in dispute with before presuming that a flu-addled third-party's second attempt at analysis (have a look at your talk page history to see my completely flu-addled first attempt at trying to answer your question) is the correct solution to the problem. Vanished User ^talk 17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Vanished, you've written quite a lot here and I want to try to communicate with you in an effective way, so if I am not sufficiently clear then please do ask for clarification.

• The reason to put them in the order I have stated in the Talk:Quackery thread is that the definition of homeopathy is the treatment by similar. Miasms are theoretical concepts from the standpoint of visualizing patient symptoms to help find suitable remedies, i.e., a tool to find the similar. For instance, a homeopath may observe someone has psoric miasm (whether or not it is worth explaining in the Quackery article) and recommend Sulphur.
• It is not a minor problem to omit succussion, it is an inaccurate statement. Do you not agree that it is important to make accurate, reliably sourced and verifiable statements about homeopathy if we are going to bring it up in this context?
• I've been as clear as I can be that I think you are trying to smear Samuel Hahnemann as a quack when no reliable source accuses him of quackery. I don't think this belongs in the Quackery article at least without some very careful balancing. Otherwise, I think this violates WP:NPOV. However I am trying to work with you to achieve a reliably sourced, verifiable and accurate statement so long as this statement remains, and I will continue to seek changes until it is balanced as well.
• If you think my edit does not read well, please suggest improvements or make them yourself, please don't revert unless you want to discuss it.

I hope this helps for starters and maybe we can have a productive dialogue that will let us find a way to work together. —Whig (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: status

Sorry for taking so long to respond, I've been extremely busy these past couple of days. As to your statement, some of it is on point and some isn't. For example, you correctly characterized these two diffs as poor behavior, however, Vanished calling you a probationer isn't really a personal attack (despite being tinged with a little bad faith). And frankly, I agree with Vanished on this point; the Lancet is one of the oldest and most respected medical journals out there. Now, it's an RfC and there's going to be blood in an open forum like that, especially with Vanished defending his adminship. I suggest you focus less on any perceived misdeeds by him because he's already on the hot seat; focus more on improving as an editor. east.718 at 13:02, January 10, 2008

You might agree with Vanished on that point if he had accurately represented what I said. He did not. —Whig (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for the help, man. its a great help. Smith Jones (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

thznks again

i noticed that the archiver wasnt working but i didnt wnat to tamper with it since i didnt know what was going on. i manually archived th e last bit of text, but im going to leave your recent coment up to see if it works now. thanks for checking up on the automatic archiver for me thoguh. Smith Jones (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Video

Thank you, that is a most interesting video. You were very kind in letting me know about it. I was also called the attention recently to some interesting reading about that found in Psychosocial Factors in Pain: Critical Perspectives by Robert J. Gatchel (page 44 and beyond) and The Physicists' View of Nature: The Quantum Revolution: Pt. 2 by Amit Goswami. I will give a more detailed view when i have the time, it is an interesting subject. Jenny^Len☤ 11:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

You will note that WAS 4 and Nergaal started by commenting upon the generally agreed scientific opinion. Yourself and Anthon01 then continued this discusion. It was only then that I joined in. My own official comment on the request did not discuss the matter at all. Of course, you would be right in saying that this is no excuse, and as such I apologise to the ArbCom for this, as I hope all the other involved parties will. LinaMishima (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Whig)

Hello, Whig. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 3, where you may want to participate.

-- Vanished User ^talk 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually

Actually, I don't know any of the "paranormalists" who are compensated, but many of those pushing skepticism -as opposed to real science- have paid work in the fields they edit, or else are in school to work in those fields. It is really a pretty stark contrast. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info

I have been terribly ill and almost did another hospital run. I live in FL and Pot isn't well received. I will read over what you sent though as it might be useful for me through my pain doctor though. Thanks for thinking of me, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

oh really? hadnt noticed that until just now. thanks for the heads. up Smith Jones (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! Yes, Smith Jones, don't get caught, if you are indulging. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC

