User talk:Valjean

$\star$  Some principles governing this talk page  $\star$ Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette here. This talk page is my territory, and I asse janitoial responsibility for it. I may, without notice, refactor comments to put like with like, correct indents, or retitle sections to reflect their contents more clearly. While I reserve the right to delete comments, I am normally oposed to doing so and use archives itead. If I inadvertentl change the meaning, please contact me! When all else fails, check the edit history. -- Fylee</> (collaborate)</cent

$\star$  Regarding posting (or reposting) of my personal info at Wikipedia  $\star$br> $\star$  DON'T DO IT!!  $\star$ Lately I have become more sensitive to the posting of personal information about myself here at Wikipedia. I am the target of cyberstalking and hate ail from some pretty unbalanced people and regularly receive threats (including occasional death threats). While I don't normally have any reason to hide my true identity, any past revealings by mysel on or off wiki shoud not be construedby others as license to do it here at Wikipedia, where only my "Fyslee" tag should be used. My personal identity and activities off wiki should be kept separate from my user name and activities on iki. While such revealings here hae often been don inocenly, I still reserve the right to deletesuch personal information posted here at Wikipedia by others. My own and y family's security is at stake here, and I would appreciate support in this matter. Thanks. -- Fyslee (collaborate)

Stuff....

Homeopathy

• Conditions Under Which Homeopathic Drugs May be Marketed - FDA
• [http://www.homeowat

h.org/ Homeowatch], especially the "Legal and Regulatory Matters" section

Source

Considered unencyclopedic

Block and unblock of a POV pusher

• "unblock-un reviewed|Ok, so I seem to have been blocked for having an inappropriate name. I apologise profusely for this, I didn't realise at the time of creating this account thatit could be taken offensively. So i would like to keep my edits etc, as I have put alot of effortand tie into edits I have made. I suggest the username 'Acromantula'|2=User:Acromantula is taken; please consult Speci:Listusers tosearch fr usernames to find one that isn't taken. While we're on it, if you username had been available I would be rer hesitant to unblock you. Yes, your username is (somewhat) offensive... but you were really blocked because you are POV-pushig. Admins are generall hesitant to block r POV pushing, because it's a judgment call. But I'm firm in my judgment, that's what you wereld reading. Yur basis of argument is your own beliefs, rather than external factors like sources. And you continue to hammer the same points regrdless of how any people have opposed them. In other words, you lost the argument and you should stop; i's crossing the thrhod into disruption. So, if you find an available username I'm willing to unblock, and view this bl as only about your username, but this POV-pushing behaviorise|'juice]]^{[User alk:Mangojuice|talk]]} 16:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Source

• Promises to reform: "unblock-un|Then how is the name 'machomonkey'? And i apologise if you dislike my edits, yet i have felt that they are biased towards the oppposite viewpoint. What I have done is not right, admittedly, although it is no worse than what has been done by others. If that is what is required, I shall change my ways." [1], but the edit summary says otherwise: "contested block and provided new name"
• Name changed from Phallicmonkey (monkey dick) to Macromonkey

Editing controversial articles

Feel free to comment. -- Fyslee / talk 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

h]]

A collection of spinal manipulation research Some sources on the related subjects of Chiropractic, Physical Therapy, Osteopathic medicine, and Osteopathy are also included. Some are of purely istorical interest and others present the latest evidence. They are kept here as a resource for editng articles. This list is far from exhaustive. It is currently organized by year, for lack of a better system, which has the immediate benefit of hel

If you have any additional sources, suggestions for improvement or personal comments, please use the talk page. Thanks. -- Fyslee / talk

Nice navigation bar here

Wikipedia:How to edit a page

Excellent tips and tricks.

Straight version of chiropractic article

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sthe straight chiropractic mind. Believe it or not, this is classic chiropractic in 2008! Seeing this type of ignorance might be considered unbelievale to most, but for those who study the chiropractic profession, this is quite a common phenomenon. -- <font colo

Templates

• User:Fyslee/Template_privacy
• User:Fyslee/Template_vandalism

• {{Usr:Fyslee/Template vandalism}}

• User:Fysee/Templates
• User:Fyslee/Background

• {{User:Fylee/Background}}

Created List of alternative medicine subjects

Done. -- Fyslee / talk 04:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Subpages

• Quackery definitions throughout history
• Alternative medicine critics
• User:Fyslee/List of alternative medicine subjects

• Watchlist: List of alternative medicine subjects

• User:Fyslee/Vandalism templates
• User:Fyslee/Presidents
• User:FysleePseudoscience stuff

Music groups Supergroup (article), Traffic, Blind Faith, Blood, Sweat & Tears, Dire Straits, The Yardbirds, Cream, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Spencer Davis Group, Rolling Stones, Fleetwoo Mac, Aersmith, Queen, Big Brother and the Holding Company

