User talk:Anthon01

Welcome!

Hello, Anthon01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! - BanyanTree 02:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Misrepresentation"

Perhaps it was just a poor choice of a word on your part, but still you're making an accusation of an editor (though it's not clear which editor), when you should be focusing on what the discussion is about.

As for my own claims that "we're making little or no progress", here are some diffs of your own edits that I think back this statement, though I never indicated what editors I was referring to: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] --Ronz (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the summary. You and Adam characterized our responses as "Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!" You even put it in quotes. --Anthon01 (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I quoted Adam. Please do not misrepresent me, as it is a very serious violation of WP:TALK to do so. --Ronz (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You quoted and then signed you name to it. Seemed like an endorsement to me? --Anthon01 (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And I've explained myself. If you continue to argue for misrepresenting me, I'll seek WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So you disagree with Adams characterization? Did you feel that repeating it was helpful to moving the conversation forward? --Anthon01 (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that an apology to me? --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No. It is two questions? I am trying to understand what you meant to communicate. --Anthon01 (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And I've asked you to stop misrepresenting me. Please address this, as I'm unwilling to take this discussion further if this is the type of thing you're resorting to. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You said "The article is fully protected because of this disputed information and the arguments are basically , as Adam Cuerden put it...." You said the the arguments are basically, as Adam Cuerden put it... This can be interpeted as an endorsement of Adams comments. Then I said "Must be a misunderstanding. but your summary isn't an accurate depiction of the conversation" Do you believe that what you wrote is an accurate depiction? Please clarify you position. Then I will issue an apology if needed. --Anthon01 (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my concerns. I wrote other things as well. You're taking what I said out of context. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I took anything out of context. --Anthon01 (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm taking this to a third party, as I've already indicated multiple other things I wrote that answers your question and which you are now not taking into consideration. --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You said

The problem brought up in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive337#Quackwatch continues. The article is fully protected because of this disputed information and the arguments are basically, as Adam Cuerden put it,

"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"
"Well, yes, but they never claimed to be. Do you have any reliable source in a notable publication mentioning that?"
"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"
"Without a source, that's original research and a violation of WP:SYNTH"
"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"
"ARRRGH!"

The arguments began 27 November 2007. Over 400 edits to the talk page later and we're making little or no progress. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

and then 2 1/2 hours later you said

Like Adam Cuerden, my concern is that the discussions are just going in circles. We've already had a large number of outside editors give their perspective after two requests for outside opinions. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I said

Must be a misunderstanding. but your summary isn't an accurate depiction of the conversation at Talk:Quackwatch. I'm sorry you see it that way. --Anthon01 (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What did I take out of context? --Anthon01 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at the context. You've taken my quoting of Adam out of context of the above, as well as the additional comments that I've made to clarify the situation. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Going in circles is accurate. Characterizing the conversation as Adam had and you reiterated is an inaccurate depiction. --Anthon01 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't reiterate it. Please stop misrepresenting me. If you are actually so concerned with what Adam wrote, I would have expected you to actually discuss it with him. Perhaps you should do so now?

You might also want to look through WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, if you're not already familiar with them. --Ronz (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reiterate means to repeat. Adam said it and you repeated it. Anthon01 (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And I see no reason to continue this discussion. I suggest you look to WP:DR if you want to continue. --Ronz (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

On that, I can agree. --Anthon01 (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:MENTOR

Since you're fairly new here and editing mostly in extremely controversial articles, it might be a good idea for you look at WP:MENTOR. It's a good way to get a neutral viewpoint to help you learn the ropes here. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's great. Are there mentors waiting in the wings, so to speak? --Anthon01 (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. I wish someone had let me know about it when I was first starting to edit Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's never too late! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I've got experienced editors helping me now, mostly admins. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you look to finding a mentor. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you know but I just learned this myself

Hi, on your user page you have 'Policies' and links under it. Well if you want the links to tell you what it is then at the end of the URL put a space then in quotation marks say what the link is. For example, "Anthon01 talk page" and you will see just what is in quotes but the link is still there which you can tell by just putting your mouse over it. I am just trying to help you as a new user since it takes me a long time to learn things I thought I would share this with you. I hope this is helpful to you. Also the above suggestions for a mentor is really good [17] I have one and it is helpful for me. Happy editing --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate your help. I actually have left the links that way as it will help me memorize over time the WP shortcut for each link. If I am misunderstanding you please clarify. I have a question. What is the customary way to respond to a talk page comment? Would it be here as I have, or on your talk page? --Anthon01 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand, memory in not something I do too well which is why I have all those links on my user page so I can remember where they are. As for your question, the way I have my preferences set up is that if I post to someone it get put on my watchlist so that I can know if there is a response. Some don't have it set that way probably but I would think answering here would work and if your response required a response and you don't get it in a reasonable amount of time then I myself would go to that user's page and repeat my response. I hope this makes sense! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthon01 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Physical therapy

Yes there is, you can place a request for page protection at WP:RFPP, but they will probably deny your request because they want to see a recent pattern of vandalism, and by recent i mean today. 9 vandal reverts within a week unfortunately is a norm of articles that receive a lot of viewing. If you have any more questions please let me know. Cheers! Tiptoety (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine‎

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. [18] --Ronz (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So why did you chose to discuss it on that page? You even created a separate section for it. --Anthon01 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to move the discussion along with two edits:

1. Pointing out the actual facts
2. Creating a subsection, expounding on my previous points, and pointing out that the subject is unfit for Wikipedia as is

--Ronz (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Barrett

On the Quackwatch talkpage, you stated, "I took that statement to mean what everyone else has, that the review board reviews when Barrett request it. I also confirmed it with Barrett." Can you produce a copy of the personal communication by which you confirmed it with Barrett? It would be most helpful. Thanks, Antelan ^talk 19:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to do that. How would you like me to send it to you? Please explain what the purpose of sending it would be? --Anthon01 (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration requested

Please reconsider this reversion. Since I found that version disagreeable, the collaborative move would be an attempt to find a better (third) alternative. Right now the current title can still give the impression that generally alternative medicine gradually becomes accepted, which is far from the case. Very little of what is now termed alt med has any chance of being accepted. That which has had a chance has already been accepted, and what is left is left for a reason. The wording I chose was chosen because I felt it didn't leave any impression one way or the other. I tried a neutral wording. Maybe it did leave an impression I wasn't noticing. If so I'd like to know what it was. In which case I'd appreciate that you choose a third alternative that is even more neutral instead of just reverting to a version I obviously found disagreeable. -- Fyslee / talk 07:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture and will reconsider. More to come.:) Anthon01 (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you gesture I am happy to collaborate with you. I think this discussion could set a positive tone for future collaborations. Please allow me state my position before we consider collaboratively changing the title. You state that "Very little of what is now termed alt med has any chance of being accepted." I do see how you and others with a similar POV might interpret the title to mean that. In my opinion, your POV is influencing your read of that title. However the title itself doesn't say "most of these therapies will migrate," it simply implies that this section covers how therapies migrate without stating percentages, chances etc ... IMO, the title on its face sounds textbookish or encyclopedic and is neutral.

So why do you believe that most of what is going to be accepted already has been? Do you have a reference, a highly reliable and 'relatively neutral' source that suggest that? I don't see it the way you do, maybe because our lists are different. Looking at the NCCAM site, which lists a large number of CAM therapies, I see many that are likely to be accepted, perhaps not whole but significant aspects of many of these therapies. Help me understand what you mean by "Very little of what is now termed alt med has any chance of being accepted." Anthon01 (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit uncertain how to answer this: "So why do you believe that most of what is going to be accepted already has been?" Could you please reword it? I just don't understand it. Maybe my rusty English after 24 years living in Denmark. I will be happy to answer, but just need clarification. -- Fyslee / talk 17:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha! I just reread it and realized you were actually including a paraphrase of what I wrote above. I thought it was your thoughts and I couldn't figure it out.

Starting over again. I think that most of what is left has already been investigated and found wanting, or is so pseudoscientific, metaphysical, or outright quackish, that it has little chance of being accepted. Of course we no doubt have different lists, so you correctly describe probably a good part of the reason why we see things differently, and that's perfectly fine. I can deal with that. What list are you looking at? Just copy it here and write what you think has a chance (or what part of it has a chance, even if the rest of it may not), and I'll add my comments. This way we can at least get to understand each other. Kind of like comparing each other's baseball cards as kids.....;-) That's the nice thing about a conversation on our private user talk pages. We can discuss things like this without distracting from discussions in article talk space. It's also nice to get to know each other. I suspect that in real life I'd enjoy sharing a beer or bottle of wine with some who seem to be adversaries here. In reality we are just normal people who are coming from different places and actually have some understandable reasons for why we have our particular POV. If we understand where each other is coming from, it makes it easier to assume good faith and be more patient with each other. I actually hate all the controversy. It's just not me. -- Fyslee / talk 18:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll work on that. Anthon01 (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to you on my talk page

Good morning, I use both alternate and conventional to help me with my Crohn's. I don't know what CAM is so I am sorry I can't answer that part. But I use supplements, things like massage and things along these lines. My family also has used chiroprator's for their back problems. I had a very nice editor here that helped me understand what to expect during this. I hope this answers your question. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Specific statement not included

From what I understood, the proposal was to remove all the stuff about the mission statement. This is independent of the mission statement. So, I think you have misinterpreted what was being discussed on talk. Cheers. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

While I don't find this statement relevant to the scope, I do find it relevant to the history. I'm fine with keeping it in for now. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

citations

brief guide on my talk page. DGG (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch and WEIGHT

