User talk:Pansophia

A welcome from Sango123

Hello, Pansophia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

I second the welcome. Always glad to see new members. Feel free to shout at me if you have anything to say, too. :)--ViolinGirl^♪ 00:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• No problem! I'm glad the welcome was helpful. :) Regards, Sango123 (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• >>> Already used the above info to add a picture! :-) --Pansophia 00:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Kaiser Permanente

Hey, no problem. Let me know if you need anything at all. --Merovingian 18:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Kaiser Permanente page

actually what I did was submit this for peer review. I feel you have taken this article into a bizarre direction for an encyclopedia by making it a 'dissect kaiser site.' you made the criticism section longer than the entire rest of the article! my heavens! then added 4 links to sites that contain the same information! --not just of each other but of the wikipedia entry. in fact, one article has a link to something call 'kaiserpermanente sucks'

you could save me alot of typing but making a tight, fact-based, opinion-less criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cotman8 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Pansophia! Just wanted to let you know, User:Cotman8 put this on your userpage, so I moved it here for you. Cheers!--ViolinGirl^♪ 01:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks, ViolinGirl! I did offer to discuss this with him. He's continuing to make false accusations. I didn't add the links that he's talking about.

--Pansophia 01:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you all are having a dispute and you need help, see WP:DR. Cheers!--ViolinGirl^♪ 13:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Kaiser Permanente peer review

Although peer review is definitely not the right place for such a controversial and unstable article, you should probably leave the template on the article's talk page since a request has already been made. Alternatively, you may nominate the peer review for deletion at Miscellany for Deletion (not Articles for Deletion!), since it does not conform to the stated purpose of peer review. I don't know if there has ever been a precedent for the deletion of a peer review, so I don't know what to expect from the deletion process. But if the peer review is deleted, the tag should certainly be removed from the talk page, and the conflict should be moved to the proper arena. Feel free to ask me any further questions on my talk page. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 19:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you're referring to the {{disputed}} tag. I thought you were talking about {{peerreview}}. Well, in that case, you should definitely resolve the dispute before removing the template. I would suggest asking for a third opinion. --TantalumTelluride 02:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:NoRankism.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:NoRankism.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Rhobite 19:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Jkelly 19:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are checking these guys for the three revert rule as well? I hope I can call on you to enforce that. There seems to be a swarm determined to undo the agreement that was reached yesterday. --Pansophia 19:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that page's history suggests that both User:Rhobite and User:MarkSweep have reverted three times but not a fourth, but I would have to invest a lot of time to be certain about that (User:Rhobite seems to be making a number of edits serially that aren't reversions). If you can show otherwise, please use [WP:AN/3RR]] to report it. You, judging from the history, have made five reverts. As I understand it, you hold that there is some sort of agreement at Talk:Kaiser_Permanente to remove the company logo and official website from the article and add a link to a livejournal. Frankly, if such an agreement has been reached, something has gone badly wrong with that discussion. Please stop reverting. I suggest, purely as editing advice, to accept that the article is probably going to contain the company's logo and official website, and work out some consensus on any other issues. Thanks. Jkelly 20:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have only made one revert. The other edits were to try to get people back on the Talk page. Since there's a double standard here, I will stick to major edits. --Pansophia 20:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You should probably read the page at WP:3RR. Jkelly 20:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand 3RR. I also understand that you see it as focusing on some people rather than others. I will be making substantial edits for the rest of the day. --Pansophia 20:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Substantial edits can be reversions. The fact that you are mentioning "major" or "substantial" edits indicates to me that you are unclear about how WP:3RR is applied. I would prefer that you consider my taking the time to discuss this with you an indication of preference for discussion over rules-lawyering or blocking. If you can demonstrate that some other party broke the rule, list it at WP:AN/3RR and, I assure you, an admin will look into it. Neither of the other editors involved need any explanation of how the rule works, which is why I am here and not there. Please also see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 20:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not reverting to any previous version. I'm adding material to balance out the insertion of corporate propaganda. I would have preferred to have the AGF applied to me as well, but that didn't happen. --Pansophia 21:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

Allopathic Lobby

Hi,

I see you are having a run in with these folks. They work really hard to prevent any criticism of allopathy appearing in Wikipedia.

