User talk:Surturz

Talk archives

On more than one occasion you appear (apologies in advance if I'm mistaken) to have "archived" a Talk page by simply deleting the contents without posting a link on the main Talk page to the archive. You might want to read this tutorial on How to archive a talk page in order to learn how to provide a link on the main talk page so that users can see older discussions easily, and I'd strongly suggest that you go back and do this on the pages you've already "archived." Thanks! --Craig Stuntz 02:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! Will do so. --Surturz 22:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Puzzled

Hi, I reverted one of your edits (the one to Cake) because of the commented text "<!-- The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie -->" which made me think it was vandalism. After reverting I looked more closely and saw the spelling correction.

I'm puzzled as to what function the comment was meant to serve. If you feel that it should be put back into the article then perhaps the edit summary can allude to the reason. Alternatively, perhaps it would be better to make the comments on the article's talk page. Regards LittleOldMe 12:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a joke from the computer game Portal. You were right to remove it. I can't help having a bit of fun around here sometimes :-) You'll notice that a few previous vandalisms on the Cake article have the same joke. --Surturz 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent political edits

Hi, I've noticed your editing on various political biographies. While I have nothing against anyone robustly defending their particular viewpoint (I'd be a hypocrite if I did), and even though I agree with one or two of your changes that I've seen while disagreeing with others, edit warring and using edit summaries as proxy for the talk page, as I've seen you do in recent days, is not really acceptable behaviour. I'd also highlight WP:NPOV, given the highly partisan nature of the political aspect of your editing history.

I'm not the only admin on the Australian projects who has seen this sort of situation arise before and it nearly always ends in people fighting over ridiculous minor points with no real import, and articles flitting between two stagnant, inferior versions each preferred by one opponent, and everyone else gets scared off by the hostility and the politics project suffers as a result. The RfCs and straw polls on talk pages are also ridiculous as the camps are by now so established that everyone knows how everyone else will react, and a certain amount of subtle canvassing goes on. There is only so long that goes on before the community decides enough is enough, ArbCom get called in and unpredictability ensues.

If you want to get an article changed, especially if it's in a major way, the best way above all others is to convince the broad majority of editors in the area of the merits of your proposal. Orderinchaos 05:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive criticism on my talk page. I respectfully disagree with you. The vast bulk of edits on political pages are from people pushing POVs. Mine are no exception. This is a good thing because people without POV are unlikely to contribute to those pages. NPOV is achieved from a synthesis from all these POVs. After everyone has removed material they dislike, we are left with NPOV text. I am merely removing material I find controversial. Consensus is required to INSERT material, not remove it.

I agree with you re partisanship - we're all in some way partisan, people who aren't usually would have no interest in editing political articles. It's something we have to carefully manage - all of us do, as a community. My criticism was solely addressing behaviour/approach, not the edits or intentions - a quick look at your edit history raised some reasonable concerns regarding that, and I felt it warranted a nod. There is a huge difference between partisanship or subscription to a particular set of ideological constructs / membership of a political party and POV pushing, one can be done cooperatively, the other almost never so. I don't quite agree re NPOV text - that seems to be a recipe for sterility and would not produce articles people would actually want to read (I am not advocating sensationalism here, just common sense and good policy-compliant writing technique). The idea is that both sides compromise to get the best article. Unfortunately on Australian politics we've had some very bad examples of how not to do all of the above in years past, and the end result has been polarised camps, all of which are at play in the current disputes, and the admins trying to sort the whole mess out. While I would be perceived as being one side of the fence politically, I make no defence of those who I might ideologically agree with who have behaved badly, and was quite ready along with a mix of centre-left and centre-right admins last year to take the whole thing to ArbCom. That may still happen if the current behaviour trend amplifies. Orderinchaos 06:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate my previous disagreement with your viewpoint. I understand your argument, it has some credible points, but it has not convinced me. --Surturz (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Per User talk:Orderinchaos#Reply to comment on my talk page and your posts above, you say there are credible points made, and you admit that you are not just partisan but actively engage in POV-pushing, for the reason that you believe others do too, and is thus justified. Whether you are convinced is frankly irrelevant. Timeshift (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wanted to use the word 'plausible' instead of credible, but I couldn't for the life of me remember the word at the time :-) My "POV pushing", as you call it, is restricted to removing the more egregious POV-pushing material from those on the opposite side of the political spectrum. At the end of the day I really would prefer it if you would refrain from speculating about my motives. Let us restrict our debate to the issues at hand, shall we? --Surturz (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive criticism on my talk page. I respectfully disagree with you. The vast bulk of edits on political pages are from people pushing POVs. Mine are no exception. There's no speculating about your motives, they are clear. I would like to stick to debating issues if I didn't think you were purposely and with intent not just being partisan, but actively POV-pushing. Timeshift (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