Generally speaking, yes. But note that WP:WEIGHT applies to the overall balance found in the available acceptable sources, the overall POV found in specific sources, and specific views found in parts of a source. If an article is neutral (complies with the NPOV principle), picking and choosing from a source may inject bias. A biased article may be made worse or improved by selective quoting. In cases like this, the approach found in SA's #1 version will make sure that the addition does not change the current balance. There's much more to be said, but I think this covers the basics. Avb 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your vote is requested

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

-- John Gohde (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

QW source

I think shortening the excerpt removes the rationale, i.e. why it matters that QW is not peer reviewed. —Whig (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

I just want to wish you a very Happy, Healthy Holiday! May 2008 be a good year, happy editing. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Private communications

Given all the bantering about on my talk page regarding personal attacks, violations of Civility Rules, and whatever; I have set up an Email Me feature on the very top of my talk page which provides for completely private communications. -- John Gohde (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 06:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine (again)

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. [19] --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

3rr warning on Quackwatch

As you may be aware, you're up to three reverts on Quackwatch. Further reversions may result in a block. See WP:3RR. Please use the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 21:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He also appears to have three, and yes, I've warned him. Cool Hand Luke 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch (again)

Please stop using talk pages as forums to discuss other editors' behavior. Thanks! [20] --Ronz (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't using it to discuss behavior but why his edits don't work. Anthon01 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a mess going with Ronz too. Anyway, thanks for doing some refactoring on the QW talk. Pete St.John (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Anth, thanks for notifying me about ScienceApologist. I'm sorry for the result, because I think he's not so far from being approachable, and he makes a real effort to explain his points, and people who goad him to excess hostility, from the sidelines, are getting away with it. QW is a mess, and there's a meta-mess with adversarial wiki-legalism overtaking content-driven consensus-building. But anyway thanks. Pete St.John (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

AN post

I just wanted to notify you, there's a discussion regarding you on the administrator's noticeboard. Maser ^(Talk!) 22:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I always make a point to ensure that editors are aware oof discussions involving them. :) Maser ^(Talk!) 23:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please consider refactoring and explaining

I have no idea what you're referring to here, but I think you should refactor it before any attempt at explaining what you're referring to:

Ronz, where are you? Your characterization is UNCIVIL and factually incorrect. The Consultant Pharmacist and the Village Voice are not quacks.

[21] --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you are continuing to comment to Talk:Quackwatch without making any attempt to respond to my comment above. Please strikeout the comment I've quoted above from Talk:Quackwatch, and apologize for these baseless accusations. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No accusations. I notice you sometimes leave message when SA starts to respond in uncivil manner. I was requesting your assistance. Anthon01 (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. It could be read as you're accusing me, when instead you're accusing SA. Either way it's inappropriate. Please refactor it. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary as SA often writes in an uncivil tone and has currently been blocked for this. Anthon01 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And you escalated the situation by using the talk page to harass SA. Please refactor it so that at least you're clear who you are harassing. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! [22] --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WTB and ScienceApologist

I haven't seen a concrete proposal from SA. In general, the dispute centers on the use of the observer principle by the movie. Its usage clearly contradicts all science, but we aren't allowed to refute the specific usages in the movie because the reviewers did not go into that detail, even though any good reference on QM clearly contradicts the movie.Kww (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with the wikistalking

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Ronz but you are mistaken. Anthon01 (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You're the one that is clearly mistaken. Please stop with the harassment immediately. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I myself prefer when slanderous allegations are accompanyied by specifics so they can be either rebutted or corrected. Ronz's habit of broad strokes of the tarbrush infuriates me. Anyway, the above is a specific example of his broad brush with no specifics. Presumably he assumes what specifics are meant from context, but if one were to assume good faith, then logically you can not be assumed to know what rule you are breaking by what specific mistake, or you would not have made the mistake. Pete St.John (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on here except that the three of you are having a problem with each other. As an outsider reading this though, I find the above to be uncivil to say the least. Please, let's all just get along. It's really not that hard to be polite, but if that is not possible in your eyes then avoiding each other is best till tempers cool down. I know there is a problem between Anthon and Ronz but I don't understand why PeterStJohn has added his/her comments as the comments seem to be escalating the problem between the two, not helping. Please, everyone, try to avoid each other for awhile or try to talk it out civily. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You said, "escalating the problem between the two." Which two? You mention that "everyone, try to avoid each other for awhile." I don't have a problem with Peter, nor does he with me, so there is no need for us to avoid each other. Ronz repeatedly initiates comments on our talk pages about our behaviors. I think Pete is complaining that the accusations "like wikistalking" that, in our opinion, don't assume AGF, and/or accusations without specifics needed for 'rebuttal or acknowledgment' are disruptive. I personally don't have a problem with Ronz, but I find his/her recent focus(past 3 weeks or so) on edits by Peter and myself, that he/she deems inappropriate, while ignoring ScienceAplogist, who was recently banned for incivility, curious. I have agreed to avoid Ronz, but he has not agreed to do the same. So, you may have to take that up with him. Anthon01 (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your mediator has been indefinitely banned, after indicating that he was assuming bad faith of me. How do we proceed now? You seem to want your behavior excused because of what ScienceApologist is doing. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Blood electrification

Hi Anthon, and Happy New Year to you! I am terribly sorry for being so late in my reply to your question. I guess I have too many things on my plate at times! -- Fyslee / talk 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I too owe you a response to the excellent discussion you proposed, that is CAM thearpies that might migrate to medicine. Anthon01 (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I had pretty much forgotten about that one, but I think it would help us understand each other better, and barring the possibility of sharing a beer or bottle of wine together and just chatting and getting to know each other, it would help us get along much better here, and I would appreciate that. Even though we do have different POV, just being able to disagree agreeably would be a big step in the right direction. AGF doesn't mean agreement, but just not imputing deliberately evil motives towards one another. I think we have managed to stay away from that sort of thing! Take care. -- Fyslee / talk 20:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Re. About WP:BITE

I have explained the situation to Vfrken‎. I think you tried to help and to ensure that the user did not feel unwelcome, which was very nice of you. I think for the most part you handled this situation quite well. You ensured the editor was welcomed and assisted, and remained civil throughout. One thing, though, is when you welcome someone, be sure to leave it on their user talk page instead of their userpage, so the orange "you have new messages" bar'll appear. ;)

However, the reason Ronz has accused of Wikistalking you is likely because you have had previous encounters with this user, and there does appear to be disputes of sorts between the two of you. Though you were quite civil and well conducted on his talk page, I recommend altogether keeping some distance from him, and instead focus on editing articles. :) Maser ^(Talk!) 07:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm accusing him of wikistalking because I was already in discussions with him about harassment, and because he named me specifically, in violation of WP:TALK, when it was another editor, if anyone, who did anything even the tiniest bit wrong. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What appears to have happened was you tried to assist somebody who may have felt bitten, and Ronz felt that you were interfering, and in that light, may have even felt as though you did it in a way that made him look uncivil, and as a result felt you were stalking him. What I think you should try is to not have any real involvement with Ronz or his affairs at all for now - take a breather, and edit articles. You seem to be interested in Quackwatch, maybe you should just get back to editing there. :) Maser ^(Talk!) 04:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

But I had already handled the situation before either of you got involved, and I wasn't the one that did anything that could even remotely be considered BITE. Another editor could have been better, but that editor's actions were ignored, while I was first singled out and then accused. Anthon01 caused the problem, escalated it, then ran to Maser Fletcher for help. After I discussed the situation with Maser Fletcher, he admitted he had assumed bad faith. Now Anthon01 is annoyed that I am upset at his behavior. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the nicest message you have left on my talk page in a long time. Thank you. However on several points you are mistaken.

• No one accused you. You have mispoken.
• I simply suggested politely that you consider WP:BITE.
• Sorry but the situation was escalated when you accused me of wikistalking
• I never said I was upset with you behavior. You have mispoken.

Anthon01 (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your perspective. However, you're still ignoring my concerns, especially that of wikistalking. --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing

Your wikistalking of me needs to stop. You have been found guilty in the past by a wikipedia inquiry of POV editing. you have refused to discuss your changes, indeed you said you thought your edit was the same as mine. It is not. Please desist with this style of editing. Mccready (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs that confirm your accusation. Anthon01 (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent CAM edits

Mccready: We (myself and other editors) have discuss my changes on the talk page. Please check these sections of the CAM talk page.[23] [24] [25] [26] [27]

You ask for a discussion but I can't find one comment by you on the talk page. I notice you repeatedly make the same edit, but haven't chosen to participate on the talk page. Please consider letting your views about adding QW at the top of the page be know in that section. I look forward to your comments. Thanks. And you recent edit summary

anthon your have been found guilty in the past of POV editing. you have refused to discuss your earlier changes, indeed you said you thought your edit was the same as mine.

is blatantly false. Perhaps your have mistaken me for another user. Cheers.Anthon01 (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Hey, sorry I missed the fact that you had duplicated my comment before removing the duplicate. My bad! You can remove that duplicate if you'd like. Antelan ^talk 18:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"balance" of pharmacologist's review of QW

