User talk:Random user 39849958: Difference between revisions

Archives
Archive 0 Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Time to archive. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, if you'd like, I could set up a bot to auto-archive your page on a regular schedule. Also, you may wish to think about renaming your archives to something more standard. It's not required, but it could help in the future. Like right now they're named "archive0" "archive1" "archive2", but the more standard naming is "Archive 0" "Archive 1" "Archive 2", etc. One advantage to this, is you could then use an automatic archive box: {{archives|auto=yes}}, which will automatically sense the archives and make a list accordingly. Which, again, doesn't meant that you have to change anything! It's your talkpage, so you can archive or not as you choose, and can name archives anything you want.  :) Or, if you're interested in my suggestions but it sounds like too much work, let me know and I'll take care of it for you.  :) --Elonka 13:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to archive on my own. I appreciate the suggestion though. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeyou (talk · contribs) has contacted several random users, who as far as I can tell have no previous connection to the Bates method article, regarding three unofficial RfC's on the talk page. S/he appears to be asking them to rate the arguments offered on a scale of 0 to 10. What do you think of this tactic? It seems questionable to me, but it may be legitimate practice. Also, your opinion would be helpful in the latest RfC, which concerns how the AAO review should be used in the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to think about this for awhile. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Levine. Re the edit summary of this edit: I find it hard to understand what it's about, but it seems to me it could easily be construed as a remark about another editor. I suggest being especially careful what you put in edit summaries since they can't easily be edited or deleted. Regards, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's from The Merchant of Venice. One of my favorite courtroom dramas ever. ;-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The quality of mercy is not strained ..." ☺ Coppertwig (talk)

Hello Levine2112: I am interested in creating a department on Wikipedia titled "Code Enforcement Bureau (CEB)". it will be a department of established users who specialize in handing out citations, i.e. they will be recent changes patrollers. Although it may not be liked, the goal of the CEB is to alert users that what they did/edited was wrong, so to save the user much emotional pain when it is deleted. What is your opinion? --Archeopteryx (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me think about this. I'll get back to you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For continuing to be civil and patient dealing with disputes. I appreciate your continued level-headedness (and doubly your ability to politely ignore the baiting that happens on your talk page). Shell babelfish 04:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Shell. It was tough at first (ignoring the baiting), but now it's so mechanical that I don't even think twice about it. Again, I do appreciate your outside input during this contentious discussion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a continuation of the discussion found here. We seem to be misunderstanding each other, and you have pointed a finger at me as if your own POV isn't a potential "hindrance" here. We are both liable to letting our personal POV affect our discussions and editing. Can we at least agree that this cuts both ways?

I want to read your answer to this question:

• Do you believe that chiropractic uses and teaches long lever techniques, and that "[c]hiropractors use all forms of manipulation" (Meeker)?

I have presented cites to that effect, been informed by chiropractors that this is reality, and observed chiropractors using long lever techniques, which is why that represents my POV.