Stay cool and do not let them wind you up. That is the first tactic - the making of aggressive or personally attacking comments. It is done to get you to react so that they can block you. They will also pile in together to make it look like there is a consensus and what you are writing is the lone ranting of a fanatic. And that is another tactic - trying to make it look like you are a fanatic or crank.

If you get the time, take a look at this [[1]] and this [[2]]. There is plenty more.

I see there is a mediation in the offing. Don't expect fair treatment and then you won't be disappointed when you do not get it. It is all part of the rich pageant of life on Wikipedia.

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance

The Invisible Anon 06:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You have no idea how grateful I am for a show of support. I know the attacks are to provoke me into actions they can then complain about, and they are not following the rules they seek to apply to me. And I do feel they are piling on me, and try to gaslight me into thinking they represent transcendent neutrality instead of an editorial stance. It wasn't really bothering me until they started dragging other people into it.

I'm not going to participate in the mediation unless the panel looks pretty even. I know they're just trying to get their POV protected.

Again, it's really great to hear from someone who sees through all the maneuvering. It's as good as a virtual hug. Thanks! :-) --Pansophia 06:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. It helps to know you are not alone. I hope some others might also give you their support.

Oh and be careful in using Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance. Check out who you approach - if you do decide to approach anyone. Look up their talk pages, user page, user and talk page histories and contributions. If you want help you want the good kind and not the other kind.

The Invisible Anon 12:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That's all excellent advice. Thanks. :-)--Pansophia 20:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Kaiser

When we protect, we're doing it to give the parties time and space to work things out. How you work it out is up to you. We unprotect when the dispute is settled. We don't care how. We also don't choose the "version" we protect. We just protect. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is they don't want "settled" or they would have used the talk page to do it. They're trying to use various Wikipedia maneuvers to get their POV protected as the transcendent one. How can the page be unprotected unless I agree to participate in what currently looks like an unfair mediation? The protection will just remain in place forever...which is what they want. --Pansophia 07:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I unprotected it. Not sure why I hit every "hot potato" when I protect. I don't care how you do it but use dispute resolution. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Your continuing removal of factual information from the Kaiser Permanente infobox constitutes vandalism. Please stop now. If you continue, you will find yourself blocked from editing Wikipedia. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Your behavior toward me constitutes WikiStalking (following me to the other page) and ignores Assumption of Good Faith. You have broken 3RR seemingly without fear of any WARNING yourself. If anyone should be blocked, it's you. --Pansophia 04:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted Wikipedia Article?

Hi - I went to visit the page on Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum to see what condition it was in. When I took a look at the Talk page, I saw a claim that the author had copyrighted the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pseudoxanthoma_elasticum

Is such a copyright notice kosher? Does that affect editing the article in any way? --Pansophia 03:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

(Ps. It's ok to answer on my Talk page)

By editing wikipedia you agree to license your textual contributions under the GFDL as described on the edit page. I left a note on the talk page explaining that and that if the editor had any other questions to contact me. I searched online for the text as well to make sure it wasn't a copyright violation and it seems to be original work. In the meantime though there is no need to treat the article any differently. - cohesion★talk 05:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The invisible Anon

Before you defend him as being "ganged up on", I'd suggest you take a look here: [3], and tell me your opinion of the situation. ... actually, I'd like you to tell me your honest opinion on that anyway, now that I think about it. Michael Ralston 06:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I confess I can't figure out what is going on here. For the record, I don't consider you to be acting in bad faith - you've shown nothing but long-suffering patience in trying to deal with the KP NPOV issue. However, I think Invisible Anon feels unfairly besieged and has gone through all kinds of work to detail the sources of concern. The issue seems to go back to an extremely controversial point - whether the critique of circumcision is anti-semitic. It's offensive to accuse (or in this case imply) another person of being anti-semitic, but it's also offensive to let something that's considered to be anti-semitic just stand. (and please let me know if I've got the situation totally wrong).