I don't myself have a strong opinion about the overall review in question; my sense was that on the whole it was positive, but that is not germane to the quote for which we (originally) used the review; which was just to establish (with an acceptable citation) that QW didn't at that time use peer-review for it's own articles (not necessarily any reason they should, but the matter had been questioned) and that a reviewer existed who recommended that they do. My own purpose was merely to acknowledge a legitimate criticism of QW (not to condemn QW over it; like most complex things, QW has better and worse facets). SA then wanted to balance the representation of the review itself (but the article is about QW, not the review; so the representation of QW should be balanced, not each and every reference within it). But I don't think it does any harm to the article (other than a bit of bloat) to use the review to also cite praiseworthy things. I think it's knee-jerk protectionism but not harmful, so I consider the longer material, with postive stuff alongside the (constructive) criticism, to be compromise towards consensus. I feel the whole thing is blown out of proportion but that seems to be true of every issue there. Pete St.John (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the review as mostly a neutral explanation of what Quackwatch is, essential just the facts. I don't see one positive comment made by the reviewer himself. I have ask a few editors to point out a positive statement made by the reviewer, but no one has beem able to point one out to me. Anyway, I to agreed to the compromise, but apparently that wasn't enough. Anthon01 (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

revert war at QW talk

I posted notification of the Wikiquette item regarding Ronz at the QW discussion page (which you evidently noticed). Ronz has deleted it twice, I have reverted 3 times (by my count; the first time was an ammendation to cite the specific wiki policy allowing the item, but I count that as a revert). He has now asked SA to chip in, and now SA has deleted it once. One might hope for a "third" party to chip in, but meanwhile, please feel free to help out. I think actually edit-warring over a conventional, neutrally worded notification is not what he wants. This can be a bizarre darn place. Pete St.John (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

For your convenience, from my Talk:

Peter. Just hold on, I will see what I can do. You run the risk of being blocked. Anthon01 (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. I'm a big advocate against superficial wikilegalism camoflaging eristic and repetitive and otherwise unethical rhetoric, and I'm willing to take risks. There's just too much of that shit, it's pernicious and much harder to cope with than mere vandalism. It's ok if they delete the notice, it's in the history and the wording (re neutrality, harassment, and canvassing) can be judged by others later. Pete St.John (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks again yes again, I replied at my talk. Pete St.John (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

regarding the tally count (reverts at QW talk) that you mentioned at my Talk: my count is 2 or 3, and I'm conceding 3 so not reverting any more. Is there a way to count it as more than 3? Pete St.John (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely. It looks like the notice will stay. Anthon01 (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah. I answered re "confusion" at my talk. Also, I pity whoever addresses the Wikiquette item, if anyone does. What I don't understand, is what happened to the quacks? I'm happy to believe that fraud-promulgation and anti-scientific wishful-thinking have spammed the QW article in the past, but I haven't noticed any since I've been involved; it seems the only problems are excessivly defensive wikilegalism on the part of the pro-science party. It makes me meta-nuts that I'm seen as pro-alt-med, which in turn is seen to be equivalent to anti-science. It's nuts. Where are the claims for dynamization and potentization? Although I see the Homeopathy page is blocked. Pete St.John (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think I should place my complaint is a separate section, detached from yours? Anthon01 (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the subsection you made is pretty convenient. We're complaining about the same things, pretty much. 22:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'm getting dizzy; I was just going to your talk, to let you know I'd replied at...your talk. Pete St.John (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Anthon01 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC re Ronz

The Wikiquette item is now referenced from a new RfC. Pete St.John (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How I treat editors

Sorry that you don't like that I don't treat editors completely and totally the same no matter how they behave [28]. I don't think most editors would have a problem with this. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You often make assumptions instead of AGF. THat is what I don't like. Also with me, when you are wrong, you don't admit it or apologize. Anthon01 (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I do make assumptions, but I do my best to respond to the facts of the situation and assume good faith when there's the any doubt. The situation with your mediator is a case in point, where it turned out he was the one assuming bad faith, and admitted as much. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are using the mediator as a smoke screen. Your bad behavior began before the mediator got involved, when you accused me of wikistalking, instead of AGF. You could have cordially contacted me and ask me to explain why XYZ instead assuming I was stalking you. Finally, and unrelated, some editors far more egregious behaviors get a pass. Anthon01 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I try to be better than the warning levels for the uw templates (eg Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Multi-level_templates). If I had my way, I'd rewrite the descriptions of the different levels to be more focused on previous behavior. For instance, I almost always give a uw-s1 warning to someone whose spammed for the first time, or hasn't yet received any spam warnings. I'll start with a uw-s2 warning only in the most blatant of cases, usually where the editor has already reverted back his own spam. I doubt if I've ever started with a uw-s3 warning to anyone, though I may have when they've already received related warnings at level 2 or higher. I try to follow the same approach with other situations. --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are willing to talk this out, then I am happy to do that with you. I will AGF. Are you willing to do the same? It may not be your intention but the terse/brute warnings come off as aggressive and as an attack. It comes off as 'big brother overlooking my every move.' There are many editors who are constantly pushing the limit of civility here. I am not one of those editors. IMO, if you intention is to help create a better environment at wikipedia then I think your approach needs to change. And in case you haven't seen this yet, please look here. [29]Anthon01 (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's try talking it out. I think this specific discussion has gone well so far.

(edit conflict) As for Wikieditor9999, I've probably been much too lenient with him. He's headed for a block, and nothing that anyone has done so far has slowed him down from that path. I wish the mediator that responded to his request was able to follow up quicker. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want you to think that I am not interested in continuing this conversation. I have not responded as I see you are on a wikibreak. I will await your return. Anthon01 (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your question

Hi Anthon01: no, I'm not an admin. Not that it should make a difference -- Wikipedia is run by consensus. Admins don't have more "power" than other editors. The main thing is other editors' trust and support; the more experienced and the more successful in collaborating, the better. FWIW, when I first encountered Ronz, I thought he was an admin, in view of the (IMO) superb (though unasked for) advice he gave me on my talk page. Avb 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your second question: You can find my special user rights here; for others simply enter User: followed by the editor's name in the Title box. Avb 00:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

where are the diffs

I know what a diff is in programming but what are you looking for in this context? Here is the dispute page [[30]] and here come the deletionist trolls... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor9999 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop pretending to be an administrator

The gang of magic-believing morons who have ruined Wikipedia may be able to sit on pages like homeopathy all day and prevent them from being improved by brute force, but you do not get to give other people "warnings" for being "uncivil" just because they live in the real world. If you don't remove this I'll have to report you for pretending to be an admin. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I took a shot at explaining this at his Talk. Pete St.John (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. He is working towards a block. Shit, I'm starting to sound like you know who.:-) Anthon01 (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think it's important to remember that all of us (all who brazenly undertake contentious articles, anyway) get exasperated sometimes. I know myself I've: been hasty and superficial replying to, or reacting to, a merely poorly-worded item, or when I was just working too fast; I've been dismissive, arrogant, and maybe sometimes outright insulting; and I can exacerbate others' frustration just by being too detailed, verbose, loquatious, or circumloqutory, or by arguing a point that seems small to them (coming as they do from some different background with some different values), or by using unnecessarily complex sentences (as I am sometimes wont to do, not, of course, lately). The Wikieditor9999 thing is a mess; he's facing the same problems I am (Ronz et al) but his own rhetoric is quite deficient (for what he's up against). Pete St.John (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

WTB

Anthon... I wanted to mention as per your comment on the Bleep talk page that the suggestion that some will not accept pseudoscience is a blanket statement that is a teeny bit insulting. There have been several instances were editors were willing to keep the infamous word in the lead to have some progress made, any progress, and to respect the views of other editors but inevitably the version would be tossed out at the last minute. Don't mean to be petty, just wanted to mention this. Thanks for your involvement on the article. Much appreciated.(olive (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

You're right I misread your comment. I have been hashing out this lead for so long, well, I didn't want to be misunderstood .... refactoring wasn't ever needed.Couldn't understand the comment given the versions suggested. Glad to know it was my misread. Many apologies for misunderstanding. (olive (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC))

Hi Anthon. At this point I don't see that I could add anything of use to this discussion. If I see a place where a comment seems appropriate I'll jump in. We've been through so much of this multiple times with multiple versions I was willing to accept, some with "pseudoscience" some without, it seems pretty fruitless right now. But will keep an eye on the article. Thanks(~!olive ([[User talk:Littleolive o

il|talk]])) —Preceding comment was added at 14:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh my gosh! What a mix up! ... No I was responding to Ben's comments on the Bleep talk pages. And was referencing Skeptic's dictionary when I said, Give me Break . I actually wouldn't speak like that to another editor unless under a lot of duress, and hopefully not then. Skeptic's Dictionary has a disclaimer on the website.... they don't intend to be neutral in anyway. That was my point. I'm sorry if you thought I was attacking you. Not my style , and at any rate I agree with you . If this goes to some larger discussion I will be there fighting all the way.I just felt that at this point in the Bleep article I was out of arguments. I referenced Wikipedia in every way I knew how and I got some outrageous responses. I can handle the responses.... I try to at least. I will be there for any "up the chain" discussion on the topic at hand. (olive (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC))

And now looking at the Bleep article, this comment as a response was made many comments ago to something Ben said . I guess in some ways I support you both since both of you seem to be reasonably arguing positions per Wikipedia. I have to stay out of this for now. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC))

SA

His page history is gone because he has left Wikipedia. See RTV. Antelan ^talk 03:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Avb too. I have mixed feelings. Pete St.John (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think SA is gone. He is up to something. Check out his page. Anthon01 (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I just noticed; darn weird. Pete St.John (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Would that everyone felt the same. :) GlassCobra 19:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this conversation and the one above. I am very saddened by the lack of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. What's going on here? Is having editors leave or banned/blocked a goal or something? I think what is written here lately is out right rude and some of this should be struck out. You all can't believe that what is being said above and in this thread is useful to the project. I'm sorry for butting in but three editors quit ysterday and that's the only one's I know of. You can read more at [31]. I hope everyone can now get along and this will stop. Sorry again for butting in but when I saw this I was very upset at what was bing said. --CrohnieGal^Talk 01:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Crohnie. Please AGF. You are taking this out of context. Like you, I take no delight in seeing editors banned or blocked. There is nothing cruel or nefarious going on here. I'm confused. Please point out the exact text that you think is cruel? Anthon01 (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anthon, I always try to follow WP:AGF & WP:NPA just to name a couple of policies I believe I always follow. But the comments above do not follow these policies and it seems like some of the editors here are poking a large stick into a couple of other editors with hopes that they lose their tempers which I feel is not proper.