Please help me understand your POV on this one. I am not requesting a yes or no answer. Maybe your POV lies somewhere in between. You are welcome to elaborate all the nuances of your beliefs on this matter. -- Fyslee / talk 08:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I wasn't pointing the finger at you specifically. I meant the editorial "you", which includes you, me and every other Wikipedia. Yes, my own personal POV is a potential hindrance here at Wikipedia. And because of that, I don't think it would benefit the project by discussing my own personal POVs about the subject (whatever they may be). What we should be concerned with are the various differing POVs of the sources and our discussions should center around how best to present these POVs neutrally. Does that sound fair? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you are unwilling to be as open with me as I have been with you, why did you present those sources in the manner that you did? They obviously were presented in a manner that clearly advocated that chiropractic does not teach or use long lever techniques. Do you believe that is true? If you are unwilling to answer that question, I'll put it another way that doesn't require an airing of your personal POV, but just your evaluation of what the sources say, which you do all the time: Do you consider that the totality of all the quotes we both placed in that section describes chiropractic as a profession that does not teach or use long lever techniques, or does it paint a picture of a profession that "uses all forms of [SM] manipulation"? -- Fyslee / talk 00:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presented the sources only to show that there is differing POVs from reliable sources on this subject. Your intitial statement in the thread cited no sources and asserted a POV as though it were fact. Yes, the sources which I presented show a POV that chiropractic does not teach or use long lever techniques. Again, whether or not I believe that is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Following my sources, you then presented sources which sources which contradict the ones which I presented. Given the sources which we have presented, I'd say that some sources describe chiropractic as a profession that does not teach or use long lever techniques, some sources describe chiropractic spinal manipulation as short lever techniques and still some other sources suggest that chiropractors use all forms of SM techniques. One thing is for certain, we have several reliable sources for each POV. Our job is to present them in an NPOV fashion. Does that sound like a reasonable way to proceed from here? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much so, although there is only one source to support the view against long lever techniques, while there are myriad sources that falsify it, not just provide another POV. It's simply false as it is stated. I wonder if he said anything else in the source that mitigates that one quote? -- Fyslee / talk 05:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of the sources which I posted support the POV that short-lever techniques are what is typical of chiropractic spinal manipulation and is what physically distinguishes chiropractic SM from other forms of SM. The Haneline source is freely readable, so you can explore the context in detail if you like. It wouldn't suprise me to find some more as I readily found these in the course of 10 minutes on Google Scholar. For instance, I just spent 5 more minutes and found this one by Haldeman which states: Traditionally, the form of manual therapy identified with the chiropractic profession is the high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) thrust applied with a specific contact using a short-lever in a spinal segment or extremity joint. He then supports that chiropractors use numerous forms of manual therapy, but then states that the assumption that all of these forms have the same effect has not been established in the literature. Physically different? Yes. Same results from differing techniques? No, not according to the literature. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to close out for the night when I came across yet another source: Chiropractic Standards of Practice and Quality of Care By Herbert J. Vear which cites Haldeman and also states that the short-lever techniques are the commonly used by chiropractors and states that it was Palmer who advocated the short-lever techniques. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. This is what these talk pages are for, and this is definitely enlightening and informative. You have mentioned some important thoughts that help me understand what's going on better, and that's certainly a step in the right direction. I have wondered if I was misunderstanding something you believed (= your interpretations of the sources), but weren't saying, or that I wasn't noticing. I'm pretty bad at reading minds! Continuing the conversation usually provides cues to what's really going on, and I think I understand better.

You mention a couple things above that weren't a part of my thinking in this discussion, and which I haven't addressed. I have absolutely no problem with the idea that chiropractic is known for ("typical") short lever techniques. None at all. I was just concerned about an apparent denial of the use of long lever techniques. I see a softening on that point, and that's fine. No point in belaboring that point. I don't think that that "physically distinguishes chiropractic SM from other forms of SM," since other professions also use short lever techniques. Most importantly, since chiropractic uses both it's not possible for that to be a distinguishing factor. One could easily compare a chiropractor using a short lever technique with another chiropractor using a long lever technique, as happens every single day, and even the same chiropractor will use both methods multiple times in the same day, year after year.

There are many short lever techniques, and some of them were no doubt developed by chiropractors, but since they have long since been shared with other professions, they are no longer uniquely chiropractic or distinguishing marks of chiropractic SM. But regardless of all that, it's true that "traditionally, the form of manual therapy identified with the chiropractic profession is the high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) thrust ..." (Haldeman). That has been true, but is no longer true, and is quickly changing. Chiropractors still rely on long lever techniques, and the lumbar roll is probably one of the most frequently used techniques in chiropractic clinics, since short lever techniques are difficult to use in the lumbar region. We also know that Palmer learned the long lever techniques (and likely some short lever ones) from Osteopaths before even starting chiropractic, and that he used both techniques and later taught them to his students. He and his students also developed more short lever techniques, which is fine, and they shared them with the world.

I agree with your summary of Haldeman above (I assume it's accurate), except the last part: "He then supports that chiropractors use numerous forms of manual therapy, but then states that the assumption that all of these forms have the same effect has not been established in the literature. Physically different? Yes. Same results from differing techniques? No, not according to the literature." I assume the last part is your own POV.