Musicians

Steve Winwood, Dave Mason, Eric Clapton, Mark Knopfler, Jim Capaldi, Ginger Baker, Elton John, Sting, Phil Collins, John Mayall, Jimi Hendrix, Jeff Beck, Jimmy Page

It's all about our learning curve

Let's start with a quote from Dave Mason, a great musician and entertainer:

• "As for me, if I'd have known better, I'd have done better. It's all been lessons, and everybody's got their lessons to learn. I'm trying my best, and I'm certainly trying to learn from my mistakes. But I'd like to thank all the people that fucked me, because is been quite an education." [2]

It's all about one's learning curve. None of us is perfect oal and redeemability should be judged by their Wikipedian learning curve, not by exceptional and occasional displays the line" when under fire, which is quite human, or do they operate on the other side of the line most of the time, finding incivility and the personal attack mode to be their natural element? A look at the totality of an editor's ontributions is essential before making judgments. A positive learning curve is what it's all about. - Fyslee

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request to amend prior case:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Thought you'd want to know I've asked for a finding related to you to be amended. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG! I have just complained about this particular issue. It looks like we're on the same page. I'll go there now and make a statement. Done. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Now located here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Motion

Motion in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

The Arbitration Committee has altered the above-linked case by successful open motion. The header of the finding which previously read "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (Finding of Fact 3.2) has been changed to "Sources used by Fyslee".

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! There is some justice here after all. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Parsing of WP:PSCI

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines on the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. The four groupings found at WP:PSCI Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I have previously parsed the ArbCom decision's four groupings, here reproduced and tweaked:

There is an obvious demarcation line that the ArbCom members seemed to recognize, and that is "who is supporting or criticizing what."

They made four groupings, and the first two are always recognized by the scientific mainstream as fringe=alternative (often alternative medicine) ideas opposed to the mainstream, but supported by believers in pseudosciences. The scientific mainstream criticism is allowed to be stated, IOW that the fringe=alternative believers are wrong, and that their position is pseudoscientific, all by the use of V & RS, and can (in addition) even be so characterized by editors at Wikipedia (by using the [[Category:Pseudoscience]] tag). IOW, the ArbCom decision is supporting scientific mainstream editors and limiting fringe editors:

• 1. Obvious pseudoscience
• 2. Generally considered pseudoscience

The next two are quite different, since they are about ideas on the mainstream side of the demarcation line mentioned above. They are mainstream ideas that may or may not be firmly entrenched, but are somewhat trusted or still being researched in a legitimate manner. They may actually be experimental. No matter what, they are not considered fringe or alternative medicine ideas. They are sometimes accused by the fringe side as pseudoscientific (in true pseudoskeptical style - see Carroll), and the ArbCom decision forbids the fringe editors here from categorizing those mainstream ideas as pseudoscientific. Again, the ArbCom decision is supporting mainstream editors and limiting fringe editors:

• 3. Questionable science (IOW, things like psychoanalysis, which is considered mainstream and is specifically addressed by the ArbCom, and would not be allowed in this list).
• 4. Alternative theoretical formulations ("are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process," IOW also considered mainstream, and would not be allowed in this list. "Experimental alternatives are unproven but have a plausible rationale and are undergoing responsible investigation."[3])

I think this parsing is more accurate and it makes sense. The ArbCom members would hardly be expected to disallow V & RS, but they certainly would set limits on what certain fringe=alternative editors have occasionally tried to do - editorially calling mainstream ideas pseudoscientific by categorizing them as such. The ArbCom members support mainstream science and set limits on how far fringe editors can go in (mis)using Wikipedia categories. They are not addressing the use of V & RS in lists and articles.

Changing the title of the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts would help to enable the use of all V & RS, as required by inclusion criteria. The current title is not NPOV. We need a List of subjects alleged to be pseudoscientific or List of subjects asserted to be pseudoscientific, or better yet, List of topics referred to as pseudoscientific. That would be the primary inclusion criteria (IOW what was "on-topic"), and would allow well-sourced criticisms by scientific academies, various organizations, and even individuals who are quoted in V & RS. At the same time the ArbCom decision would disallow the disruptive POINT violations of pseudoskeptics who attempt to include more-or-less mainstream ideas in this list (such as vaccinations, antibiotics, etc., as has happened). Such sabotage attempts would not be allowed. Those who are still acting in a protectionist mode will of course attempt to retain a hard title "List of pseudosciences", since that will allow them to keep their widely criticized pet ideas out of this list. That's unwikipedian and such attempts should be defeated. It limits the list by disallowing many very notable opinions in V & RS.

-- Fyslee (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Mysterious huffings in Mindinao.

Whoops, I belatedly noticed your request to respond here. Alas, I have only general ideas to offer. NickyMcLean (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)