POVs does not mean you can disclude factual events because you dont like them - if it is relevant it must be included or its censorship (any other lawyers will tell you) which isnt the point of wiki - perhaps a blog? 137.92.97.111 (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC) AC

It isn't censorship actually. Censorship is where the state suppresses free speech. But I digress. I don't excise coverage just because I don't like it. The key is relevance and notability. I don't know what particular "discluded" event you are referring to. --Surturz (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation: John Howard

Hello. A request for mediation has been lodged for the John Howard article, concerning whether information about an incident between John Howard and Barack Obama should be included or deleted from the article. The link for the RfM is Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard. The issue is still being discussed on the article talk page. Please go to the RfM page and list whether you agree or disagree to be involved in mediation of this issue. Thank you, Lester 01:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Mediators do not make decisions! It is a is a formal but voluntary process to assist individuals in developing a mutual agreement to resolve a dispute over content - what alternative are you suggesting to proceed?--Matilda ^talk 01:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have already made a compromise edit that has survived so far - I added the reference to the "Ally of George Bush" section of the article. I have also suggested that the episode be added to Barack Obama, and if it survives there, then I would acquiesce to its inclusion in John Howard. These are two - I believe constructive - solutions I have proposed. --Surturz (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

They are not compromises, please stop calling them as such. Adding a ref with no context and adding to Obama's page are not compromises. It is obvious that they are being called compromises just to give the impression that the exclusionists are not moving one inch on this issue, no compromises. Timeshift (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit my and others' comments again. You are not a neutral party in the mediation, and WP:TALK under "Behaviour that is unacceptable" applies. In general a scoping comment on an agreement is considered acceptable. Orderinchaos 03:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Leave it to neutral editors, such as mediation staff. I'll abide by whatever they decide quite happily, but not a party's - I have every right to scope my comment so that it isn't a simple "agree" and the mediators have the most reliable information on which to base any decision to move forward. Orderinchaos 04:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Surturz, I write to encourage you to join the RfM. My personal belief is that the current edit waring cannot continue, and won't be allowed to continue, regardless of the RfM. Those who say "Agree" to the RfM are showing that they are at least trying to come to an agreement with the community of Wikipedia editors. I can't speak for the Administrators of Wikipedia, but I know as a fact that many are displeased by the current edit waring, and I predict that penalties will be applied to those who continue to edit war without attempting to form a consensus. You can change your "disagree" to "agree", and it shows that you are attempting to find consensus, and you can input your views. The other alternative is to not join mediation, to continue edit waring to change the article to one's own perspective, and face whatever penalties apply. Have a think about it. Regards, Lester 04:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I will not be agreeing to the RfM, it is a waste of time if you and I are not even trying to work towards content that is acceptable to both of us. A list of specific concerns about the John Howard articles from you and Timeshift9 would be the most helpful contribution you could make at this time. --Surturz (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Rejecting an RfM before it even begins demonstrates your unwillingness to compromise and reach a solution that is acceptable to the wikipedia community. Be it on your head. Timeshift (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it shows an unwillingness to be involved in pointless bureaucracy. I'd rather edit articles. --Surturz (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

