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 assume janitorial 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 opposed to doing so and use archives instead. If I inadvertently change the meaning, please contact me! When all else fails, check the edit history. -- Fyslee (collaborate)

$\star$  Regarding posting (or reposting) of my personal info at Wikipedia  $\star$ $\star$  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 mail 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 myself on or off wiki should not be construed by 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 wiki. While such revealings here have often been done innocently, I still reserve the right to delete such personal information posted here at Wikipedia by others. My own and my 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
• 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 that it could be taken offensively. So i would like to keep my edits etc, as I have put a lot of effort and time into edits I have made. I suggest the username 'Acromantula'|2=User:Acromantula is taken; please consult Special:Listusers to search for usernames to find one that isn't taken. While we're on it, if you username had been available I would be rather hesitant to unblock you. Yes, your username is (somewhat) offensive... but you were really blocked because you are POV-pushing. Admins are generally hesitant to block for POV pushing, because it's a judgment call. But I'm firm in my judgment, that's what you were doing. No one has been buying your argument that the Cold reading article should say that it is only "claimed" that people use cold reading. Your basis of argument is your own beliefs, rather than external factors like sources. And you continue to hammer the same points regardless of how many people have opposed them. In other words, you lost the argument and you should stop; it's crossing the threshold into disruption. So, if you find an available username I'm willing to unblock, and view this block as only about your username, but this POV-pushing behavior is a serious problem and if you don't address it you'll soon be blocked again. 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)

Spinal manipulation research

A collection of spinal manipulation research abstracts, news reports and other commentaries, with special emphasis on risks, plus some other interesting sources. Some sources on the related subjects of Chiropractic, Physical Therapy, Osteopathic medicine, and Osteopathy are also included. Some are of purely historical interest and others present the latest evidence. They are kept here as a resource for editing 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 helping to avoid duplication.

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

User:69.127.37.241 made this massive revamp of the existing Chiropractic article, leaving us with a version as only a very typical and truly deluded straight chiropractor could wish it. A very interesting object for study of the straight chiropractic mind. Believe it or not, this is classic chiropractic in 2008! Seeing this type of ignorance might be considered unbelievable to most, but for those who study the chiropractic profession, this is quite a common phenomenon. -- Fyslee / talk 04:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Templates

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

• {{User:Fyslee/Template vandalism}}

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

• {{User:Fyslee/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:Fyslee/Pseudoscience 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, Fleetwood Mac, Aerosmith, 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 it's been quite an education." [2]

It's all about one's learning curve. None of us is perfect or fully understands Wikipedia. We've got to learn from our mistakes and improve. An editor's collaborative potential and redeemability should be judged by their Wikipedian learning curve, not by exceptional and occasional displays of human frailty, that are then blown out of proportion and even distorted by their antagonists. Do they occasionally "cross 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 contributions 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)

Can I ask you Fyslee where these things fit in with projects? Take attachment therapy - a pseudoscience relating to attachment which claims to be mainstream and is practiced by some psychologists (still). In earlier days a few shoddy studies appeared in peer reviewed journals, as do articles, and also articles in books on psych topics. Mainstream psychologists and psychiatrists have analysed it and debunked it with a series of publications in peer reviewed journals and books. My question is - is this still part of psychology in the sense that a pseudoscience is a pseudo which battens on or derives from some form of science? Pseudosciences do not stand alone. In the same way, is homeopathy part of the medicine project in that it purports to be medicine and the research that has been and is still being done on it is medical research? Medicine is the science its the pseudo of. The alternative view is to lump all pseudosciences together. Am I making sense? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm....I'm not sure if I understand everything you're getting at, so I'll take a stab at part of it. If a practice makes medical or scientific claims, then it likely belongs in some sense under the medicine project AND the alternative medicine project, but the medical project will of course call it what it is -- quackery and pseudoscience, since they are the ones best able to evaluate the scientific and medical claims being made, while many of those in the alternative medicine project may seek to defend it. Others who deal with such subjects all the time may be better able to deal with the societal effects, and the unethical and legal aspects. Doctors and scientists who do both are usually active scientific skeptics (IOW, debunkers and quackbusters), while "pure" scientists usually ignore the subject as unworthy of their attention. The debunkers and quackbusters are concerned about ethics, truth in advertising, and consumer protection, so they are activists on the matter. Maybe we need a project that spans the two projects and includes editors who are concerned about ethics and scientific accuracy. I don't know if that helps at all, and maybe I've missed the mark entirely. If you are getting at something else, please be more specific and provide an actual situation. -- Fyslee (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats about it really. Put simply the question is - should psychology pseudosciences be part of the psychology project and medical pseudosciences be part of the medicine project or should they be totally divorced from them on the grounds that because they are pseudosciences they are not actually "psychology" or "medicine"? If neither fits the bil, should there be "sub-projects". Just having a pseudoscience project seems to me to divorce the pseudosciences from their roots as it were. This does not seem satisfactory to me as the scientific investigation of pseudoscientific or borderline claims is very much part of the work of the scientific community (for the more serious pseudosciences that is. Lots of them don't really attract serious attention). The specific example is the one I gave you above - Attachment therapy, a pseudoscience which got removed from the psychology project for that reason. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:40, 29 March 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)