We haven't been discussing that, at least I haven't. We haven't dealt with a comparison of differences between long lever and short lever techniques. Of course they are different, but the literature doesn't make a difference and blends them in the same studies. This could be because of an assumption that there is a similar effect on the affected joints, but I can't be sure. No one can. I personally would consider long lever technques to be less precise, but such precision isn't possible in the lumbar region, although a well performed lumbar roll can be directed at specific joint segments and can often cause a very clear and palpable "pop" under my fingers at the spot I have chosen. Of course the adjacent motion segments are being affected, so any claim to affect only one joint cannot be made. Even short lever techniques will affect adjacent segments.

Any differences between long and short lever techniques would still apply to chiropractic, just as to any other profession who uses them. The differences cannot be fairly applied to make a difference between professions. One cannot properly claim that chiropractic uses very precise, gentle, and safe short lever techniques, in contrast to other professions who use very general, inaccurate, violent, and unsafe long lever techniques. That's the comparison I see you and Haneline making, and it's not proper to do that H.e even poisons the well with "uneducated" and "violent". If we were to take what he says quite literally, then his statement obviously doesn't apply to MDs, PTs, and DOs, since they are educated. Thus his quote can't be used for anyone other than relatively uneducated bonesetters and other amateurs.

The proper comparison would be to compare two different practitioners using the same techniques, but I don't recall any research doing that. None compares short lever versus long lever, or DC short lever versus non-DC short lever, or even DC long lever versus non-DC long lever.

I hope that makes some sense. According to your comments on the chiro talk page, would it make sense to copy this thread to that thread? There you state: "... two verifiable POVs: one which says there is a physical difference between non-chiropractic spinal manipulation and chiropractic spinal manipulation, and one which says that there is no difference." As explained above, no such comparison can be made, nor has it been made in the literature, TTBOMK. -- Fyslee / talk 06:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While your analysis above is a rationale one, I feel that you are only relying on your POV (educated and professional as that may be, it is not verifiable nor is it considered a reliable source at Wikipedia). Also, you are still thinking that I have been presenting my own personal POV on this issue (I have not). All I have done is present reliable sources which verify the POV that the kind of spinal manipulation which chiropractors typically apply is physically different from the kind of spinal manipulation which non-chiropractors apply. I don't know if that POV is correct and I am not here to judge the merits of it with my own personal knowledge of the subject. All I can do is present reliable sources which verify such a POV.

I agree that you have in turn presented reliable sources which verify the existence of a POV which contradicts that of the sources which I presented. You are using such sources (and your own personal thoughts) to "debunk" the sources which I presented, but that's not what we are here to do. In terms of Wikipedia, all we know is that there is a verifiable difference of opinion amongst the reliable sources about whether or not chiropractic spinal manipulation is physically different from non-chirorpactic spinal manipulation.

Above you state that I am making the same comparison which Haneline makes. I am not. I have only presented Haneline's POV on the issue. However, just because I presented his POV does not mean that I share. Maybe I do. Maybe I don't. Either way it is irrelevant to Wikipedia, as is what you think is a proper comparison. Above you also state that I am "softening" on some point. I am not softening on some point. I can't be softening on some point. I have not made any point from which I can soften. I have only provided reliable sources which verify a difference in opinions with the source you have presented. If there is any point which I have made it is that such a difference of opinions in reliable sources is verifiable. And from that point I have not softened as the sources clearly demonstrate such a difference in opinions.

I would frown on the transclusion or insertion of this thread at Talk:Chiropractic as I feel that some large portion of this dialogue are statements of your opinion of the subject and of the sources, and of me and my motives. I feel that you are still pointing fingers, as it were, and this is what Shell and lifebaka warned against. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By softening I meant that you did mention the Haldeman "supports that chiropractors use numerous forms of manual therapy,...", which was the first I had heard from you doing so. You had previously held to an exclusive "chiropractic = short lever only" type of presentation of your sources. BTW, I was the one who brought your attention to Haldeman's "Principles and Practice of Chiropractic".

