User talk:Random user 39849958

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

Starting fresh

Time to archive. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Rational Skepticism

I just put a note on RS talk page trying to drum up some interest in a current Wikipedia article called "wilderness diarrhea." I notice you're a member of that project. The topic is, among other things, a pseudo-category of medicine, and is the subject of some well-entrenched mythology among backpackers. There is also a fair amount of research suggesting that much of the issue is based on folklore and confusion. It may not be your precise cup of tea. I'm trying to disengage from editing the article due to a potential "edit war" scenario. A few comments on talk page might be helpful.Calamitybrook (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Re QuackGuru

In response to your comment on QuackGuru's talk page: I looked at Talk:Atropa belladonna and there's a poll with 3 supporting removing homeopathy from the page and 2 opposed. I don't see consensus for your edit. I'm sorry. Re "perhaps you are merely acting out of vendetta.": please assume good faith. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't agree. It looked generally like consensus toward the status quo; that it's used (at least in the ingredient list) in homeopathy, but there's no evidence that it works. (Much as I think QG is correct on QW / Barrett articles, he's not always correct.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus that it should be removed over at Wikipedia:FTN#Atropa_belladonna_.28revisited.29. Given that it is reliably sourced, you'd expect that a decent consensus would be needed. One or two people can't just exclude information sourced to reliable sources unless there's a general agreement, or it's a clear problem of WEIGHT or whatever, which this isn't. II | (t - c) 05:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Orthomolecular

Hi there. I've been trying to find a form of words that might cover the same ground as that pseudoscience box and be acceptable to everybody involved. I think most of the editors on the page would agree that OM isn't as unreal as homeopathy or therapeutic touch, but is obviously seen as not mainstream science. Could you live with "This lack of serious testing of orthomolecular medicine has led to its practices being classed with other less plausible forms of alternative medicine and regarded as unscientific." diff? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. I don't know much of anything about Orthomolecular medicine; certainly not its standing with mainstream science. If you provided supporting sources, that would be helpful. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Dear Levine2112 , If you have time and are willing to share your point of view. Can you give your comment arguments about the current discussion in the bates method article. Paragraph : The American acadamy of opthalmology link listed in the external link section ? appreciate your comment, Seeyou (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

PSWG1920 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for reverting Ronz's deletions. I would have done it myself, but I was concerned that I could get blocked or sanctioned for edit-warring. Just to be clear, when I said "or delete it completely" in the edit summary, I meant the paragraph, not the section. Perhaps I was too aggressive in reverting right after I responded to him on the talk page regarding the original research, but I felt he was really misunderstanding or misrepresenting me. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I understood your edit summary perfectly. You were very clear. And thanks for the shared smile! :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for again reverting his deletion. Hopefully he will back off on this kind of thing. Not sure what the next step is otherwise. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Welcome

Hello, this was my first edit in Wikipedia, and I'm still learning the ropes, but it's great to see such welcoming people helping! --Forloyo (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Dear Levine2112,If you have time and are willing to share your point of view. Can you give your comment arguments about the current discussion in the bates method article. Paragraph : Elwin Marg was an optometrist  ! appreciate your comment, Discussion is about whether or not the profession of Elwin Marg should be mentioned in the external link section. Seeyou (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians helping Wikipedians

Hi. This is Dale. I am going to start an article on a book called Shooting at the Moon by Roger Wargner. Is there any guidelines for writing articles on specific books on Wikipedia? {{helpme}} --Dale S. Satre 16:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Place the helpme on YOUR page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

It's pleasant to be welcomed by a real person on Wikipedia, especially with such a useful and welcoming template. Thank you. IceandInk (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. (Also, please note that it is customary here at Wikipedia to leave new messages at the bottom of the page.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Depression and natural remedies

Thanks for joining the fray - that dialogue was not making good progress, as you saw, and maybe you can help. I really must go to bed now. More anon. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope I can help as that dialogue seemed to be going in circles --> 1. There is an NPOV problem. 2. What is it? 3. It's an NPOV problem. 4. Yes, I understand. But what specifically is the problem. 5. The problem is with NPOV. 6. Can you tell me why you feel that way? 7. NPOV is important and this article violates it. 8. Okay, how specifically does the article violate NPOV? (go to #1 and keep looping). Unfortunately, this kind of behavior is par for the course. The editor gives you alphabet soup in terms of Wikipedia policies but then always fails to back up these assertions with any specifics or rationale. Sigh. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please refactor. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Refactor what and why? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the situation.

You are attacking me.

You are attacking proper discussions per WP:CON. This could be taken as a statement that you purposely do not follow WP:TALK and WP:CON yourself.

I've identified what to remove/refactor with a hidden comment. Everything after the hidden comment is what I suggest you refactor or just remove completely. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe I am representing the situation accurately. I am not attacking you; I am only speaking in generalities and not describing any single editor in particular. I am following CON and TALK. However, despite this, I will consider removing what you find offensive. I am busy at the moment. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"I am busy at the moment" Perhaps that is the problem, that you simply commented before you had time to look carefully at the situation. --Ronz (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that must be it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No response? Just another example for your RfC/U. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of Correspondance section

I saw your recent revert over at List_of_chiropractic_schools. Perhaps some of this should be discussed at Talk:List_of_chiropractic_schools#Correspondance? - DigitalC (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I put something on WP:3 that may concern you. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Twing AfD Help

Hi.