"could coverage"?

See [4] -- 'good coverage' perhaps? Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Will fix. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

At WP:ANI#Martinphi requesting unblock there are three posts in which you attack Unomi based on an unfounded belief that he is a sockpuppet or returning user. As I noted elsewhere, with only a little research you can easily find out which country Unomi is editing from. You can also google his user name to find a lot of additional information about him, some of it related to his country of residence. The SPI case (apparently Unomi didn't know it was a RfCU since the term seems to be officially out of use since the merge of all SPIs to a single page) ends with "Checkuser evidence shows no IP-relationship nor any geographic relationship nor any other checkusery sort of evidence between the three candidates". I have rarely if ever seen such a strong formulation for a negative CU result. It led to the following unblock comment: "Checkuser evidence appears to indicate this sockpuppet ID was a mistake. Undoing my own block."

I have analysed at Talk:Aspartame controversy#Unomi deserves an apology how several editors, most notably one who was blocked for edit warring two weeks ago and hasn't logged in after the block expired, have shown typical mobbing behaviour in response to very little provocation and the flimsiest evidence. I have had ZERO responses pointing out any inaccuracy in my analysis or even just disagreeing with it. The short version: Unomi tried to fix the misrepresentation of a source, didn't go about it with the care necessary at a controversial article, and got no constructive feedback. OM told him "Please see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, WP:VERIFY, and WP:CIVIL for good measure. Oh, and you're approaching tendentious editing." Unomi did follow at least the last of these links, and at WP:TEND#Characteristics of problem editors found a reference to an obscure old Arbcom case. OM replied: "Sniff. Sniff. Damn someone forgot to wash some socks out." From that point on, OM and some others shut down communication with Unomi almost completely, instead repeating the baseless sockpuppet accusations as a mantra.

You should be more careful before attacking others in public. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the results of the CU, and I noted that in my comment. I have put a hat on the dispute which veered way off-topic. I still stand by my descriptions of Unomi's edit warring and SPI status, and was surprised by the denial, and then the subsequent inaccurate attacks (I was indeed vindicated, since I had been judged in the absence of evidence), which escalated things. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Slip through" is hardly an appropriate description of a strongly negative CU result after a fishing expedition. To repeat myself from the analysis I linked above: Guess the word that is missing here: "Xs have been characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other expert […]." Incidentally, I am getting a certain unfavourable impression of you. Do you remember an instance where you admitted you were wrong about something? I would love to read it and raise my opinion of you. Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have apologized many times during my stay here at Wikipedia. That Unomi wasn't nailed by the CU doesn't change the fact that Unomi still edits in a tendentious mannerm but has at least seemed to drop the obsession with the Aspartame controversy matter. I do see some ray of hope for this relatively new user, and that is because (s)he doesn't always follow the pseudoskeptical party line usually pushed by Levine2112. I am seeing more attempts at seeking consensus, which is a very positive trend. I'm hoping the best for this user. It does take time to learn the ropes here. None of us understands all the ins and outs of Wikipedia, and we are all learning. Mistakes will happen, apologies need to be made, and wounds can be healed. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the strikethrough in the ANI comment. I count this as an answer. Nevertheless I am not very impressed by the language you are continuing to use. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it that I describe the behavior of a tendentious editor? That's my opinion. You are welcome to yours. I am being very subdued compared to what some admins are urging me to do, which is to raise the issues at RfC on user behavior. I'm being encouraged to actually try to get both Unomi and Levine2112 indef blocked, but I'm waiting and we are collecting evidence. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If that's what people are encouraging you to do, then you are probably keeping bad company. I am not impressed by what Levine has been doing on the pseudosciences list, and if you look at the analysis I linked above you will see that I am not uncritical of Unomi's edits, either. Yet in my opinion is Unomi and Levine don't fit the criteria detailed in WP:TEND; their crime is simply to form a counterweight to other editors who also don't quite fit the criteria (example). Their respective behaviour is inconvenient to some, but certainly not banworthy. I think it's nevertheless OK if you claim that Unomi is editing tendentiously, because that's clearly a subjective statement.