One thing seems to be clear, and that is that it would be OR to claim that the existing research compares DC performed short lever techniques with non-DC performed long lever techniques. It appears that both long and short lever techniques have been jumbled together in the same research, and Meeker and Haldeman saw no problem with doing so. -- Fyslee / talk 14:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do chiro schools teach long lever techniques? When I attended they didn't. - Anthon01 04:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read where this discussion started. Since you are asking in that manner, I'm beginning to wonder if we are using different definitions of "long lever". What do you consider to be long lever techniques? What about the lumber roll, probably the most widely used SM technique, including among chiropractors. BTW, I'm assuming that you really mean "the" (school you attended), rather than "they." -- Fyslee / talk 05:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a stroke, this comment of yours: "Please consider outsider respondent ZayZayEm's comment which, IMHO, analogizes the issue swimmingly." [1] ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do love those puns. Tom Swifties have been a personal fave of mine of late. ("I accidentally broke that marble slab I was making your kitchen surfaces out of," said Tom counterproductively.) :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote a comment somewhere (and I don't remember where, and I am working on about 2 hours sleep celebrating Obama's win, so I'm too lazy to find it), which caused me quite a bit a shock. Although on a political front, you and I are in the same tent, I believe that we're on opposite sides. But, at least we share the tent, so maybe there's common ground. Here's where you and I differ: I find the alternative medicine field to be nothing different than Creationism. You need faith to believe it works. That being said, I'll try to remember that we share the same tent.  :) And if you could quit baiting SA, it would make me happier, but then again, you're not fundamentally responsible for my happiness. :D Yeah, I know, he could respond better too. And of course, he shares that tent with you and I. Damn, I've beat up that metaphor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the message, but don't be so sure that we are on different sides of the tent in terms of Alt Med. If you believe so, then you really don't know my views. Just check my user page and you will see that I subscribe to rational skepticism. I think where you and I differ is our editing inclusionary philosophy at Wikipedia. I see no reason not to include information about Alt Med throughout this encyclopedia. As an example, whether I "believe" in homeopathy or not (I don't BTW), I do agree that it is part of general knowledge. And as Wikipedia is an endeavor to bring together all human knowledge, I am all for including information about homeopathy along with the homeopathic POV in appropriate articles. To me, including all major POVs while not presenting any POV to be the "correct" one, is essential to NPOV. This is my editing inclusionary philosophy. I don't believe that Wikipedia should be biased toward any major POV. I think (and I may be wrong) that you have a tendency to push for the scientific mainstream POV to be presented as the "correct" POV. In my mind, this is still a form of POV pushing. So when I push back, editors often accuse me of pushing from a Fringe POV. But the truth is, I am an NPOV pusher. I am a centrist (in this case). So - to take your metaphor - while you are on the mainstream side of the tent looking across toward the fringe side, you see me and assume that I am standing with fringe. But check your depth perception. I am actually standing in the middle of the tent between the two sides, trying desperately to find a way to unite both sides and present both POVs in an NPOV fashion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. How do you feel that I am baiting SA? Please explain. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I didn't get back to you sooner. Real life has been a lot more busy than it has in the past. Yes, you can quantify me as an anti-inclusionist (is that a word?). Let's use Homeopathy as an example. I agree it should be an article. I agree that it should be described as to what it is. But, it must state, without a doubt, that there is no scientific backing for it, it fails a number of physical and chemical theories, and it does not work. I think Homeopathy is notable for this project, but NPOV should not mean equal weight given to all sides. I guess that's where I find us parting company (or moving to different sides of the metaphorical tent). One of the things about Wikipedia that I find both fascinating and annoying is "consensus". I think consensus is a poor method for managing, and a very poor method for intellectual or academic discourse. Wikipedia attempts to be a democracy, yet, democracies are quite what we believe they are. There are leaders and pushers of ideas, and that's what happens in Wikipedia. We all push our vision of consensus/weight/NPOV, and that's where the battles form. As for SA, there's nothing specific, just a general feeling, so don't assume that I "condemn" you for anything. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you recognize that I am not on the opposite side of the tent from you, but rather stationed in the middle, I guess we are okay. I am not so much fighting against you so much as trying to mediate between the forces you are fighting against. Both sides have their POVs, and all I try to do is find a way to present both in an NPOV fashion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the talk page to ensure you see this. We've tried gentle reminders and redirection here and that doesn't seem to be working, so let me put this very clearly one more time. Levine, DigitalC (and anyone else I missed making the same argument) the RfC was clear that SM was related to Chiropractic. I understand that you disagree with this outcome, but Wikipedia works by consensus. Any further argumentation along those lines should be dropped post haste or you may find yourself taking a break from the article for continuing disruption. If you have a concern about the specific wording of the section or a concern using a specific study from that section, please discuss that content issue directly. If you continue to stall work on resolving these disputes with another general argument that somehow SM research may not or can not or isn't good enough for the article, expect a topic ban to come shortly after. Shell ^babelfish 22:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you may wish to read my response at User talk:DigitalC. Shell ^babelfish 22:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you will be unhappy with my recent post to Talk:Chiropractic. It is to your credit that you have argued your case strongly over an extended period of time. However, the fact that these strong arguments were unable to convince anyone outside the same select group of editors is further evidence that the community feels differently. Ultimately it is the community that decides, among other things, the question of whether or not something is original research or appropriate for an article. This was not a decision made lightly, but with considerable thought and research into the many discussions on the subject. All things must eventually come to an end. This is not to say that the section in question is perfect, but those are other discussions to be had. Shell ^babelfish 11:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I continue to disagree with you analysis. I believe that you may have overlooked some other opinions and have added some links to other RFCs and discussion which you didn't mention in your analysis. Contained within are strong arguments from other editors who - like me - feel that there is an OR violation here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out where you added those additional links? I looked on the Mediation and the talk page but didn't see it right away. Thanks :) Shell ^babelfish 03:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Right here. On a personal note, yes, I am second guessing your judgment here, but it is not meant to be disrespectful. I honestly think that you have overlooked something as there are at least 9 editors (3 or 4 outside opinions) who feel that there is an OR violation. I just don't see how you can say that there is a consensus despite this much dissent. I appreciate what you are trying to do in terms of mediation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on my count there are at least 15 editors that feels this is an OR violation. I also disagree with Shell's analysis, and his representation that the arguments "were unable to convince anyone outside the same select group of editors". Again, looking at the input from MaxPont, MartinSci, and CopperTwig, this simply isn't so. DigitalC (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to continued disruption of consensus discussions, including this edit to the mediation which once again pushed your OR theories and decimated the hard work of many other editors, you are being banned from Chiropractic and any associated talk pages for one week. When the week is up, you're welcome to join back in if you want to work with others. Shell ^babelfish 18:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a "disruption of consensus discussions", in fact it didn't disrupt discussion at all. It was an edit to a free-to-edit-war section. Am I understanding this correctly that Levine could have changed "the text in the 'proposed text' section without discussion", but because he used an edit summary giving his reasons he is receiving a one week ban? DigitalC (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DigitalC, there were more issues than just the edit summary. QuackGuru 02:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something, or did Shell act as an "involved admin" to ban? I thought that wasn't kosher? Sorry if I've misunderstood anything, just wondering about Wikiquette, not assuming bad faith. --Jim Butler (t) 10:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, Shell is the mediator and one of many administrators watching the chiropractor article. She is not involved in editing as far as I know. Just thought I would clear this up for you. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Crohnie, struck -- Shell mentioned this to me too. I'll go off and be embarassed now.  ;-P regards, Jim Butler (t) 19:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Levine2112, long time no speak! Hope you're well. Looks like you're busy; you may have missed an RfC at Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts concerning issues over which you've expressed interest in the past. regards, Jim Butler (t) 10:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your anger but this is not the way to deal with snarky remarks [2]. Please refactor or just remove it. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but the discussion has been archived and thus I am not allowed to modify it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. Thanks responding! --Ronz (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recently edited my talk page with a "Welcome" template.