I guess what I am trying to say as politely as possible is that no one should be allowed to provoke other editors in an attempt to make them lose their tempers and get themselves banned or blocked (either blocked for an amount of time or blocked from editing specific areas.

The threads here, again just to name a couple are in my opinion; is rude and poking at other editors;[32], [33] and [34]. These kinds of comments are not useful, nor polite nor do they take WP:NPA & WP:AGF as serious policies. I hope you understand what I am trying to say here. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

ChronieGal, I still don't know what you are concerned about as the links you posted above do not outline the specific text but point to sections with multiple comments. Perhaps diffs might illustrate better the comments you are concerned about or quoting the text you are concerned about with an explanation of how they violate AGF and/or NPA? Anthon01 (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Crohnie, where you wrote (a few inches above here): "I just noticed this conversation and the one above..." you gave the impression that you were concerned with wording in this conversation. I'm sure you have many legitimate concerns about other threads, but I'd like to know what specifically you object to in this conversation. Thanks. Pete St.John (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes this thread, here are the quotes I find disturbing and not assuming good faith nor no personal attacks. Bolding is from me;

His page history is gone because he has left Wikipedia. See RTV. Antelan ^talk 03:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(Here Antelan informs you that SA has left)

Avb too. I have mixed feelings. Pete St.John (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(Here Peter says Avb did too, what's with the mixed feelings comment?)

I don't think SA is gone. He is up to something. Check out his page. Anthon01 (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I just noticed; darn weird. Pete St.John (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(This pretty much is self explanatory.)

Much appreciated. Would that everyone felt the same. :) GlassCobra 19:52, 17 January

(And here GlassCobra was asked to leave SA alone, so what is this all about? Also Peter, Avb is a good editor and tries hard to be fair and knows policies really well so why are you having mixed opinions about him leaving? I have to say, Avb is a nice person who helped me a lot so I am probably sensitive to this and may have misunderstood do to my liking him. SA I don't know at all and didn't have any contacts with him until lately. I would appreciate an explanation because it is possible that I misunderstood things, but the feeling I get from above is that having editors leave like this makes you both happy. Sorry if this sounds like not assuming good faith but I really want to understand and I am trying to assume good faith but it all seems likes a personal attack on these two editors to me. Thanks for listening and I hope this doesn't give us bad feeling with each other. (sorry did not proof read or spell check! :) ) --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I also am very curious about the two threads above this, one is "Stop pretending to be an administrator and WTB. I think the first one is in regards to Ronz but I could be mistaken. But you have to see that the thread is down right rude and incivil. The second one is about the bleep talk page. I have been invited to catch up on this article to see if I can help. I haven't had time yet but I do plan on checking in on it. I hope this explains my concerns. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Crohnie, thanks for replying; I still don't get it. You boldfaced text from the convo, so I know which phrases you mean, but I don't know how you intrepret them to rude or provocative. For example, I say "I have mixed feelings" and you comment you "don't understand". Fine; the comment wasn't addressed to you, so I'm ok with you not understanding it (such brief comments are only meaningful in context), but what's rude or provocative about it? I'll agree that "he's up to something" can be construed to have negative connotations, but surely you understand that posting a conspicuous "retirement" notice, but then continuing to debate openly, is odd behaviour. SA is welcome to be odd on his Talk page, as far as I'm concerned, but it's odd, and hardly rude to note it. If you wear a lampshade on your head at a cocktail party, you can't blame people for commmenting. You brought the attention on yourself. Pete St.John (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

This is to inform you that you have been included as a party in a request for Arbitration here ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

On science

Found an open access site for Arne Næss, my idol! :) I think he has some highly relevant papers, and was himself one of those who formed the consensus science we have now. This one is a good starter, but I'll look if I find something better. [A Plea for Pluralism in Philosophy and Physics. Interesting? Benjaminbruheim (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hi,

One can include one's self in an arbitration. I think the most needed thing is to explain to them why it isn't a content dispute (heck, we're within one or two words on content most of the time). I kind of think they don't want to take it because it looks too messy, and they are afraid to really clean up such a spread-out mess. I don't have time right now though..... So if you can think of a better focus that does not actually restrict the things which can be considered when into the case -the pushing of "S"POV is a major concern, as well as civility and disruption-, then let's withdraw and do that. I'm not set on any one course of action. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page

I'm going to tell you the same thing I told to User:Levine2112. Stay off my talk page. I don't need advice from you, I don't have any desire to find out what your opinions are of discussions going on my talk page, and I have yet to see any contributions from you that make me feel confident in your intentions with regards to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand SA's desire that you not address me on his page, and welcome your making your comment to me on my talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Bleep

please e-mail... not sure I can check back here(olive (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

SA2

Baseless accusations are being made against me. Do I have the right to respond there? Anthon01 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the right to? Yes. Is it a good idea? Probably not. If you think they are baseless, then ignore them -- and back away from the situation -- until things cool down. That is the best way for you to handle it. - Revolving Bugbear 16:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

But will I get a chance to defend myself before someone decides to block me? Anthon01 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that you will be blocked. Until someone brings up an actual complaint against you at a noticeboard, their comments are not particularly relevant. - Revolving Bugbear 16:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Responding to the similar question on my talk page, I'd have to echo RB's response. If someone is accusing you of something on an article's talk page, or on your talk page, or in any of the other areas of the site besides their own personal pages, sure definitely you have a right to defend yourself. A block would involve your talk page or a noticeboard where you can defend yourself. You can also post to the blocking administrator's talk page and make your case there too. You can even have an administrator take a look at the person who is accusing you of something's page and comment on your behalf if they don't want you posting there. In short, if SA is bothering you, you don't really need to respond on his talk page to defend yourself because his talk page ultimately doesn't do anything harmful to you. If you feel it does, have an administrator talk to him about it for you. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I echo Nealparr's fine advice above. Also, I'd suggest reading through the Dispute Resolution process. You can report threats and attacks on the WP:ANI notice board; or the WP:AE page if SA has violated his his ArbCom restrictions, or contact an administrator - a step that I recommend if only to get an outside opinion. Make sure to have solid evidence in the form of diffs if you file a complaint. Back and forth bickering on a user or article talk page can end up being counterproductive, making both parties look bad. If you post a civil message on someone's talk page, and they respond rudely..just leave it be and follow WP:DR as neeeded. Dreadstar † 23:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing forbids you from just ignoring them and backing away. Repeatedly initiating actions at noticeboards can create a negative aura around the sight of your user name, regardless of the reason. Adults can talk things out without running for help. If one of the parties won't play nice, then it's often best to just ignore them. -- Fyslee / talk 06:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Objectionable edit?

Can you explain to me how this edit, which simply noted that you had changed topics and gave your comment a new header that corresponded to it, was objectionable in any way? I'm truly perplexed.Kww (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may join in, it could be seen as putting words in his mouth (given that it is written in the first person). SA could have chosen better wording there. At the same time, the comment below is, to some degree, its own entity. I don't think it's a good response by SA, but I don't think it's notably bad, either. Antelan ^talk 23:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Replied at my talk and wanted to make sure you saw this. I certainly don't "have it in for you," but am just trying to figure out what's going on. Please accept my apologies if you felt that I was being hostile -- it was not intended. Sign me, "Confused." Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:DanaUllman

Can you please restore my comments to their proper locations in User_talk:Danaullman. Dana can remove them if he wishes, of course --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I could if you'd like. I was simply attempting to remove all the confusion from the meat of the discussion, for the sake of other editors. Please take a look at what I've done, and if you disagree, I will restore the comments as they were. Anthon01 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like you to restore it to how it was, please. Thanks for the offer --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just remove the departure section? That or put it back. Thanks. --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Careful

Your recent edit to Thuja broke the article. I reverted it. Please be more careful and use the preview button. Thanks! PouponOnToast (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkmate!

I think you commented in the old section of the AfD, instead of the lower half where it's relisted. I said more at Lev's section. Pete St.John (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Game Score, PeterStJohn vs Anthon01

1. e4 (notice, I get White, because I'm oldest) ...c5! (yes the Sicillian is best!!)