First you admit to actively POV-pushing, and now you show a blatent disregard for wikipedia processes when disputes cannot be resolved. You are digging your grave very quickly. Timeshift (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Surturz. It's true that both of us disagree on the content, and which ever way it ends up we won't both be happy. It's not just you, me, Timeshift and Skyring, but the Wikipedia community that'll be looking at this. Some other editors have predicted on the Howard talk page that this article is headed for a nasty resolution at the hands of Arbcom, where they start dishing out penalties to prevent regular editors from participating in that article, or even the whole of Wikipedia. This is not in either of our interests, and I can't see how you would think that such a resolution is advantageous. If such a situation eventuated, I think an editor would look better to have been seen to have participated in Mediation, rather than to have rejected Mediation and continued to edit war, which can't be a good look. The alternative is to have administrators and arbitrators move in on the article, issue penalties and possibly ban people, and forcibly stop the edit war. When that happens, chances are that the article won't be left in the state you like it anyway. Have a read of the Guide to mediation. It's not a vote process, so slim majorities or minorities are irrelevant to the process. They keep the discussion civil, and judge the issue according to Wikipedia rules (eg BLP etc). What I'm saying is that joining mediation may or may not get us what we want, but not joining produces a worse situation. Have a think about it. Cheers, Lester 05:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I will not be agreeing to the RfM and if the powers that be decide to discipline me, then so be it. I would prefer you and all relevant editors to list the issues that have caused them to insist on the POV tag, and I will do my best to make the appropriate changes. --Surturz (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, no one will be blocked, banned or otherwise disciplined because they've refused to participate in mediation. I would encourage you to participate in it myself but ultimately you're right, it is a voluntary process and you don't have to do it if you don't want to. Sarah 06:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise text for the talk page of the RfM

• You wrote: While we are waiting for the result of the RfM, could all interested editors please look at Talk:John_Howard#Compromise_.236 and comment. I will take silence to imply consensus as per WP:SILENCE. Many thanks, --Surturz (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Just in case you miss my reply - Given that many of us are prepared to participate in mediation and use that process to obtain consensus I find your suggestion that our silence on parallel processes implies consent as not appropriate. Essentially I think it inappropriate that you attempt to run a parallel process to the RfM when you are not prepared to join a mediation attempt that many others are prepared to do on exactly the same question.--Matilda ^talk 07:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Careful....

You should read WP:3RR, cause you are very close to violating it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Surturz (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

pasteback resolved

I undid your edit as per your note to another's talk page. I had noticed the pasteback was outstanding --Matilda ^talk 02:25, 30 May 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/John Howard. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 16:46, 2 June 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.

Thnaks for clarifying my thoughts

You were quite right and I do very much appreciate you fixing the typo / freudian slip / lack of clear thinking /... Rudd and Ruddock are not the same - both politicians but otherwise even I can tell the difference and meant of course to refer to Ruddock I can't think that freud hasd anything to do with it. Thanks Matilda ^talk 03:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Prime ministership of John Howard

Content additions :-) --Matilda ^talk 00:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnW^talk 05:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Joe Hockey

I had assumed given the number of admins floating around that it would be unlocked once a consensus was reached on the talk page. That being said, however, I see no discussion beyond where I saw it last time - based on that, am I to assume one has been reached privately? If so, I'll unlock, but I would be very disappointed if I saw an edit war resume. (FTR: I actually agree with the removal of the picture, but I think the best way to achieve it is to convince others of the merit of your ideas.) Orderinchaos 08:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverting of OpenAustralia.org links

Could you please halt your reverts of User:Mlandauer's additions for now thanks. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia#OpenAustralia.org spam? for a discussion on the usefulness of these links. -- Longhair\^talk 02:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Liberal Party membership