If you looked at my edits, you would see that I have already been editing Wikipedia for a year and a half. You would also see that I already know how to do the things that the Welcome page is intended to teach me to do, and the implicit assumption that I have not learned how to do any of this - and/or have not read any of the guideline pages you linked me to - is actually somewhat offensive to me.

Thanks. --Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. My mistake. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you tagged this article, the tag you placed on it was completely inapplicable to the article in question as there were no images or audio files of any kind in the article. Using incorrect tags only serves to confuse other editors, especially if they are new. Please be more careful about how you tag articles, and make sure they are actually applicable. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thanks for catching my mistake. I was trying to alert the editors that there is a WP:COPYVIO issue there as the content is lifted off a webpage [3]. However, as the editor started the article today at my behest, I didn't feel right nominating it for speedy deletion. Anyhow, thanks again. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it's clear that ScienceApologist should be permanently banned for this edit, it's equally obvious that there will be no consensus on WP:AE to do so: too many editors, even administrators, will insist that ScienceApologist's comments were all in good fun, and perfectly acceptable conduct. Therefore, the only available means by which to permanently remove ScienceApologist's editing privileges is to file a request for arbitration concerning him. Relevant prior cases include Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. The Arbitration Committee should also be presented with evidence of ScienceApologist's prior severe incivility and intractable edit warring, subsequent to the closure of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. John254 20:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A ban is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop#ScienceApologist banned. --Elonka 20:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee may or may not consider ScienceApologist's threats to be within the remit of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion. However, if the Arbitration Committee finds the threat to be unrelated to cold fusion, and therefore closes the case without an appropriate finding or remedy, it will by then be too late to file a separate request for arbitration, as the matter will be considered "stale". It would be most prudent to file a separate request for arbitration, then let the Committee join the matter with the cold fusion case if necessary. John254 21:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is the best place for this topic title or discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love you. 71.153.183.129 (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you update me on the outcome of the Arbcom discussions? I find the whole process hard to follow and there seem to be multiple discussions all over the place. I don't see where a conclusion, if any, has been reached on the issues raised. Were you "cleared"? Thanks for any summary or direction you can provide.ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the outcome of the Cold Fusion ArbCom (if that is what you are referring to) has quite been determined at this time. I am not involved in that ArbCom, so there is nothing where I would need to be "cleared". That said, it appears that the incivility and threat made against me were presented as evidence there; however, the ArbCom doesn't seem to making any decisions based on that evidence (i.e. block, topic ban, or indef ban). I haven't been following this ArbCom too closely, but if you follow the link above, you can get to the Workshop, Evidence and Proposed Decision pages. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clearer. There was another discussion related to similar issues about disruption from another editor. After they made some unfortunate outbursts the suggestion was made that you were the cause and had been "baiting". There was some discussion of asking you to take a month off. I didn't agree with the accusation or the proposed punishment, so that's what I was wondering about. I commented there, but I could never figure out where resolution took place or if it was just left as an unresolved discussion to deal with the other hearings. And I'm not familiar with Arbcom so I don't really know who were arbitrators commenting and who weren't. Sorry for the confusion.ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand now. You are referring to a now archived conversation at Arbitration enforcement. As far as I know, nothing came of the discussion there. Thank you for the support. I appreciate your views as an outsider to the situation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it. It's sometimes hard to keep track of all the craziness.ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the Bates method article. Paragraph sunning and the arguments I gave on the discussion page.

See * [[4]]

former version :

See * [[5]] and current version.

In my opinion a very important safety issue.

( Note also the wikipedia internal links have been removed ! )