2. Nf3 ...

so maybe replace elipses with new moves, and hope that autosignatures don't beat us down. P.S. I'm watching this page, so we can just play here. Oh wait. I should have played 2. b4!! but too late, touch-move :-) Pete St.John (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter! I can't play two chess games at once?;-) If you want to play over days that's fine. Anthon01 (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah we can fork into a simul :-) No, one at a time is good for me, remember I'm old. Oh wait you didn't make a move...you can pass in Go but not in chess. I gotta run, but I'll be back tomorrow for the exciting conclusion of ...the very early part of book. I double-dare you to play a Dragon. Pete St.John (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

so where's your reply to Nf3? That's just a question, not a "bad move" annotation :-) Pete St.John (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been vacillating on which version I'd like to play. That and on why the plant data on WP needs to purged. Many other plant orgs seem to like mentioning medicinal uses, modern, herbal, folklore and homeopathic. Somehow we at WP know better than the experts. I'll try to get a response in the next day or two. Anthon01 (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL I thought I was too slow for you. Yeah I'm losing battles too. What doesn't block us makes us stronger. Pete St.John (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy lead and Criticism

Check the talk logs of homeopathy. It's been advocated for in as many words several times. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll check it. Even so, not by me. Anthon01 (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply it was by you - I was just responding to a comment Jossi made on the Homeopathy talk page that looked likely to set the comments off again. I'm not sure why you thought it was referring to you, but, in any case, sorry! Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. Eh, that was just meant to clarify the point a bit. Thought you were talking about Jossi's talk page. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, there's reasonable debate to be had about how much criticism and how to present it in the lead. I by no means disagree with this. But we have to be careful, because various people - I think including Peter morrell (suggesting removing all criticism to a separate article), Whig (straight criticism removal if I recall correctly), Sm565, and various others have advocated very extreme positions, that tend to derail any useful discussion that could be had. I think it's probably better just to present sample ideas on how the lead should be redone. I could be proven wrong on that, of course.

Mind you, in all honesty, I'm not really looking forward to another discussion that includes the shouty people on both sides. Though Dana Ullman v. Filll might be a sight to behold, I don't think it'd help the article much. Perhaps this debate would be better handled at a time when hostilities are a bit more calm. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Risk

You query "What risk?" Risk of vertebral artery dissection, with accompanied complications. This is still the best study on the subject to date. The diagrams are quite interesting. -- Fyslee / talk 06:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No list of homeopathic ingredients?

Seems like such an article, which I don't believe exists, would solve some of the problems that I've been seeing. See User_talk:Levine2112#Homeopathic_ingredients. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Other accounts?

Hi. Are you actively editing using other accounts? PouponOnToast (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jan 2008

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Thuja, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 3RR. Thank you. Shot info (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want a good laugh take a look at the last few comments here [35]. Number48 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comments

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, I would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Thank you. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What you said on my talk page can be phrased to "I didn't call him an asshole, I said his edits were assholic!" Come on, now. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that. Clearly reputable citations that directly speak to the issue at hand are being rejected for no good reason. If reputable citations, written by distinguished authors and/or published in highly regraded world class journals[36] are being labeled fringe because they mentions homeopathy in a non-negative light, then no reference can be found to include homeopathy on almost all the plant pages. THis is call gaming the system. Anthon01 (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"clearly reputable" "no good reason," are terms that do not broke discussion. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't believe in the purging of knowledge. The discussion is proceeding at the RfC. Lets see were that 'leaves' us. Anthon01 (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a discussion about your disruptive actions. You must stop cutting off discussion via fiat and maligning, either directly or by insinuation, the actions of other editors. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You wasting your time here. Anthon01 (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Poupon, please cite a specific diff that you regard as attacking, or lacking that, an explanation of a pattern that could be followed. Thanks. Also, Anth, what RfC? Pete St.John (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter: Here it is. Anthon01 (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

QED

QED is highly mainstream. I can give you some physics lectures by Richard Feynman to watch, he was a principle inventor of the theory and a great explainer, insofar as he understood it (and he didn't understand it fully even so). —Whig (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Photons: Corpuscles of Light —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whig (talk • contribs) 03:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  Btw, I think the theory is easier to understand if you think of the photons having choices rather than chances. However, that would be my own reasoning and so original research from the standpoint of Wikipedia. Still, it doesn't matter to the operation of the theory. —Whig (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Richard Feynman on the electromagnetic spectrum -- much easier introduction. —Whig (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A word of advice...

... please consider making a 1RR pledge at Homeopathy, otherwise you may end up blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Applied Kinesiology at List of Pseudosciences

I just updated the Applied Kinesiology entry, and would like to solicit your opinion of the treatment. I have tried to without excessive verbiage acknowledge that the term has many uses of varying degrees of legitimacy. If any part strikes you as inexact or misleading, please feel free to discuss it here or on the list talkpage, or simply WP:BOLD a better version. Regards. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 14:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Psci

If you have not noticed, I am against said infobox, as the contents may be better stated in article leads anyhow. The removal from plant articles is odd, but dependant upon article length. If you are referring to the Oxford book of health (or whatever), that source did not claim any authority, and certainly made no claims about independence. It may be better to play the compromise card - accept articles on the topics themselves to talk about their pseudoscience nature (or widely held belief in that), in return for acceptance of referenced mention of an item's use within such a disputed field. You can even use the notability of the dispute as evidence of the importance of that field and hence the mention. LinaMishima (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I might be persuaded to look into the plant article issue, if I was not tied up debating elsewhere... LinaMishima (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RfM filed

A Request for Mediation has been filed on the continuing dispute over the lead section of this article. You have been named as an involved party, please respond on the mediation page at your earliest convenience. Dreadstar † 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation rejection

Why was the message removed from my talk page? Anthon01 (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I un-rejected the case. -- tariqabjotu 05:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Need some help

Hi Anthon. As you know, I have been trying to get some information from Dana, a supposed expert in homeopathy, but without results. He's just beating around the bush and not answering. You, on the contrary, seemed willing to help me. If you do have a reference to such information I'd really like to see it. I'm not asking you to answer the question yourself, so there is no obligation in that sense. I am only taking you up on your offer. As you know, I obviously have an opinion on this matter, but I'm interested in getting "the other side's version." What do homeopathic sources have to say to blinded in vitro testing of potentized homeopathic drugs and equally potentized water, made roughly in the manner I described in my second attempt at getting Dan to answer my one question? -- Fyslee / talk 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

RE Note

As you can see, the problems with the science claim are evident. Science as a formal term has a well-defined meaning, and whilst it may be used outside of this, within formal academic writing (what an encyclopaedia is) the formal definition must be used. Indeed, our own article on science makes clear that the modern usage is the formal definition. I do not dispute that homeopathy is improving and slowly attempting to gather evidence via the scientific method, however the continuing use of historical research not based upon such methodology is clearly an issue. As I have suggested, whilst we have to label the questionable claim to being a science, we also have to note the growing attempts to research the area properly. Time magazine is generally considered reliable, I would say, however I get your point. Regarding your issue with the BBC content, they may all be grouped under the title of ethics (however there is then no need to call each one an ethical issue). I should note for the record that Ben Goldcare's published article is a reliable source for such matters, being employed by a reliable publisher and being regularly published also within the Lancet (and indeed that column was based off an article in the Lancet). Contrary to popular wikipedia belief, weak synthesis is actually what an encyclopaedia is based upon. This is what allows us to group topics together under common titles. Sources for a building might say that 10,000 bricks were used, that two cranes hired and that a welding crew for the internal structure were interrupted by a protest. None of these might state explicitly that they are talking about construction, but they all directly relate to the construction can can be appropriately grouped under such a title. A politician or film star might state that they enjoy golf, take regular vacations to the south of france and are married with two kids. It is regular practice to group such information under the title "personal life". LinaMishima (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy and warnings

Didn't we have this conversation before? The fact that people who believe in fairies and unicorns go around putting "warnings" on the pages of anyone who stands up to them is why the homeopathy page is a mess. Your views are wrong, and you should change them, instead of appointing yourself the Wiki-police and issuing threats to block people that you, a non-administrator, have no authority to make or enforce. Intimidating people who can think rationally is the only weapon the homeopaths have, since there is no actual argument for their position. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re my comment about homeopaths being masses of seriously deluded folks, yes of course I was joking. thanks Peter morrell 07:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Block for 24 hours 8 minutes

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. This has been done for continued edit-warring, and attempted harassment of other users. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly unfair. Anthon01 (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm reviewing this now. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that you are not entirely at fault for this dispute. I am very, very sorry. I will take a break now. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I have made no edits to the article page since the probation warning, instead confining myself to the talk page in an attempt to gain consensus. Anthon01 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you, as do all editor's, have a right to make reports to WP:AN/I without fear. Again, please accept my apologies. Barnstar to come. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of Edit Policy

In addition ScienceApologist has made two reverts where no consensus exist, one at 14:23, January 31, 2008[37]and the second at 19:29, January 31, 2008[38]. Finally OrangeMarlin has made the same revert once, [39] however ScienceApologist and ScienceApologist often work in tangent to further their POV. I request that the probation warning be enforced and the page be rollback to where it was at the time of the posting of the probation message. Anthon01 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For reporting an issue, and later dealing with a temporary block, with extreme calmness. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This was unexpected. Thank you for the recognition. Anthon01 (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

The article Deadly Nightshade is under article prohbation per Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. Your edits here and here in such a short time frame (2 complaints in less than an hour, against the same person) could be considered a violation of our rules against vexatious complaints. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Can they also be seen as a legitimate complaint? Anthon01 (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Intimidation case opened at Requests for Arbitration

I have requested that a case be started at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Homeopathy.2C_again regarding your habit of placing incivility warnings on the pages of anyone who disagrees with you, your threats to ban people and other impersonations of administrators, the suspiciously immediate revocation of your suspension for disrupting Talk:Homeopathy, and other aspects of the double standard and bullying which prevail at that page. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good idea. You have been told on several occasions by admins and other members of the community that it is appropriate for non-admins to placed warning messages on the talk pages of editors who are being uncivil or disruptive. You were recently banned for such behavior, after you chose to ignore my warning last time. Anthon01 (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/What the Bleep Do We Know!?. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 12:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Applied Kinesiology, my thoughts

As promised, I here expound further on my comments regarding the physical implausibility of some of the basic distinguishing tenets of Applied Kinesiology. I wish to stress that, insofar as I understand it, this is dealing solely with those aspects of AK as defined by the ICAK which do not overlap with kinesiology. First, though, I would like to tender an apology if any of my informal rhetoric regarding the issue has struck you as inappropriately personal; such was not my intention. You have not, that I have noted, made any such accusation or assumption, but it occurred to me in light your recent revelation (to me) of professional experience as an Applied Kinesiologist that it might be possible to construe a hostile environment in what is intended as a dispassionate dismissal of a subject. I do not expect, however, that our respective perspectives might differ so greatly as to inhibit effective communication and collaboration provided each keeps in mind the implicit biases and worldview of the other.