Oh please, why would I or anyone join a party that has five climate change policies for supporters to pick from as their favourite? The party is a blubbering mess at the moment, I fear a poor quality opposition will lead to poor quality government. Perhaps that's why Howard was perceived to be so good :) The polls are still sky high, and... oh, you were joking! :D Timeshift (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm already expecting another 13 years of coalition opposition. Howard didn't quite make it, did he? Timeshift (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the main difference is that the Liberals are leadership driven, so if their leadership is weak or askew, the party has no central ideology or base or caucus to hold it in place, whereas Labor does (oddly enough, so do the Nationals, as they were designed on the Labor model). The back cover of Dean Jaensch's "The Liberals" (1994 I think) pretty much entirely wrote them off as a federal political force, but then there was 1996. Orderinchaos 09:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

POV

POV editing like your recent edits on John Howard, especially when they are being discussed by many members on the talk page, are borderline vandalism. --

Carbon Rodney

13:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't make a bad edit and attack people who fix it by claiming AGF. The accusation isn't a rival of Howard saying something to a bunch of reporters - it is an official request that he be trialled by the ICC. Regardless, notability is something you must discuss at the talk page and not just delete content from the article as you see fit. --

Carbon Rodney

13:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The above user appears to be unaware that WP:AGF is policy. A content dispute is not "vandalism", nor should it be characterised so. Orderinchaos 13:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"I note that an admin reverted your edit with the summary that "bad faith accusations are not tolerated". I leave you to draw your own conclusions." --Surturz

Admins are just users too. The paragraph you removed was originally added by an admin. --

Carbon Rodney

15:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding a reversion by another user, I think your addition was a good start - thank you --Matilda ^talk 03:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Just read your "constructive rebuke" - I think it is indeed a constructive comment. I am not interested in "attacking" JOhn Howard. I do want to see balance (OK I realise one person's balance is another person's attack but ... I think I really mean it) . I think your point about the focus on suitably eminent Howard-detractors to quote, or allegations of War Crimes is correct in that it isn't working. I am not interested in focussing on the cost of the war though because both good and bad wars cost, what I am interested in is trying to ensure that the idea that Howard personally came under criticism for his support of the war is included - he came under criticism internationally and domestically. This is say in contrast the East Timor intervention. How do you best think we do that? --Matilda ^talk 03:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Well I have tried to put in that there were Australian protests and heckling ... --Matilda ^talk 04:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic & vaccination

I think you have made a very good point. I'd be curious about your input here if you have a moment. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits at chiropractic

Your action in the article is clear vandalism. You have no consensus to do that. Please immediately restore the content or you will be reported for vandalism. -- Fyslee / talk 04:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF and WP:BRD. You are free to revert. Please do not report me for vandalism. --Surturz (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your cooperation. -- Fyslee / talk 05:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Surturz's edit was not vandalism. He has participated at the discussion on the talk page. To describe his editing as vandalism is a breach of WP:Civil --Matilda ^talk 05:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My choice of words may be brusque, but such an action long before a discussion is finished, with absolutely no shadow of consensus, is called vandalism. I'm sure the user has learned a lesson and will be more careful to ensure consensus before such an action in the future. -- Fyslee / talk 05:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Vandalism - Surturz's edit does not fall into that scope - note : Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. --Matilda ^talk 05:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

See my reply at my talk page. Let's continue there. -- Fyslee / talk 05:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I had forgotten about this and have refactored my heading so as not to make your TOC look bad. Hope that helps. -- Fyslee / talk 14:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Surturz. I agree with you position that the chiropracty article is in violations of WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, WP:SYN. It seems that I cannot even comment anymore there without having my text deleted. Clearly a case of WP:OWN by a group of editors who use terms such as 'vandalism' 'controversial' 'NPOV' and other hyperboles. I suggest that you be careful of potential wikistalking from certain individuals editing at Chiropractic. They have already spammed my wall twice tonight alone and are reverting my edits for no good reason. Crikey! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soyuz113 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Your edit appears to be unconstructive. You removed well referenced text. Please consider reverting your edit. QuackGuru 04:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You of all editors calling me unconstructive is hilarious. I'm not the one that has previously been blocked for unconstructive edits. You are. --Surturz (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on the edit if you want to comment at all. If you want, can you explain your specific reason for removing the Gallop poll. QuackGuru 04:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have already at Talk:Chiropractic. The issue is that you and the rest of the anti-chiropractic editors want to include the POV line "chiropractic rated last" in the article. You are not advocating its inclusion because it improves the article (it doesn't), you want it included because it pushes your POV. --Surturz (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any valid reason at chiro talk for deleting the well sourced text. If I missed it, I apologize but I don't see it. If you would be so kind, can you explain your reason for deleting the Gallop poll that was accurate and correct and meets the inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. QuackGuru 04:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You have already asked this question, and I have already answered it. --Surturz (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your non-argument and no valid explanation is a reason to revert your edit. QuackGuru 05:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Where at chiro talk does it say you have consensus to remove well sourced text.[1] QuackGuru 06:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Where at chiro talk does it say that there is consensus for inclusion of that text? --Surturz (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