The language I was objecting to was: "That Unomi wasn't nailed by the CU doesn't change the fact that...". And also some things at ANI that didn't get strikethrough: You quoted User talk:Unomi#Indefinitely blocked - apparent sockpuppet of User:Immortale as if that thread reflected badly on Unomi. Obviously many people are not going to follow the link, so they won't see that contrary to what you would expect, in that thread nothing remotely like hard evidence is presented, Unomi gets strong support from slakr (who seems to be completely uninvolved) and me, and he is unblocked by the blocking admin because of a negative checkuser result. And of course, "a CU was indeed performed, which you did slip through".

This is what I mean by character assassination. If you have any evidence that Unomi is a returning user or somebody's sockpuppet, you need to put it on the table. If you have no evidence other than an ultimately unsuccessful fishing expedition by his enemies, then you must shut up.

For some perspective, you might want to look at this new user. It appears that his first contributions were to an article that was deleted. All his following activities seem to revolve around the deleted article. Transfer this new user into the present, and it would be fairly easy to convince a checkuser to use the tools to see whether he is a good hand account of ScienceApologist, or something like that. It would probably come out negative, but of course after that one can go around repeating that there is something wrong with this "new" user even though he narrowly escaped a checkuser conviction. Or can one? Should one be able to do that? --Hans Adler (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL - Hans has been busy on talkpages lately :-) Shot info (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time. It happens occasionally, when I see that someone is being mobbed. I just can't have that. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your efforts might be better used if you would discuss the problems with the one being criticized and advised them of how Wikipedia works so they don't get into more trouble. By criticizing me you are siding with them and giving them more courage to continue their disruptions. Not that I don't sometimes deserve to be cautioned, but don't forget to do something about the cause of the whole problem - pushers of fringe POV. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I am neglecting that part. But criticising a mobbing victim publicly is not an ethical option. And the fringe POV pushers are clearly not the only problem we have here. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

• From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
• Special report: Community weighs license update
• News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Unkind words

Please remove your personal attack on me. Address the substance of my argument rather than attacking me. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

He is - just because you don't like it doesn't make it less valid. Shot info (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I only noticed this edit due to posting a barnstar here, and all I have to say "wow". This was the kind of post that should be kept somewhere, and probably deserves another barnstar. Something like this would make a good basis for or extension to an essay. Verbal chat 09:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! I truly wish I could have commented on the substance of the argument without mentioning the author of the argument, but the two are wedded together. The situation is so likeAlice in Wonderland as to be bizarre. His argument strikes so directly at misuses of basic logic and common sense that parts of my reply are worthy of inclusion in our polices to some degree. In fact it already is, but worded better. Eldereft cited the relevant part from WP:RS, a part I wasn't really aware of, but which means that we are often violating RS, because we aren't enforcing that part of it. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that the barnstar is for edits more general than just this post; I wasn't even aware of this at the time I posted the barnstar. Verbal chat 14:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Picking a petty point of pure pedantry, RS is technically a guideline elaborating and expanding on the policy V. But yeah - I think this encyclopedia would benefit immeasurably if we all were actually to adhere to appropriate sourcing. Also, good call; there is nothing wrong with calling out unproductive discussion and unproductive editing patterns. Keeping those discussions tightly focused on the article at hand is the only way I have found to keep them even remotely editable. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For continued service