• Evidentiary:
  • Double-blind testing: The first and best reason to doubt the underlying theories of AK is the consistent failure of statistically powerful methodologically sound tests to discern any reliable, replicable predictive power for the method. The usual cautions about placebos and self-limiting conditions apply, and an individual diagnostician may actually have a quite respectable success rate due to the use of auxiliary methods (as recommended by the ICAK).
  • There are no particular muscular disorders or specific weaknesses associated with e.g. renal failure or alcoholism.

• Evolutionary biology:
  • While there are excellent adaptive reasons for the body to recognize beneficial and toxic chemicals and prepare for or avoid them, there is no particular evolutionary advantage to an onset of weakness when a poison or allergen is encountered. Furthermore, not all noxious substances are injurious, and, as many an arteriosclerosis patient can attest, sometimes unhealthy foods are craved. There is, of course, a difference between craving a food and a muscle testing strong when exposed to it, but why have two different contradictory systems?
  • The specificity of the viscerosomatic reflexes likewise is null-adaptive. The trunk lacks sufficient nerve receptors form a fine map, as for the vast majority of human history such information would have been superfluous. This is not discounting, for instance, the difference in the pain of acid reflux versus that of appendicitis.

• Information flow and control:
  • To my knowledge, no specific neural pathways are proposed or are reasonable to assume by which information proceeds from the olfactory bulb to some central clearinghouse of (un)desired chemicals to the tested muscle, never impinging on conscious processes.
  • Nor is proposed any route from a (mal)functioning organ to the brain region responsible for the corresponding muscle.
  • Nor is proposed any mechanism for mentally calculating for an unfamiliar (both personally novel and not hard-coded in the genome) substance all of its metabolites and their effects.

I hope that this expresses clearly and neutrally my views on the implausibility of both the theory and practice of applied kinesiology. I acknowledge that I am not a biologist and am arguing in part from ignorance; the necessary changes to the largely successful theory of neurophysiology would, however, be gross and are not indicated by related fields and subfields. I welcome any feedback, clarifications, thoughts, and replies you may wish to offer. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 01:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

You've been stonewalling on Talk:Homeopathy for a while now, and that's just not kosher - and doesn't help to resolve any disputes either. Consider yourself banned from Homeopathy and its talk page for a week. I suggest you find other articles to edit until this blows over - such as sports, which is my main editorial focus and is much calmer. east.718 at 16:54, February 2, 2008

Please provide diffs. Totally unjustified. Anthon01 (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

CheckUser evidence has shown that you have abused multiple accounts. I'm pondering what sanctions I'll place upon you now. east.718 at 18:13, February 2, 2008

I've abused no accounts. Prove it. Anthon01 (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

To I have a chance to defend myself? Anthon01 (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I tell you that your credibility is on the line. Anthon01 (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You have said that you are anti alternative or something to that effect. I don't think you are being fair in the least here. Please clarify your position, explain what you are talking about, and then give me an opportunity to defend myself before you impose any further sanctions. Anthon01 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I was going to tell Anthon01 to consider appealing to WP:AN pursuant to the article probation on homeopathy but I observe that Anthon01 does not seem to have been notified of that probation. —Whig (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

THe problem is that if east blocks me I will not be able to do that. Anthon01 (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this the way things go here. Admins block users without any diffs? No proof just a declaration? Anthon01 (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact a number of the recommendations I have proposed or been involved with negotiating have been implemented, on the talk page, and have stuck. I have worked constructively with a number the editors, including Scientizzle, Art Carlson, Jim Butler and a few others. We often agree. So why have I been singled out by an anti alternative admin, without any proof or opportunity to defend myself whatsoever.Anthon01 (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've abused no accounts. Prove it. Anthon01 (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is disturbing reading about this ban, without adequate explanation, evidence, or a request for response. Dana Ullman ^Talk 18:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

IMO, this admin has acted hastily. Anthon01 (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Chill out, you aren't blocked yet. The person running the checkuser - who happens to be a sitting arbitrator - is still busy digging his way to the bottom of the sockfarm. east.718 at 18:48, February 2, 2008

Do what you must but you are wasting you time. You are being unfair. My POV has been supported by Jim Butler, Scientizzle and Art Carlson, three moderate and reasonable voices in the homeopathic debate. My article page edits are almost nil. Please lift the ban. Anthon01 (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Did someone make a complaint? Is there something posted somewhere on a noticeboard or on a talk page? Anthon01 (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

While I'm being banned, edit warring lives on at homeopathy and users revert, revert, revert, but nary a warning can be heard. Anthon01 (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:AN#User:Anthon01 as it concerns you. —Whig (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Update

Anthon, I have had a look at this.

On January 31 2008 you were notified of the provbation requirement [40]. On February 2 you were formally notified you were not to edit this topic [41]. After that date, you continued to edit that topic, but as a logged out user.

On a second issue, I have concerns over WP:SOCK in other ways. You have used a number of IPs (five at this point in time) and frequently edit both logged in and logged out. I also identify user:JacobLad as very likely to be your account also, and note that this account and that one both co-edited on an article in December.

I strongly feel that you are likely to be breaching WP:SOCK (either accidentally or wilfully):

"Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts" "Avoiding scrutiny" "Using alternative puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. [...] It is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions."

May I ask you to please edit logged in consistently, or not via multiple accounts and IPs.

I have taken steps to reduce the chance of accidental recurrence. Other administrators may wish to consider whether to apply sanctions for the topic ban evasion, which was surely not accidental.

There are more details via email, for reasons of privacy and respect.

Thanks, FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Do I have an opportunity to respond before being penalized? Anthon01 (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you are mistaken Other administrators may wish to consider whether to apply sanctions for the topic ban evasion for the topic ban evasion, which was surely not accidental. Do I have the right to defend myself before an action is taken? Anthon01 (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly the lack of care and careful attention to detail involved with this process is mind-boggling. Anthon01 (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not named the IP you edited through, not because it cannot be done, but because of respect for your own privacy, and communal norms, and my own standards of respect. I cannot speak for others, but the statement above that I have left you, is a carefully researched one. If you feel any specific point of fact I have stated is in error, please let me know though. However if you want specific on-wiki evidence, it will require IP disclosure. Let me know if this is okay. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You are jumping to conclusions. Can we do this by email first? And have you been able to clarify that I am not a meat puppet of Ilena? Everytime Guy sees mee on a noticeboard he accuses me of that. I would like to put that issue at rest as well. Anthon01 (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You said I have taken steps to reduce the chance of accidental recurrence. and then said Other administrators may wish to consider whether to apply sanctions for the topic ban evasion, which was surely not accidental. How is is surely not accidental?

Can you see the discrepancy here? Anthon01 (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there are special circumstances, please let me know - my email is in my signature. But the findings are precisely stated, and do not rely on anyone elses say-so. Also the wording is quite precise:

1. I find it hard to imagine the topic evasion of Feb 2 was completely an accident. But
2. The general history of multiple of IP editing rather than being logged in, on occasion, and the effect of segregation and confusion it has led to, may in part have been, and good faith applies.

It's still a problem if it continues, but I don't assert it is a huge one right now. Just a behavior that needs to end. Hope this clarifies. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon, speaking as someone who has tried to help you present your case, I'm not seeing these sorts of responses as being helpful. —Whig (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you attempts. Please tell me what I should do. Anthon01 (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

First off, do you admit or deny using multiple accounts and/or IPs to edit and avoid bans? —Whig (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(Whig - many people edit from multiple IPs. There's one case of ban evasion (feb 2) thats noted. But most of the concern is about using multiple IPs, sometimes logged in, sometimes not, in a way that makes it hard to track the individual's editing, or appear to be multiple users, rather than breaches of a specific ban. Use of one logged in account only, to edit, would solve most of that though, and no need to dissect the past if so. My $0.02. Hope that helps in this.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, yes. I did not mean to make that sound so accusatory, but was trying to get some clarity on the facts, whether they are contested or admitted. I don't think it is necessarily a big deal if people make mistakes and are corrected. I can also understand that frustration makes people do things sometimes they might not if they would take a bit of time to relax first. —Whig (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am having a problem concentrating here as I feel like I am being unfairly accused and attacked. Whig, I appreciate your attempts to focus me. I have done nothing wrong. What is it you need to know for me to prove that? Anthon01 (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's hard for me to say what you should say, but if you said you had used multiple accounts in good faith and explained then I think that would go a long way. The problem now is I can't tell if you agree that you used other accounts. —Whig (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

FT2: Can you please send me the IPs by email only? Anthon01 (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

You learn mostly by floating around WP. I notice from reading talk pages that some editors have more than one account. So early on in my experience here, I decided to try it as experiment. I used JacobLad on one day and one day only.[42] I wasn't sure what the point was and didn't know there was a problem with doing until after. I still don't know what the rules really are because I see others talk about openly on there talk pages. Anyway I decided it didn't interest me and haven't used it again since that day.