It seems to me that this difficult conflict erupted into other arenas, and Invisible Anon was trying to fight back. Because I'm having the same problem right now, I'm pretty sympathetic. I'd be happy to take your part if you feel in imminent danger of being blocked, but I think the best solution is to persuade others to stop the wargaming on Invisible Anon. Again, please let me know if I'm missing a major point here. --Pansophia 06:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Upon reading the Talk page on the anti-vaccinationist article - is the root issue actually that the term anti-vaccinationist itself is a weasel word? That's a tough one. Maybe it should redirect to a relevant article with a paragraph on the implications of the word anti-vaccinationist? Anyway, it does seem that Midgley is a bit abrasive, so I still see where Invisible Anon is coming from.--Pansophia 06:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Midgley is abrasive, I'll admit that - but the Anon, Leifern, and Ombudsman have been equally abrasive on several vaccination-related articles. As for the anti-semitism issue ... Anon may have confused you (He almost confused me, and I was there!) - I accused nobody of being anti-semitic. I did feel the Anon did, and that said accusation was unjust. (Midgley's criticism, while hyperbolic, is also reasonable.) Honestly, I doubt that's the real issue, just one Anon felt he could stir some trouble up over, unlike others. So. I think the root issue is ... mostly some POV disagreements, possibly combined with me starting out with less of a grasp on NPOV than I have now. But ... thanks for what you've had to say, heh. Michael Ralston 06:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it was unjust. If someone says circumcision is child abuse, and Jews have historically identified themselves as a people with their practice of circumcision [this is certainly a big deal as the demarcator of the Jews in the Old Testament], then the syllogism seems to come down to calling Jews child abusers. I don't take any position on the circumcision issue or the vaccination issue (though I do of course know what it's like to be relegated to the lunatic fringe), so all I'm looking at is whether personal provocation is occuring. It seems to have originated from Midgley, though I can believe given the controversial issues that there are probably a lot of sly insults coming from both sides.

From what I could see, you said the comment wasn't anti-semitic, and Invisible Anon felt you made a false accusation about whether he/she made a false accusation against Midgley...? Then all these side moves started occuring on Admin and Delete pages (and maybe some contention over edits as well?). Why don't you see if you can get IA's User Page restored as a peace offering and then just assume the POV disagreements will continue (but maybe the side moves will die down). --Pansophia 07:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll have to consider that one. (Surprisingly, we haven't had any edit disagreements in quite a while. Then again, my edits are primarily copyedits, and Anon hasn't made many edits to articles at all lately.) Maybe ... hmm. Well, I'm going to think about it tonight (... more how than if), but you do have a point - offering an olive branch can't hurt. Michael Ralston 07:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for asking my opinion. It's nice to be treated as a reasonable human being. :-) --Pansophia 07:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed so, and like everyone your actions combine good ones and less good for a variety of motives. You should however reflect for a moment on the nature of identity, and the use of repeatable pseudonyms. The Invisible Anon 13:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, I have - identity evokes stereotypes and draws prejudices, where anons can offer ideas without the baggage of identity. I totally understand. The people who try to cast all anons as malicious just want the power that comes with getting a fix on your identity. --Pansophia 20:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Advice?

Dear Pansophia,

First. I suggest taking a step back from all of this. You need to rise above it. In fact, the dialogue taking place here [[4]] is encouraging and positive. It shows how those with opposing views can come together and try to achieve a consensus.

I do not suggest the following general comments apply to the editor you are dealing with in this particular situation.

Some other editors are aggressive in their language and approach because they feed on getting an emotional response from their target, so don't give emotional responses (eg. "Please stop the harassment!" [[5]])

Sometimes (often) the best response is to avoid responding and just stick to the facts and issues, ignoring all peripheral "noise". You may even then find that defuses even the most aggressive editors - one even complimented me on my editing skills in consequence.