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your contributions to medicine and science articles, and those articles that would otherwise make claim to be such. Verbal chat 09:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Huzzah for edits based entirely on appropriate sourcing! - Eldereft (cont.) 17:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Unomi

Unomi, you have made a number of statements at the NPOV noticeboard that puzzle me. What are you talking about? Your heading there and the content that followed don't seem to hang together. You immediately turned it into an attack on me, QW, and Barrett. Here are some of the things you wrote that I'd like you to explain:

1. You wrote: "@Fyslee: I am going to ask you one last time to cease and desist with using strawman tactics and attributing statements or intents to me which you do not back up with diffs. I have never sought inclusion of Scientology sources." ^{(BTW, your use of @ isn't standard indentation here and is rather irritating. Very few use it.)}

1a. Where did you ask me to "cease and desist..."?

1b. What "strawman tactic" are you referring to? (Be VERY specific with a quote and diff.)

1c. What statement or intent have I attributed to you?

1d. Where have I stated that you "sought inclusion of Scientology sources"? That was a subject relevant to the heading of the section, but I didn't write anything about "you" doing it. That wouldn't have been true at all. We both know that it is Levine2112 that is doing so.

2. You wrote: "The source which you seem to hold in such high regard was held in such low esteem by California Superior Court Judge Hon. Haley J. Fromholz that he saw fit to write..."

2a. Where does he refer to QW in any manner? He is referring to Barrett in a very limited and specific situation, where he was poorly prepared because of a bad lawyer he was using at the time. Nothing the judge said applies to Barrett in other situations outside the court room, or even on that subject (FDA regulations) in other situations, where he is usually much better prepared. It certainly didn't address QW at all. You're stretching his comments way out of context and applying them too broadly. You are not the only one who has done that, and that person is currently being sued for libel by Barrett.

2b. Just FYI, the judge was heavily biased against Barrett and the other expert witness, to the point that there are questions about whether he was influenced by illegal methods, and he made a very poor call. He was obviously antagonistic and far from unbiased, as a judge should be.

3. You wrote: "...but you must realize then that in-text attribution of the opinions must be..."

3a. I agree with you! I have written it several times. How many more times do I have to write it before you will believe me?

4. You wrote: "You consistently indicated your unwillingness to abide by wikipedia guidelines and policy..."

4a. I have not "indicated". That's your interpretation.

4b. It is also a matter of interpretation as to whether or not I am abiding by those guidelines and policies. Other very experienced editors agree with me and disagree with you, a newbie here. Don't be so bombastic in your statements. Maybe we happen to understand those policies better than you. If you rely on Levine2112 for an understanding of those policies, you will surely be led astray. Recognize that he is wikilawyering, and thus is twisting them to his own purposes.

5. You wrote: "...if you continue to make unfounded and slanderous accusations we will very quickly see ourselves at yet another venue for dispute resolution."

5a. What accusations are you referring to? I don't find any accusations on that page. That's pretty strong language.

5b. What other "venue" are you referring to? Is that a threat? I can assure you that if you were to escalate this matter, your every edit would be carefully examined and I doubt you would survive at Wikipedia. You would likely be indef blocked or banned as some other editors who have done similar things to me have experienced. They are no longer allowed access to Wikipedia.

In spite of (and maybe because of ;-) the fact that I am quite knowledgeable about the ideas of many forms of alternative medicine, most notably chiropractic, having made it a study for many decades, I am a very strongly pro-science, mainstream, editor who adheres to Wikipedia policies as best I can. I'm not perfect, but no one can question my loyalty to Wikipedia's policies and NPOV. I have made mistakes, especially in the beginning, but I have a positive learning curve. As examples of my support of NPOV you will find that I am one who supports and protects the inclusion of some of the worst fringe nonsense imaginable here. Why? Because if it is a notable fringe subject, then NPOV requires that it be presented here, and I support that. In the other direction, I support the inclusion of legitimate and well-sourced criticisms of mainstream subjects. I'm not a deletionist or whitewasher.

Please explain your accusations and refer to each item by number. Do it below. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)