Bottom line is, with one exception on 1 day, I use one account and one account only, that is Anthon01. FT2 can confim that.

I have a computer at home, a computer at the office, a computer at the library. My computer at the office is static. My home computer is mostly static (cable service). There is a time limit on how long you can stay inactive before you are automatically logged out by WP servers. More in a momment. Anthon01 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

FT2: I think I can prove to you that I didn't willfully evade a ban, but I will have to do it at least partially by email because it involves discussing IP addresses. Are you willing to do that? Anthon01 (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So I use different computers for convenience. FT2 can confirm that when I login using all those different IPs, I alway use the same account. I think in the last 2 months I have posted a message using an IP only twice, both times erroneously as I didn't notice that I had been logged out by the WP server. I'm sure all of you can relate to that. I was blocked only once, back at the beginning of December I think. FT2 can confirm that the IPs he has found were not used during that time. Anthon01 (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am awaiting a response from FT2. Anthon01 (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea whether the libraries computer are static or not. I have only posted from there rarely. Why do I post from there? I have access to full-text journals. SO I can read the whole article before commenting. Could you imagine how much better WP could be if we all had acces to full text instead of depending on an Abstract? Anyway, thats the reasons for all the different IPs. Now East718 has accused me of having half a dozen different accounts. Wrong. Please read checkuser over. FT2 can confirm that. More to come ... Anthon01 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

FT2 doesn't seem to be around. Does anyone else have access to the IPs. I don't want them to be publically revealed, but I need to discuss privately in order to complete my defense. Anthon01 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest being patient for a bit. FT2 may be busy with other things and the world won't end hopefully in the meantime. —Whig (talk) 23:19, 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) 00:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

FT2 comments

Quick comments (busy day here, but don't want to keep Anthon waiting). I've had an email from Anthon, which covers IP related matters. Most of what he says here and in that email boils down to a few things in the end - the 2nd account was used briefly for just one day (agreed and noting that its use was a concern rather than a major breach of SOCK), he uses a number of IPs (agreed), and he was logged in/out through carelessness not malice (agreed likely and again noting it was a concern). He also emails that his computer being logged out, he wasn't aware of east718's message at the time of his 2nd post as an IP, so he posted as an IP, then realized it was logged out, then saw the message. Again no reason I can see to not give this good faith. The main problem is that even through mistake, not logging in has caused problems. That's now been addressed, and Anthon01 is also aware of it more now and why it can be a concern if editors sometimes edit logged in and sometimes logged out on various locations with different IPs (work, home etc). Hopefully it should be less of a problem in future. As a result I'm inclined to give good faith that there was not a deliberate intent to circumvent scrutiny, but that not remembering to log in has had that effect and caused difficulties. Hopefully that's behind now.

In this context I am inclined not to over react to the edits of Physical therapy. The edits took place in two sections - one dated around 3-5 dec, the other around 27 Dec, with a few intermittent edits in between. In the first, the Jacoblad account added a (contentious?) section and edited; but there was no contentious use of multiple accounts (the Anthon01 account's edits were minor corrections only, 3 days later). The Jacoblad account did not edit again, which tends to support Anthon's statement that this was not a deliberate breach. Intermittently, and then 3 weeks later Anthon01 edited the article, but didn't use a 2nd account to support himself in doing so. Although the article was edited under two accounts, and it's worth pointing the problem out to Anthon, I've seen many attempts to deliberately 'sock' an article, and on this one I point out the issue but feel that for the above reasons, it speaks more to "experimentation for a day" with no harmful intent, than malice. Anthon reverted twice and made a substantive edit to that page in his own right, but by that point Jacoblad had been 'retired' and did not do anything to support it. Use for a day followed by cessation does not indicate the editor was engaging in wilful puppetry. More (as he states and I'm inclined to agree) a day's experimentation. Nonetheless it gave the appearance of multiple editors. Pointing out the matter is, I think, enough.

I doubt I can do more here. Anthon has been told to edit logged in and (I think) is aware of the inadvertant problems not doing so can lead to on such articles -- missed messages, concerns over scrutiny and puppetry. I've taken steps in private to help ensure he edits logged in, in future. As far as WP:SOCK goes, that's probably all that needs saying. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For clarification your comment He also emails that his computer being logged out, he wasn't aware of east718's message at the time of his 2nd post as an IP, so he posted as an IP, I want to clarify that I was using one computer at the time, and the the WP server logged me out due to non-use over time. Anthon01 (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to East718 accusation that I have a half dozen accounts, I have had only two accounts. The second account was created and used on 1 day for ~1.5 hours. The (contentious?) section which took up less than 10% of the article, is extremely well sourced and includes more citations then the whole rest of the article. At the time it made up more than 90% of the article citations.

And unlike many of the citations on the homeopathy article they reflect what the article says. Sorry but there is a lot of improper use of homeopathy citation on the page, which although might help anti-homeopathy POV pushers get their way, reflects poorly on the project. I present the following as case in point; please note my comments in this section.[43] This is an example of how my involvement on the talk page improves the project. Anthon01 (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments on AN/I.[44] Anthon01 (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to Admins monitoring Homeopathy

I repectfully suggest that admins who are inclined to purge from Homeopathy editors who are against the inclusion of Pseudoscience read the discussion that transpired on the RS/Noticeboard. The NSF report is considered to be the best RS supporting the classification of Homeopathy as a Pseudoscience. This discussion, undertaken within the past week, shows a majority of editors who are in disagreement with the inclusion of Pseudoscience on the Homeopathy article. I know polls don't count, but this one shows how there is clearly no consensus on this issue. In light of this please reconsider your actions. [45]

Added For clarity: Poll results are from the discussion that transpired on the RS/Noticeboard.

For adding Pseudoscience to Homeopathy
NSF is suitable for labeling Homeopathy Pseudoscience

ScienceApologist
LinaMishima
-Stephan Schulz
Akhilleus
MilesAgain
Eldereft

---

Against adding Pseudoscience to Homeopathy
NSF is NOT suitable for labeling Homeopathy Pseudoscience

Relata refero
Anthon01
Blueboar
Zenwhat
eleland
Arzel
Blue Tie
Friarslantern
Jim Butler
Eldereft

Thank you for your attention. Anthon01 (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

THIS is what is meant by "stonewalling"--using delaying tactics, logical fallacies, and appeals to non-existent policies (such as incomplete lists of names) to prevent obviously correct decisions (such as adding the pseudoscience category to homeopathy) from being executed. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You've put your foot in your mouth. This is a poll of the response generated by the RS/Noticeboard. If you read it carefully it shows I am commenting on that. I make no mention of what is going on on the homeopathy talk page.[46] Anthon01 (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"This discussion, undertaken within the past week, shows a majority of editors who are in disagreement with the inclusion of Pseudoscience on the Homeopathy article. I know polls don't count, but this one shows how there is clearly no consensus on this issue." No mention of the homeopathy page? Really? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just follow the link at the end of the sentence. It takes you to the discussion. Anthon01 (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Its a PARAGRAPH. Read the FIRST sentence It says repectfully suggest that admins who are inclined to purge from Homeopathy editors who are against the inclusion of Pseudoscience read the discussion that transpired on the RS/Noticeboard. Get it? Anthon01 (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't get it. You are listing names from a noticeboard...for the purpose of arguing against the inclusion of the pseudoscience category on the homeopathy page. Why? Who is your target audience here? What is this supposed to accomplish? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why, but you are choosing to repeatedly comment without comprehending plainly structured text, section titles and paragraphs. Please READ what I have written thoroughly before commenting again. The 'target audience' is the name of the section title Note to Admins monitoring Homeopathy. duh. Anthon01 (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, I at least did not vote at all on the issue of categorizing homeopathy as pseudoscience. Anthon01 is perfectly correct in my opinion and may be justified in citing it based on my edits on other articles on which we are collaborators, but I prefer to stay away from the unmanageable fray that is homeopathy proper these days. What I actually voted was that the source indicated could be cited as critical of homeopathy or could be cited as 'CSICOP, cited in SEIND', but could not be cited as an official policy of the NSF. My reasoning in favor of noting that homeopathy is a pseudoscience are that it doesn't work and the rational scientific basis isn't there. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 02:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've used strikeout to correct the poll to reflect your comments on the RS Noticeboard. Anthon01 (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the list shows four things:

1. 1 No consensus
2. 2 A minority of editors wishing inclusion. They are mainstream science supporters who are trying to follow NPOV and trying to get the article to contain the fact that homeopathy is considered nonsense and pseudoscience by mainstream science. Everyone, regardless of POV, should be attempting to document this and include it. "Edit for the enemy" and all that....
3. 3 A majority of editors wishing exclusion. Most of them are supporters of alternative medicine and pseudosciences, and some are acting disruptively and are stonewalling. By voting they are essentially stating publicly that they are likely violating policy, and are definitely violating the article probation by stonewalling.
4. 4 Consensus can be misused to violate NPOV by keeping out information because "I don't like it". That's wrong.

-- Fyslee / talk 07:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with points 1, 2 & 4. On #3 I consider They are supporters of alternative medicine and pseudosciences, and some are acting disruptively and are stonewalling grossly inaccurate. I know Jim Butler and Eldereft and they are not supporters of alternative medicine and pseudosciences. I don't know the others. Would you consider refactoring?