Sorry to bother you, but you're on my talk page as a helper/mentor so I figured you'd be the best to go to. As you can see, over the years I've touched or started a few articles, but am only now getting deeper into the bowels of Wikidom in navigating my first time through AfD process and getting more familiar with the rules. And the process I used for this article was apparently slow.

Anyway, I've been working on an article that was deleted because I wasn't quick enough in becoming aware of and engaging in the AfD process. The deleting admin undeleted the article into my user space to fix notability problems for Twing In a message to me on my talk page Cobaltbluetony said I could re-submit to him or ask another editor to check. I've done that, but he's been really busy so I'm seeing if another editor can review. My request to have him re-review my fix attempts has apparently been deleted from his page with no response to me. (This was possibly done by someone else, but I'm having trouble finding that history revision.) I've been really patient for weeks now, but I believe I've solved the concerns in the article regarding notability to Wikipedia's notability standards; (in fact, exceeded them in comparison to many similar articles), and would like things re-reviewed. And if still a problem, what more I'd have to do to get it right. I know I can do the "Be Bold" thing per the Wikipedia notes and re-post it, but I'd prefer to navigate and learn the appropriate process to avoid the back and forth spat thing.

Thanks for your help. Scottwrites (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion

I noticed that you have edited in related areas within WP, and so thought you might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Bates method again

Hi Levine2112. What do you think about Ronz's reasoning here? Of course if we could find a third-party source for that I would have no problem with removing the self-published one in question, but I don't quite see why this information should be deleted just because we have not found an independent source for that particular point, which is highly relevant to the subtopic already being discussed. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any talk page discussion on this? I would like to see Ronz's rationale for application of there policies rather than a litany of alphabet soup. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the most recent discussion about this. If you go up a few threads there is more detail regarding this general issue. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"I would like to see Ronz's rationale for application of there policies rather than a litany of alphabet soup." Once again, you appear to be dismissive of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and are making personal attacks. Should I bother you with requests to refactor any more, or just note that it will be discussed in an RfC/U? --Ronz (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 208.101.118.33

Regarding 208.101.118.33

FYI, CorticoSpinal often forgot to sign in:

• Here he signs his IP edit

• Here he forgot to sign in while evading a block. He had no doubt been editing as User:Soyuz113 for some time, but here he blew his cover.

-- Fyslee / talk 04:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems likely. However, I think if he has been granted a second chance, we should honor that. You seem to be acting uncivilly recently (out of understandable anger and frustration) and certain admins have noticed and are watching. You should be nervous when your only ally is QuackGuru, right? :-) You may want to tone things down a bit and certainly proceed firmly, but with civility and good faith (as you normally do). Just some friendly advice. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

CorticoSpinal has not been granted a second chance when a checkuser case has been filed supported by an admin who filed it. Levine2112, please stop supporting sockpuppertry. QuackGuru 18:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

AGK had granted this user a second chance. Your lack of good faith in this admin and hostility toward Cortico has made you pursue this matter further. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

AGK has now defered to any uninvolved admin. A checkuser case is not a second chance anyhow. QuackGuru 19:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. Sorry. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

AGK disagrees with your opinion because he defered to any uninvolved admin. QuackGuru 20:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my nor AGK's opinion on the matter. Consider the advice of Ralph Waldo Emerson: Your genuine action will explain itself, and will explain your other genuine actions. Your conformity explains nothing. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

AGK reiterated he is not involved with this new CorticoSpinal round. QuackGuru 16:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC Bates method article for 2 important issues

Dear Levine2112,If you have time and are willing to share your point of view. Can you give your comment arguments about the current discussion in the bates method article.

Paragraph :

• 22 RFC Nr : 1 change of title Bates method into Bates method / Natural Vision improvement

• 23 RFC No : 2 Removal of sourced quotes

( See also par 24 : Some objective factual information of the past and now and the discussion with Ronz on my talkpage )Seeyou (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks! It was really useful. --Ole Eivind (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Welcome

Thanks for the welcome - that was really quick! I will probably not write much, though, as English is not my mother tongue. Greetings, Gilbert04 (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch

Based on your comment we should remove the text because you have not given a valid reason for your edit. You have not given a reasonable explanation for disagreeing. QuackGuru 18:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on your threat [1] to edit war on quackwatch, you are hereby placed on 0rr for that article. Any reverts there will result in a block. Vsmith (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Amend per WP:ANI comment. You are hereby formally notified that per Arbcom] you are placed on 0rr on Quackwatch for one month - until 21 Oct. 2008. Vsmith (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This [2] really isn't okay. The topic area is under restrictions Arbcom to prevent exactly this kind of edit warring. If you have a dispute, please follow communal norms. If you unilaterally revert, whether right or wrong I shall place you under a restriction, since this kind of edit warring has to end. Vsmith (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread

Since it appears you were not notified... You may be interested in this thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Quackwatch. --Elonka 20:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. PhilKnight (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)