With all respect, Whig, I'd really suggest adding a response at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 3 - this was started in order to avoid the awkward section at the other RfC in my name where there wasn't a way for you to defend yourself. Vanished User ^talk 02:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I am unable to assume good faith in this matter. Recommended reading: WP:Honesty. Please proceed as you wish. —Whig (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is your chance to defend yourself. Why not ?--Filll (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have edited my reply. —Whig (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I would however like to make clear that I am not requesting the deletion of this RfC at this time as it might function as an RfC on the submitters. Though it is very interesting that you come to my talk page to discuss your concerns after filing an RfC instead of before. Usually it's the other way around. And you don't seem to want me to take any comments from this, just to go away or be banned. I have never been under probation and you should stop pretending that it's okay to say that or that it was okay to mark my block log incorrectly. —Whig (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Pls reply to my e-mail asap Wanderer57 (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

New Arbcom case (maybe)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Homeopathy The idea of it is not to censor anyone, but to try and get some guidelines that will end some of the perennial wars once and for all. Vanished User ^talk 11:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

QED

Is this about biophotonics? Anthon01 (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No. —Whig (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As you suggested, I have rewatched "Photons: Corpuscles of Light", and I really cannot see anything that can be transfered from what he talks about and used to explain any method of action for homeopathy. It should be noted that within that lecture, water was only discussed in terms of an example of a reflective medium, and similar processes to what he talks about occurs in all materials (although less ordered in terms of angle of reflection, and with absorption of certain wavelengths to give colour). I shall watch the other lecture you note also, but please could you detail what it is you see in the lecture that is of use for this purpose? LinaMishima (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC) I see why you linked to the youtube sample, a discussion of interference patterns. No wonder you found that exciting. It should be noted that transference of information requires the expenditure of energy - for information to be retained on both objects, the individual signal strengths of the information stored on each object must be reduced compared to the original. This can only be reduced to a certain level until it becomes so small that it cannot be determined as a separate component at all (see planck constant and the Uncertainty principle). Current understanding of quantum physics is such that at these levels, things stop being deterministic and become probabilistic, and this is unlikely to change any time soon, and the important thing to note is that at scales above those being considered at a quantum level, any underlying determinism is equivalent to the current understanding of probabilities in wave equations. In addition, fourier analysis makes it clear that the most important parts of a wave form are those components with the greatest amplitude. The probability of smallest components having a significant effect is so small as to be typically discarded. It should be noted that of course any such speculation is entirely based on a vague and undefined term of "energies", when indeed at an atomic level there is no such thing as a separate magical energy signature for a substance (vibrations are dependant on a given molecule's resonance frequencies, electron energy levels also dependant upon the protons in nuclei and other nearby electrons - these are the languages of molecular chemistry and physics, and no other long term means to store information remains). I could go on, but I shall finish with the greatest stumbling block of all - if homeopathic techniques do impart innformation onto the solvent in use, then the molecules or groups of molecules onto which information is imparted must have also naturally experienced similar events over their history to have acquired other trace information from their past environments. If homeopaths believe that remedies can be stored for periods of time, then these other sources of information must also remain. If there is any other means remaining that you would like to use to appropriate QED and other theories to explain homeopathy's method of action, please let me know. LinaMishima (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to watch and comment. While I could compose a detailed response, based on my own understandings, I do not think it would be constructive to do so here. I personally find Feynman enjoyable (as long as he doesn't go too heavily into the maths), and hope you found it worthwhile. I continue to believe that QED has tremendous importance to homeopathy consistent with the observed sinusoidal curve of different potencies, but it would not be useful to engage in synthesis here. —Whig (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Just wanted to say, hope you come on over and check it out! Blissfully far quieter than homeopathy; in fact at times we despair for having more than one or two active editors. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 22:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Homoepathy article probation notification

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages 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. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Water Memory

I agree with you, infobox was not properly sourced. I have also removed links and categories related to pseudoscience, as they do not have proper references either. BETA 04:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --BETA 07:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

New ShortCut

On my editing break, I've created a shortcut that you might find useful. WP:PSCI. Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"The correct standard"

[Heading added by Fyslee]

Thank you. Clearly, the correct standard to apply here is:

• Questionable science: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."