Regards, Seeyou (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really understanding the debate here. That said, I think the use of the picture is fine, especially with the safety qualifier in the prose. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Surturz has filed a complaint against User:QuackGuru ((here)). --Surturz (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for doing that. I agree with the subsequent block. As you know, I have had a similar experience with QuackGuru. I have told him/her many times in the past to not comment on my talk page if only to harrass me. However, if you look at last 500 or so edits on my talk page you will see it riddled with his/her harrassment. I think Shell's assumption that you and I (DigitalC and TheDoctorIsIn) are in cahoots is unfortunate, unfounded and entirely untrue. The only agenda I have at Chiropractic - as with any article - is to push for WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V, and to the best of my knowledge I have never had any contact with you outside of Wikipedia. While I understand your frustration with the Chiropractic article, I encourage you to stick around. I don't think that "letting it get really bad so people will see what happens when we let POV-pushers go rampant" is a viable solution to the problems at hand. I hope that with QuackGuru out of the picture temporarily, we can continue with the kind of rational, civil conversations which can only improve the article. Anyhow, thanks for your vigiliance and resillence. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, we should celebrate! Do you think we can down a few bottles of Sin Zin or some other great beverage before QG returns? -- Fyslee (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're too funny. :-) I honestly don't celebrate this sort of thing though. I really hope - perhaps naively - that QuackGuru returns changed for the better. Now that would be cause for celebration. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call it pessimism or realism, but sometimes I think the word "incurable" comes to mind, much like KV. Have you ever noticed the strong resemblance? -- Fyslee (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about KV entirely, so I can't really recall his tactics or antics or whatever. If you are thinking of filing a checkuser, I am happy to help out in the investigation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To put it bluntly, it would take a psychiatric background to adequately describe the MO and tactics used by both of them, and to me they seem pretty much identical in many ways, but those impressions and a psychiatric testimony and parsing of their edits wouldn't be good enough evidence for a CU filing.....unfortunately. Believe me, if ever a chance arrives, I will support it. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Levine2112. I wanted to say Happy New Year, and thanks for the early welcome and support (if you've forgotten what it entailed, just see the top of my user talk page.) If not for you I might have quickly left Wikipedia. Problems still exist, but I'm trying to deal with them constructively. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a happy New Year to you as well. My time on Wiki will be short right now. I'm fairly busy in real life. Plus, the fact that a certain troublesome and hostile editor is allowed to continue editing here even after lodging death threats at me and others, is making me lose faith in the community spirit of this project. Unfortunately, I don't see how I am expected to collaborate with such a belligerent editor. As you have seen in your dealing at the Bates method and related articles, there is much confusion at Wikipedia between what constitutes POV-pushing. So many editors are rightly chided for pushing the "fringe" POV, but too often the project shows bias for those pushing the "pseudoskeptic" POV. Why? Because it is often difficult to assess what is the true scientific POV and what is the pseudoskeptic POV. The pseudoskeptic seems to be pushing for a science POV, but in actuality they are using weak sources and original research to push the pseudoskeptic POV (in an effort to debunk a subject). I remain hopeful that Wikipedia will become aware of the kind of scientific extremist POV pushing running rampant right now before too many articles are overrun with pseudoskeptical opinions being presented as facts. Anyhow, enough of my diatribe. If you ever need me and I am not responsive on Wikipedia, feel free to email me to get my attention. Thanks for the well wishes and I am glad that my early support has helped you Wikipedia. Keep up the good work and happy editing! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communication has become very difficult at Talk:Bates method. I will not ask you for help there as that might be seen as improper canvassing, plus I'm not really sure what you could do. However perhaps you could look at the discussion I started at WT:NPOV. It seems to me that UNDUE if taken literally gives an effective meaning which may not be intended (and which is being used to justify the neutrality template on the top of the Bates method article.) PSWG1920 (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, I see that you've tried four times in the last 48 hours to remove Chiropractic from List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts.[6] I realize that there's a controversy on whether or not the term should be included, but repeatedly revert-warring to remove sourced information is not a good idea. Can I please ask you to hold off on any other reverts over this material? You're welcome to keep editing the list to try and change the text to try and find a compromise version, as long as you're not reverting or deleting citations. I'm also asking some other editors to try and moderate their behavior, so hopefully if everyone can lower the temperature by a degree or two, we can get the article stabilized without requiring page protection.  :) Thanks, --Elonka 23:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request has been made for clarification of the ArbCom case WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE as it relates to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. I'm leaving this notification with all editors who have recently edited the article or participated in discussion. For now, the pending request, where you are free to comment, may be found here. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Levine. -- John Gohde (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Right back at you, kind sir. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth considering that 75.107.23.242 may have spammed the blp violations intentionally to bait editors. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. But his/her bait has been since removed along with the possible BLP violation. I don't see the problem with continuing the conversation provided that we steer clear of BLP violations. As it were, we were discussinf a verifiable and reliable primary source. I took it that CliffC - a longtime editor of Wikipedia - was new to this particular conversation and I merely feel that his discussion points deserve some presence on the talk page. You seem to disagree for some unknown reason, but I am not going to edit war with you over it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sorry about that. I should have given it more time and used a more civil edit summary. You're more familiar with all that's gone on with that talk page than I am. I think it best to steer very far away from anything that furthers 75.107.23.242's disruptions. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate the support at the talkpage, but don't worry, I can handle Orangemarlin on my own.  :) What would be more helpful, would be if you would keep comments focused strictly on the article, and what type of discretionary sanctions (if any) might be helpful towards stabilizing things. Any creative suggestions? --Elonka 18:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]