See. QuackGuru 06:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You claimed the Gallop poll added to the article was SYN and NPOV violations. I am interested in improving the article. Please tell us how it is a SYN and NPOV violation. This will be helpful. QuackGuru 04:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You have already asked this question and I have already answered it. QG, your habit of asking a question, ignoring the answer, then asking the same question again is becoming tiresome. I will say this once more. The reference is POV and SYNTH because the only reason you want it in there is to imply that chiropractors are untrustworthy - which is not a correct conclusion, because the people surveyed were the general public, not chiropractic patients. In other words, the poll says more about the people being surveyed than the subject they were surveyed about. --Surturz (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Where in NPOV or SYN supports your claim of NPOV or SYN violations? I have read the policies. I can't find it. Maybe you can help. QuackGuru 18:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) WP:SYN - "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research." WP:POV - "Of course any article can be "unbalanced" because contributors have more knowledge of, or are more interested in, particular aspects of a subject than in other aspects." --Surturz (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We are not joining different sources together to come up with a conclusion C. QuackGuru 01:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are. --Surturz (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Then present your evidence how the reference or references creates a conclusion C. QuackGuru 01:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I already have at Talk:Chiropractic, and above: "The reference is POV and SYNTH because the only reason you want it in there is to imply that chiropractors are untrustworthy - which is not a correct conclusion, because the people surveyed were the general public, not chiropractic patients. In other words, the poll says more about the people being surveyed than the subject they were surveyed about.". No doubt you will ignore these arguments again and ask me for more explanations. --Surturz (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Bold text

I'm not sure how this edit improved the article. I do not see the point of bolding the text or turning part of a sentence into a hidden comment. QuackGuru 05:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored it to its MOS formatting. -- Fyslee / talk 05:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference removal

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=240126234&oldid=239669297
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=prev&oldid=240177550
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=240180063

Note: No valid explanation was made for removing references. QuackGuru 05:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

You appear to be engaging in an edit war at chiropractic. If you make more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period you may find yourself on the wrong end of a block. 3 reverts in a 24 hour period is not an entitlement. QuackGuru 06:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I will make the observation, QuackGuru, that you are the one that has been previously previously blocked for abusive editing. Since you are an involved editor, your 'friendly warning' about 3RR seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If there is an edit war at Chiropractic, then you are definitely one of the combatants. --Surturz (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And do you know the specifics of why I was previously blocked or are you making wild claims? QuackGuru 00:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care. Given that a link to 3RR appears on my user page, it is obvious that you are just trolling me. If I break 3RR then feel free to report me to an admin, otherwise please keep your own counsel. --Surturz (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

QG - word of advice WP:DTTR. Shot info (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.[2] QuackGuru 03:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:POT --Surturz (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

Your controversial edit added an old 1993 reference. It was a violation of WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru 18:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

please use an edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Your recent controversial edit deleted an important point about safety made without an edit summary. QuackGuru 01:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, sorry, realised I'd forgotten when I clicked Save. --Surturz (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am having trouble understanding how your edit improved the article. We can discuss this further at Talk:Chiropractic#Recent undiscussed changes to Safety. QuackGuru 01:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR

Can we cite references that are directly related or directly connected to a topic of an article? QuackGuru 04:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The above question is for me to know if you understand Wikipedia's OR policy. QuackGuru 04:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

See my previous "Induction" analogy at Talk:Chiropractic (probably in one of the archives by now). The issue is that you believe all "Spinal Manipulation" is the same thing. It isn't. Equating non-chiro SM with chiropractic SM is WP:OR. --Surturz (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What would be the difference in the conclusions of effectiveness if we used only chiropractic SM. QuackGuru 05:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage etiquette

Hiya, FYI, when an editor deletes comments from their talkpage, it is bad form to restore them. People are allowed to blank their own talkpages, except in certain rare situations (such as deleting unblock notices). See also WP:BLANKING. --Elonka 04:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, it's me again.  :) As another point of etiquette, please try to avoid using editors' names in edit summaries, as you did here?[3] I understand that this is a frustrating situation, but the way through it, is to stay as civil as possible, and here's why: Right now there's a smell of blood in the water at the Chiropractic article, so there are a lot of community eyes turning in that direction. Most of these people are new to the discussion, and they're not very familiar with the dispute. To such third-party observers, the first things that are going to jump out at them, are things related to incivility and personal attacks. They won't care who started it, they won't care who's been baited, they're going to care who says what, at the time that they're looking. So when you are uncivil, even if you think that another editor "deserves" it, or even if you think that you may be being humorous, all it really does is to make you look bad.  :/ So please, try to adopt as polite a tone as you can manage? That way the editors who can moderate their behavior will look good, and those who can't, are easier to spot, and thereby easier to deal with. With as complex a situation as there is at that article, we need everyone to help out as they can. So please, do whatever you can think of to de-escalate the dispute? It will be helpful to you, to the article, and to the project. Thanks, --Elonka 00:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing.  :) BTW, two other things to be aware of: One is, that you can go back and change older posts of yours. It can make you look really good to go back and refactor words said in anger, to something more civil and professional. In the Wikipedia culture, it is often perceived as a mark of emotional maturity to be able to reconsider your actions and go back and change things. Another thing to keep in mind, is to pay attention to where you're editing on Wikipedia. Observers often look at someone's contrib list to see where they're editing. If it's the same article non-stop, these raise concerns about single purpose editing. For example, look at my contribs: Elonka (talk · contribs), and then look at yours: Surturz (talk · contribs). So what you might want to do, is try to spend at least half of your time on Wikipedia, working on articles other than Chiropractic. We definitely have lots of work that needs doing! See Wikipedia:Cleanup, or Wikipedia:Requested articles, or Category:Articles that need to be wikified, or just click on Special:Random a few times (I usually find something that I want to fiddle with, within 10 clicks). Working on other articles will also serve you well, both because it "breaks up" your contrib list, and also because it can give you needed perspective on a dispute. Especially when working in as intense a warzone as the Chiropractic article, it can be really refreshing to work in an area where people are actually grateful for the help! --Elonka 01:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a problem with edit summaries, is they're practically impossible to change. There are some very very rare circumstances when we can delete an entire edit and its summary, but it's only for really extreme stuff. In most other cases, the philosophy is, "It's scrolled off, don't worry about it." --Elonka 01:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing Chiropractic

As per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions, the chiropractic article is under special editing restrictions.

1. When considering a possibly-controversial edit to the article, discuss the edit on the talk page first, attempt to gain consensus there, and do not install the edit if the consensus is against it.
2. When proposing such an edit, give other editors at least a day to comment.
3. If you're not completely sure whether an edit might be controversial, assume that it will be controversial.

Edit warring and editing without discussion on the talkpage or respect for consensus is not acceptable. Follow the guidelines above or I will implement a lengthy and broad topic ban. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please remove personal attack

I request that you remove your personal attack against me in this section. Please just answer the RfC question as it is, otherwise your "vote" is invalid. It's a question of simple logic and knowledge of chiropractic. That's all. Other possibly related issues (yes, there are such issues) are being dealt with elsewhere, and can also be dealt with later. -- Fyslee / talk 14:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)