• Does homeopathy have a substantial following? Yes.
• Do some critics allege it to be pseudoscience? Yes. —Whig (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You're on the wrong side of the line of demarcation in the four sections from the ArbCom. See here. The correct listing would be the first, and barring that the second. Of course the third applies in a sense, but it is far too lenient, since the first two apply even better:

1. Obvious pseudoscience
2. Generally considered pseudoscience

-- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinion vs. policy? Anthon01 (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee, I think we can exclude Obvious pseudoscience, and given the substantial criticism we can probably remove it from Alternative formulations. So the question is whether it is "Generally considered pseudoscience" or does it have a substantial following within the scientific community? Astrology is the ArbCom's example of something generally considered pseudoscience, and I don't know of a single scientist who holds astrology as anything other than mysticism. Homeopathy is controversial, it is alleged to be pseudoscience by some people, but it is also accepted and used as a regular part of many medical practices and there are serious scientists and doctors who believe it is valid and useful. Similar to Psychoanalysis. —Whig (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no comparison to psychoanalysis, which is a mainstream practice which some criticize, but which is still mainstream and largely accepted. Homeopathy is an alternative practice that is definitely not considered mainstream and is criticized by a massive majority of the mainstream, not just by "some" people. The fact that is practiced by larger numbers in parts of Europe (and is going down very fast in England, both in numbers and governmental support) and India is only proof of its deceptive nature and how people can be fooled, or that they just hold on to old traditions. Your twisting of words and facts is disingenuous and disruptive. Stop it. -- Fyslee / talk 07:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is mainstream where I live, in California. It is becoming increasingly mainstream, in fact. It is mainstream in Europe, and in India. Again, it is unlike Astrology which is not accepted by any scientist. —Whig (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely not mainstream science in California. The attitudes of the gullible public are not included in the definition of "mainstream" science. -- Fyslee / talk 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is mainstream medicine here. You can deny it all you like, but that does not change the fact. Mainstream is determined by public acceptance, and it is accepted. —Whig (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] It is a parsing of policy. You are both trying to move the goalposts by reclassifying "obvious" or "generally considered pseudoscience" to the wrong category so as to avoid telling the truth according to good sources. That is disruptive and a violation of the article probation. Stop it. Even Jim Butler has now admitted the category does apply to homeopathy, IOW he has changed his mind when presented with abundant evidence. Here is where it happens: [22] & [23], because of this, & this, & this, & this, as well as this very clear warning to a user who is pushing the same arguments as yourselves right here. -- Fyslee / talk 07:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had conversations with Jim Butler in his talk, we don't agree. If you are alleging misconduct on my part please bring it to the attention of an admin. —Whig (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have at Whig's request. The article probation should have taught you something, and that is when to learn you are beaten and to stop. Continuing this line of argumentation is precisely the type of disruption that the article probation is intended to stop. -- Fyslee / talk 07:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I will wait to hear from the admin you have contacted, but otherwise I will not regard your threats as anything but precisely what you accuse me of. —Whig (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You said You are both trying to move the goalposts by reclassifying "obvious" or "generally considered pseudoscience" to the wrong category so as to avoid telling the truth according to good sources. Remember, there is no truth. I don't believe in censorship. You are not AGF. Reasonable people can disagree. Butler's POV is based on an article he discovered yesterday. I feel like I will be reported for going against the "truth." I suspect DeMatt will see it differently. How will you deal with that. I will now disengage. Anthon01 (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You two aren't the only ones who have proposed precisely this line of reasoning, which is incorrect. I am not proposing that you are doing this out of ill will or that you are acting in bad faith. I AGF because I know that you really believe it, but it's still disruptive and by failing to align yourselves with the mainstream position and learn from the evidence your continued insistence becomes advocacy, which is forbidden. NPOV requires that we include the viewppoints of homeopaths and tell the whole story, but we should be aware that we are including nonsense that is properly sourced, and we should be careful to not believe it or incorporate it into our own belief systems. Also keep in mind something that doesn't jibe with my AGF, considering this statement of yours:

• "You and I both know that in many ways, Homeopathy is unquestionably Pseudoscientific." [24]