You can always be polite but, where necessary, firm. You can be polite without being weak.

As for the issues on Rankism, Mark Sweep may have a point over this particular edit. If you feel I am wrong on this please feel free to correct me. I could not see a difference between http://www.breakingranks.net Manifest Dignity and http://www.breakingranks.net Breaking Ranks. They both go to the same main page. Are the links correct?

As for the attempts to have my user talk page deleted, I am grateful to you for your helpful intervention and that of User:Leifern. It will be interesting to see how this initiative from User:Midgley plays out. Here are some other items that will help put more general matters in context.

You will see from this exchange [[6]] with a member of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees and Steward (responsible for controlling Admins) that the problems are deep seated. A number of policies and conventions (eg. assuming good faith, no personal attacks, civility) are cast aside even at this high level as you can see from the reply "paranoid", "disruptive", "creating sockpuppets". Clearly, whilst the policies exist, perhaps some of those responsible for the overall control of Wikipedia are not paying sufficient attention themselves to observing the policies. I believe the next Board of Trustee elections are in a couple of months (May?), so if you have a vote, you may want to consider using it.

You will also see here [[7]] a considerable degree of dissatisfaction with the current state of play on Admin accountability.

I have gone on record here [[8]] as saying I will consider registering when the Admin issue is dealt with. Registration is, in fact, a red-herring and the more so where responsible editors are concerned.

[| The Invisible Anon] 10:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Invisible Anon - you're correct about the identical links on the rankism article. Part of the url on one got lost somehow. But since MarkSweep just kept doing reverts without attempting to explain on the Talk page, even after I directly complained about him, I viewed the reverts as part as the ongoing harrying of the article. After I corrected the link, his first response was to go delete one of the books. This is especially frustrating because I created that article as a favor to a friend, and so he's actually counting coup on a person who has nothing to do with this. --Pansophia 23:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you take it easy on this for a while. Its a weblink at the bottom of a page. I know it can get very frustrating so that is when it is time to do something else completely different for a while. The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 00:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Good solution [[9]]. Makes it much clearer. Look like I was missing the point because the previous links were not tied to the text. The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 09:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have also been taking a look at the Kaiser Permanente talk page and some of the personal "stuff". You would be right to ask others to discuss personal "stuff" on user talk pages. Also, there are other ways of phrasing responses to aggressive comments from others that will ensure 1) you can make the points in response you need to make 2) you will be seen to be adopting an appropriate tone.

For example, instead of saying "you did x", saying "it seems to me that x is happening" says the same without having the accusatory "you". There are many other ways but I don't want this to start looking like a manual.

The mediation request looks really complex. The Kaiser Permanente page is pretty interesting. The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219

A Sense of Humour

Hi,

Someone with a sense of humour has registered themselves as User:The Invisible Anon and pretended to be me. I am obviously making an impression. Presumably it has been done to manufacture a block against me. Thankfully this is cyberspace.

^Talk - The (original) Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219

Update

Just to let you know, User:Midgley appears to have registered himself today as User:The Invisible Anon. He is now editing as User:The Invisible Anon and following me around and adding edits as "The Invisible Anon".

Here is his original IP address for the sock puppet he first started editing with on Wikipedia. This has to be him because only he would know where it is. The diffs clearly show him associated with his recently registed user IDs the User:Invisible Anon and User:The Invisible Anon:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=14287194 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=16799973 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=41250577 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=41457405

Here is the link to his history of contributions and if you follow them you will see what he is up to:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=The+Invisible+Anon

Here is some of his mischief on the MfD page:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FUser_talk%3A86.10.231.219&diff=41466436&oldid=41447676

The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 16:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That figures. I hope the people on the MfD page get this. :-( --Pansophia 20:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

They might if someone tells them.

Yet a further update - See

[[10]]

and

[[11]]

It is appropriate to ensure other eyes see this.