Re: A majority of editors wishing exclusion So do I, but not by violating WP:RS. Anthon01 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have refactored it to "most of them..." Eldereft is certainly not one, and Jim Butler is only partially one. -- Fyslee / talk 16:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that irrespective of whether homeopathy is an effective treatment, the purpose of categories are to help readers find articles. In my humble opinion, it would be entirely reasonable for a reader looking for an article on homeopathy, to look in the pseudoscience category. The discussion shouldn't be about votes, or whether homeopathy is an effective treatment, merely whether including the article in the category would make navigation easier. Addhoc (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the usefulness of the tag and would support the category inclusion as long as it conforms to WP:Category. Regarding inclusion into the text of the article The issue is are finding a reliable source, which speaks to the consensus of science on the issue of Pseudoscience. Anthon01 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If

If DGG could really be counted as being among them, the world would be a better place. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Status

As far as I know, and please tell me if I am mistaken, you are not blocked now. There was an accusation made that you used multiple accounts, you have explained yourself. I don't see a problem with your explanation but others may have different opinions, obviously FT2 knows and seemed to think that it might be no big deal. My suggestion is to relax and not worry about being blocked right now.

As far as the topic ban, that seems to fall under the article probation rules, and you should be able to appeal to WP:AN. If you asked there politely for a specific list of diffs to justify your restriction, you might make better progress. —Whig (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I just read FT2's more extended reply after writing this. I think there's not much more that needs to be said about that. —Whig (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I defend myself against the stonewalling claim? Anthon01 (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand, it's just a word. You were restricted from editing for "stonewalling" I gather, so ask for diffs to justify your restriction and maybe we'll find out what east meant. —Whig (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Badgering

I suggest you take Whig's advice and stop badgering Filll at talk page, you're becoming disruptive. FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thanks man for the link to the NPOV aritlce I never would have foundit myself without you. Smith Jones (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your note on my talk page. If editors will concentrate on areas where there's some common ground rather than fighting tooth and nail about things like infoboxes and categories, we'll make progress.

By the way, even if you continue to feel that your temporary banning is unfair, I suggest that you simply wait it out. There's what, 5 days left? That's not long. Even if you don't deserve it, if you get a reputation as a troublemaker or a whiner you're going to be a less effective advocate for the changes you'd like. I'm not trying to sound intimidating or anything, just trying to be helpful. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I don't know, but if you appear to be, or demonstrate similar tendentiousness, then I will certainly not expend energy defending you. I haven't seen Guy's evidence yet, and if it is relevant, I will back him up in whatever fora required. Relata refero (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I had actually read those pages but I was specifically referring to your behaviour on AN/I. Wikipedia has a pretty low tolerance for defence lawyering. If you can convince me and others that you're not going to follow such an approach, you'll have a lot better chance of getting through this. Orderinchaos 15:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Better here than over on Whig's page

[47]. Well, until East comes back, nobody really will know what East was thinking. I note that lots of others have answered for him (her?) but the upshot is, they don't know until he/she returns. But in saying that, you have obviously done something to make him/her think that a block was suitable as East is a pretty decent admin (as Whig can attest to). Now currently what is happening is that you are making a lot of noise and attracting all sorts of attention. While you may be vindicated, you may not be, and you may draw a lot of heat in your direction, hence all the advice from those in the know (ie/ admins) that perhaps you should just notch this one up to a "bad experience" and move on. Of course, you don't have to, after all, why take my advice which is broadly similar to others with more knowledge and wikiexperience? Hence my comment about crying wolf. Eventually your going to exhaust admin patience and when somebody really nasty comes along, you will find your legitiment cries for help go answered. FWIW, what I would have done is just put a request to East and on the homeopathy probation board (for the other Homeo admins to review) and left it at that. Currently your request is on about 5 talk pages, AN (albiet moved) and AN/I. BTW, Whig isn't an admin as well :-). Just all my 2c worth. Shot info (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted this comment when it was posted at my talk page because it was not constructive. It still isn't. —Whig (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Um initially I started to say "What the..." then I looked and in between me moving it here (taking it off your talk page), you have deleted it. Oh well, saved the effort. But anyway, Whig, if your not interested in helping Anthon out from exhausting admin's patience, then go away. If you are interested in helping, then help. He doesn't know why East blocked him, nor do I, nor do you (or anybody else in Wiki, save East). So why is this so difficult to comprehend? Shot info (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not tell me to go away from Anthon's page. If Anthon wants me to leave, then Anthon will tell me so. You are highly impolite and you are not helping the situation at all. —Whig (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, some people will take offense at anything. Anthon, feel free to ignore me, I personally don't mind as I'm not the editor with the problem... Shot info (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Whig: Besides you I am getting only brief responses, mostly telling me to, in effect, move on. I appreciate Shotinfo's elaborate response. That makes it much clearer for me what and why he thinks I should move on. I wish someone would have told me put a request ... on the homeopathy probation board earlier as I would have done just that. East is here and has been notified several times.[48]

My first request was almost 3 days ago.[49] I won't assume why he hasn't responded. And some admins are wondering why.[50] Anthon01 (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I see why he has been busy. He has done something trickey with the Main Page that has gone wrong and has been a bit more important. Have a look at his latest contrib. Shot info (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. So I will look forward to his response. Anthon01 (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes East has gone and done something rather... unusual. And no Anthon01 I'm not an admin. I am a long-term editor, and a long-term interpretor of policy. Also a warrior against injustice. But you have to choose your battles carefully.Wjhonson (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify. I have deliberately chosen to remain seperate from the Adminship role. Being an admin does not and should not mean, that your voice is louder than others. Your argument should be based on it's strength, not your perceived position in the heirarchy. So I have to sit outside, in order to defend the rights of critics to criticize.Wjhonson (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you accept emails? Anthon01 (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I said yes to this when you posted to my own talk page, but I'll post here also. Yes. Wjhonson (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed the message on your talk page. I will send an email later today. Anthon01 (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Example

Vaccines[51]

Improving the Lead[52]

[53]

Links

V's post + next four.[54]
AN/I[55]
Archived AN/I[56]
QG gets unblocked by admin.[57]

---

21:49, February 1, 2008 - Adam request for intervention.[58][59]
21:56, February 1, 2008 - Adam post comment on talk page.[60]
22:04, February 1, 2008 - East first post after Adam's request asking for no block request on his page.[61]
16:54, February 2, 2008 - 1 week article ban.[62]
17:17, February 2, 2008 - First Request for diffs.[63]
21:16, February 3, 2008 - Another editors informs East of AN.[64]
21:40, February 3, 2008 - Second request for diffs.[65]

13:45, 13 February 2008 - Adam's Case Closed: [66]

AfD

[67]

Vaccinations

(Copied from Talk:Homeopathy)
I have edited Surveys have shown that homeopathic practitioners often advise their patients against receiving immunisation for diseases to
In one survey 16 out 23 homeopathic practitioners advised their patients against receiving immunisation for diseases

My edit is NPOV based on the references. On Feb 1st, I originally opposed the text Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination since the references clearly did not support the word Many in the text, and was in fact a violation of NPOV.[68] As a result Adam Cuerdan advised East718 that I was being disruptive.[69] Feb 2nd I was summarily banned from this article for 1 week by East718. The next day Adam Cuerdan changed the text to Surveys have shown that homeopathic practitioners often advise their patients against receiving immunization for diseases.[70] That text also clearly violated NPOV. I challenge any editor who wants to revert the text to either prove using the references that the reversion is justified, or provide other references that support the reversion. Although I suspect that many homeopaths advise against vaccinations, the references provided do not establish that and I have not been able to find references to support that. Anthon01 (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Anthon01 (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Many such references were posted, including stories from entirely different sources about entirely different studies which also showed that homeopaths oppose vaccination. You and the rest of the pro-homeopathy crusaders simply pretended that the sources and the people advocating them did not exist, and went on asking "where are the citations?", even when this fact was called to your attention. This is yet another example of the dishonesty and gamesmanship that you and the other pro-homeopaths have brought to that article. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Contradicting Information

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=191089440 I explained there are problems with the text of the article. I stated: This text in the article is contradicting itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=191093618 But you claim: Perhaps the article needs contracting.

Why do you think the contradiction is needed. --QuackGuru (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page Content

Anthon01, I note thta you have (above) a collection of links relating to a now-departed user. These include the actual name of a person, and ask that you respect the decision by ArbCom to allow the user to vanish by removing this material. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

RB

This editor is repeatedly uncivil and doesn't AGF.

00:04, February 24, 2008[71] His uncivil response to to the blocking admin.
12:33, February 23, 2008 [72] Banned for 7 days from the homeopathy article.
05:18, February 21, 2008 [73]
21:21, February 20, 2008 [74]
20:18, February 20, 2008 [75]
19:58, February 20, 2008 [76]
16:41, February 20, 2008 [77]
06:00, February 18, 2008 [78]
01:00, February 14, 2008 [79]
00:17, February 14, 2008 [80]
21:10, February 13, 2008 [81]
06:51, February 13, 2008 [82]

He has been warned repeatedly. [83] [84] [85][86]
Here, my warning was followed by many other editors warning him. [87] [88]
[89] A Wikiquette which chastised him.
18:32, 30 January 2008[90] A block here
07:10, 06 November 2007[91] and here.
So how far does this go? Anthon01 (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You won't rest until every single person with a shred of sanity is banned and you can roll around in a gloriously pro-batshit homeopathy article, will you? The fact that this site rewards people who have the manic time and energy to devote to such endless politicking, like you, and bans people who say fairly obvious things like "magic water will not cure your cancer," like me, is exactly why Wikipedia is and will always be such a joke. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)