While you are properly seeking to find good sources, your continued argumentation and supporting of other editors who do believe is unhelpful and further disruption. -- Fyslee / talk 07:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And in fact I asked you if it is opinion or based on policy? As you have saidto me in the recent past it they could be different, that is you could believe somethin but NPOV requires that you approach it a certain way. If you are telling me that you are going to report me to the thought police ... You've got to be kidding! Anthon01 (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I said that even if you were a believer, you should subordinate those beliefs to the evidence and NPOV and edit from a mainstream POV (IOW factual position) by stopping any advocacy. Only then you can still include the nonsense of believers without advocating it. We are supposed to "write for the enemy", but we shouldn't believe it or advocate it. -- Fyslee / talk 07:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I believe you fundamentally misunderstand NPOV. We do not write from a single mainstream POV. We include all significant views and we describe them all neutrally. —Whig (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We basically agree that we include all significant POV and describe them without advocating them. It is as regards your personal POV that it is an advantage to adopt the mainstream POV to avoid advocating nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My personal POV is based upon my own experiential knowledge. You would have me deny my senses to avoid "advocating nonsense"? We have all kinds of different POVs on Wikipedia, nobody is required to adopt some hypothetical "mainstream POV" here. —Whig (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

you should subordinate You meaning you or I or anyone else needs to subordinate their beliefs to NPOV. So I understand that. NPOV flows from RS. So far so good. You are certain that your interpretation and only yours is correct. I'm sorry but that scares me. That's where we part and that where consensus is suppose to help bridge that gap. Anthon01 (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. I'm just trying to provide some advice that has saved me from lots of problems here and I'm hoping you will learn from it. I don't expect you to change your beliefs, but suspend disbelief (for you that would mean temporarily be a skeptic) and attempt to be more objective while editing. That's all. It's pretty easy for me since I have been where you are and can see these issues from both sides. -- Fyslee / talk 08:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a skeptic. I told you that on your talk page. I take it all with a grain of salt. I can see both sides also. You are assuming you know me but you don't, and frankly you statement is a bit patronizing. I do suspend by beliefs. I am looking at RS and making judgements based upon that. When you get a chance I hope you'll take a look at the post I left on your talk page earlier today. Anthon01 (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice the warning template that Fyslee put at the top of your page? Anthon01 (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, and I will remove it now. —Whig (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I placed one on my own as well. All places where there is discussion of homeopathy may need it. It is an aid and helpful to have it there. Removing it can be seen as a refusal to accept the advice in that notification. You need to AGF about that template. -- Fyslee / talk 08:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Telling people they need to AGF is not how AGF works. —Whig (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we don't behave this way in the US. Anthon01 (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't? —Whig (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean generally we don't. I don't have anyone coming to my front door and putting up signs without my knowledge. Anthon01 (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen some political races where that's happened, not to me personally but anyhow, I agree it's rude. —Whig (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've had time to think about it, the template is placed at the top of article talk pages, but placed like ordinary comments on user talk pages. I guess that's what I should have done, just like has happened other places. Sorry for any offense. It was not intended. -- Fyslee / talk 04:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I accept your apology, but I do not think the template is appropriate for user talk pages at all. Of course as I said, your own user page is yours to do with as you like. Thank you for your comment. —Whig (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

From DU

Whig, I also brought a reply here to avoid Dana's page lighting up like a Christmas tree (although shot info has now reverted his previous edit). You should also read the article on confirmation bias, what we think we know to be true is often not the case. I'm sure you already know this well and that we are in no position to judge the validity of your personal experience.

Once the evidence starts arriving then people get swayed. There are plenty of instances, endosymbiosis and plate techtonics being prime examples, where skeptics have been won over by a convincing case. I agree with the Shot info that for scientists there is more contradictory evidence about homeopathy and that is not helping the field build a strong case. In fact, Occam's razor suggests that placebo is a very good explanation for the phenomena from a scientific perspective (many drug trials barely do better than placebo, homeopathy is not the only one with that problem) and I bet a lot of the interest in homeopathy from medicine is the hope that placebo can be tapped, along the lines of, if people believe it will work then it might.