The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 23:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Perp +ve ID'd

Perpetrator identified as User:Midgley - see [[12]] The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219

I'm really glad they took swift action on that - clearly an attempt to create bedlam at your expense. You rock with the detailed evidence trails, too! --Pansophia 00:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

User:MarkSweep blocked the sockpuppet - I do not know if that was before or after User:Leifern helpfully commented on User:Midgley's response to his challenge but I am grateful. User:MarkSweep also was responsible for checking out that it really was User:Midgley. However, so far User:Midgley has not been blocked and this was pretty serious and has taken up a heap of time for a whole bunch of people, including the people who had to check out the IP addresses User:Midgley was signing in from.

Thanks about the evidence trails. Its the only way to do it. Without the evidence, it is all "he said/she said" and no one knows what to believe.

The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 00:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Rapid blocks pretty much only happen in the case of simple vandalism - which, as much as this was a violation of WP:POINT, it was not. At this point, I think the appropriate step is to go for either an RfC on Midgley's behaviour, or maybe an RfM - an RfA would be the last step, but if there's no evidence of past attempts to resolve it, an RfA would likely simply not be taken up. I can tell you that I'm willing to vouch for you, on this one. It's simply insane of Midgley. Michael Ralston 01:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

More to This? Or Nothing More to This?

[[13]] ???

The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 03:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Inform Other Interested Parties

I am taking a mini-break after an interesting few days. If you have sufficient incentive, would you be interested in letting any other sympathetic interested parties know what has gone on here?

If you are short on interested parties, there might be a few here [| Admins Should Be Held Accountable] (actually 77 - I think - barring one imposter and one wrong post).

Apart from the actual deletion of the User page, they might also be interested in looking at the deletion attempt on my talk page currently [[14]]

I think there are plenty of links in what I have posted here for you but any gaps can be filled by anyone interested following my edit history [[15]].

Additionally, reminders to anyone interested about exercising voting rights in any forthcoming elections might be helpful.

If you have not got the time, thanks for all your help so far anyway.

The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 11:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

Please weigh in on this proposal and see User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies. Thanks in advance, and feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 17:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Logos

Hi Pansophia,

I came across a Wikipedia site that may be of interest to you, if you haven't seen it yet: Wikipedia:Logos. I'll let you read it over, but one brief point gleaned from it is that instructions on the appropriate use of logos are only Guidelines, and not Policies. I believe that Wikipedia:Logos and Wikipedia talk:Logos is where you could potentially inact the change you seek in regard to corporate logos. However, I think you need to consolidate and refine your arguments before you attempt such a move. I'd look very forward to further discussions with you on the matter of logos. All the best, Kurieeto 07:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the Logos discussion. As usual, I don't feel like I have the debating skills to do justice to the issue. I will try to put together my argument before taking it to the Logos page, though. Thanks also for taking a moment to consider the concerns I'm trying to raise. --Pansophia 22:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to clarify your position: From Template talk:Infobox Company#Company logo, "If I understand your position correctly in that you desire no corporate logos in this Infobox, would you extend this logo-ban to other infoboxes for entities that are not companies, like universities or sports teams? The former being typically a public institution and the latter being a for-profit operation. Please see Template:Infobox University and Template:NFL team as examples of such university/sports team templates that currently allow logos which constitute branding." -Kurieeto 20:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think logos are worse when they are connected to for-profit ventures (including professional sports teams) because brand-building has become such a marketing mantra. However, logos are probably objectionable in general: the very purpose of a logo is to promote something. :-/--Pansophia 00:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Which article?

(and is it unclear from whatever is written there why a merge might be suggested?). I assure you that any suggestions I may have made to merge articles neither depend on the initial author ("my articles" is a null concept in WP) nor would be in retaliation for anything else, but nothing but the merits or nature of the article. As it happens I can't remember you or your article. You might usefully read WP:AGF and also remember that I'm avaialble to ask about things. Midgley 12:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Midgley

Nice to hear from you albeit in regrettable circumstances.