So what is placebo? Presumably there is a real physiological basis for this (sorry for my scientific bias here) but I am willing to bet it does not have anything to do with water memory. Of course this is easy to test but I have not seen anything convincing (despite all those citations that people keep posting on the homeopathy talk page). Clearly I am much more skeptical than you, however, I am not proclaiming homeopathy a fraud unless they are charging outrageous prices for their remedies. And actually here is part of the problem, if the remedies are too cheap they might not be as effective, given an attitude of "you get what you pay for". I'm not being sarcastic here, it's an observation that we do not understand the basis for placebo. Anyway just my 2 cents trying to share my current perspective. David D. (Talk) 08:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Placebo is inadequate to explain the effects which I had, which were profound and unique, and hard to describe. It would also be hard to measure the effect in a linear fashion of improvement. It is evidently quite common for people to have an almost reverse placebo effect from homeopathic medicines, in that their symptoms become worse before they become better. Homeopathic effects do not have to be tested on sick people anyhow, they can be proven on any healthy person who wants to take a remedy for awhile. —Whig (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand many of the arguments, I've read the homeopathy page for a while. There have been many personal experiences related, and maybe if I had had such an experience I too would be less skeptical, but I have not, yet. Do you think faith healing works, there are plenty who will say their experience was profound and unique. For that matter those that have seen UFO's will be equally adamant. This is the problem for homeopaths with respect to the more skeptical among us. Repeatable and robust, in a clinical setting, sets of data are required. As always to claim something incredible, (in this case more effective than placebo) does require exceptional sets of data. David D. (Talk) 08:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a zetetic in these matters, where I have not had an experience I do not deny that others have had them. The universe is an interesting place. But I do not represent these things as scientific, and I would say that homeopathy has a scientific basis that makes sense to me. I have also conducted my own experiments which seem simple enough for anyone to repeat and demonstrate to oneself. The problem of course is that you are looking for statistical data and this is empirical science. I also believe that it is consistent with QED and in particular the observed sinusoidal effects curve of ascending potencies seems like the sinusoidal absorptions/reflections of photons through layers of water. However I am not a PhD physicist and would not represent my understanding as encyclopedic either. —Whig (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I think should be done. Assume good faith when reading the homeopathic literature. Consider it a reliable source and use it to present the homeopathic perspective, but do so neutrally. All of this talk about homeopathic journals not being reliable sources is not correct. They do not say what the truth is, they say what their view is. But the other sources which criticize the homeopaths don't get to say what the truth is either. Wikipedia does not take sides in these matters, we present all sides and let the sources speak. —Whig (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, why would someone reading about homeopathy not want to know the homeopaths perspective? David D. (Talk) 09:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and the reason I became involved in editing this article is that I wanted to learn that, and I couldn't do so from the Wikipedia article that existed. And I still can't. —Whig (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is this the way things go here? Anthon01 (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you still around? Anthon01 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Intermittently. Is there something you thought I should add or comment on right away? —Whig (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been in contact with FT2 and have submitted my explanations to him. I am awaiting his reply. Anthon01 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting I post on AN, even though I mentioned it at the AN/I? What do I do about Filll who I feel is exaggerating my involvement all over the place?[25][26] Anthon01 (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I defend myself against the stonewalling claim? Anthon01 (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Make a polite request to WP:AN and ask for diffs to justify your restriction, I think. That would be how I would proceed. —Whig (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. The second link is here.[27] Ambiguous section titles. In any event its at the bottom of the page. Anthon01 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why waste your time in a talk page dispute with Filll? —Whig (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

He keeps commenting everywhere I go, and his comments are inaccurate accusations. What do you suggest? You saying I am bothering him, but he is posting inaccurate accusations inflammatory messages in several different places. Anthon01 (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest ignoring him, as he isn't an admin and cannot block you. —Whig (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Anthon01 (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't gotten any response, and I am being advise to go edit somewhere else. Shoinfo says I am forum shopping. Anthon01 (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I said "feel free to forum shop", which is a little different to your misquoting [28]. FWIW, in case you haven't noticed, you have a bunch of admins on AN/I and elsewhere starting to ignore you because you don't seem to be taking their advice. You don't have to take it of course, but you run the risk of other admins then backing each other up - and ignoring you even more when people do pick on you, rather than you imagining it at the moment, Aesop wrote a fable about this (cue uncivil accusation...). Shot info (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You are being very incivil by coming to my talk page to insult others. —Whig (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my misquote. So far one admin has imposed a ban without explanation. My request for clarity almost 3 days ago have remained unanswered. Others have ask me to let it go and move on. I prefer to get an answer to why I was banned. And were did I say anyone was picking on me? I did say I thought the ban was unfair. But I didn't say someone was picking on me. Anthon01 (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon, Shot info is not an admin, he can be safely ignored. —Whig (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am interested in listening to all POVs. So as long as he is engaging in a constructive manner I'm ok. Thanks for your help. Anthon01 (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And you are always welcome on my talk page. ;-)Anthon01 (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you ever use email? If you sent me an email I will respond. Anthon01 (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have responded, again. Anthon01 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)