If anyone endeavours to attack me over the text following I will provide the links that demonstrate it is accurate (and perhaps understates the position a tad).

Regarding your enquiry, this is a power issue and the solutions can only be viewed long term. As long as User:Midgley continues to be protected by Admins like User:TenOfAllTrades and User:Jfdwolff and as long as the rest of the allopathic medical lobby continues to support User:Midgley's unusual behaviour on Wikipedia then the only thing that can be done is to respond by gaining supporters as they do. It has been interesting to see individual editors picked off one-by-one by the tactics used on Wikipedia. Had there been visible and vocal support I suspect others would not throw in the towel quite so quickly or at all.

You may also want to keep a note of relevant evidence. Let me know if you would like to correspond by private means and I will investigate possible mechanisms to make that possible. Does this assist?

It is also useful to make what they do visible by commenting on it as it occurs. There are risks in doing so of course - witness my talk page - a constant reminder to all concerned (which is one argument for maintaining the status quo).

I assume you have seen the "Doctors Mess" run by User:Jfdwolff? That seems to be part of the "hub" of their operations although a fair amount seems to take place by private email as well - as witnessed by the unusual behaviour of User:Essjay blocking me for his own vandalism and then vandlising my talk page by deleting my criticism of the inappropriate behaviour of User:TenOfAllTrades. One or two of the allopath lobby involve themselves in things like rigging votes by arranging block voting on RfDs, RfC's and such-like.

Perhaps Admins do not like valid criticism of their behaviour in Wikipedia. It could be because it undermines the aura of prestige and responsibility some of them try to create for themselves here. Unfortunately, inappropriate behaviour by Admins, such as in turn protecting inappropriate behaviour of others (eg. that by User:Midgley), undermines others' respect for them in any event. It allows an opportunity to see their true "colours". It also seems that suppression of criticism is the common currency used by the allopathic lobby on Wikipedia.

I am not sure if you ever saw the attempts made to gag the use of the perfectly proper dictionary term "allopath". Whilst I was not using the term, I did set out on my user page why it is perfectly proper to use it. The gag was attempted by claiming it is a term of abuse or something of that kind. It seems to be very much the reason why my User page was summarily deleted (by an Admin of course User:Physchim62) and without so much as a sideways glance at policy and due process.

I have kept an archive of the user page which shows the attempt at suppression of use of "allopath". Could it be the page was deleted for much the same reason as the attempt at deletion of the text critical of User:TenOfAllTrades and then latterly by the attempt by the seeming protege User:Midgley to have the entire talk page deleted? The fact the user page was deleted summarily without due process suggests that was the only way they could get rid of it. If they had used due process it seems unlikely to me that the page would have been deleted. What User:Midgley is allowed to get up to by these people is truly awe-inspiring.

You will of course appreciate the significance of the attempt to gag the use of "allopath". It is a political move. Suppressing the use of such a term to describe this branch of medicine provides little recourse but to use the term "conventional" medicine. That term is not an appropriate term to use for reasons I set out on my now deleted user page. By bringing such a term into common use starts to put that particular kind of medical practice on a level footing with other kinds of medical practice.

For example, herbalists can provide some remarkably effective treatments as can others. The typical allopath response is to shout "No Randomised Clinical Trials" as loudly as possible because they have a problem understanding what evidence is about. On the latter point one only has to look at the hilarious mess made of Anecdotal evidence. It seems some people are desperate to have some kind of definition which upholds the (imagined rather than real) supremacy of medical and scientific evidence over all other kinds. The problem they have is that they discount witness testimony as unreliable "anecdote" and then have a problem defining "anecdotal" because witness testimony can be highly reliable and more so than some "scientific" or "medical" evidence.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 01:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Examples to learn from

If you look at [16] you will see several things:-

1. there are very few edits in the article space - that is material actually added to the encyclopaedia.
2. that this is a disruptive user, from the nature of the edits made in talk and wikipedia spaces.
3. that this is a user who has on ratehr a lot of occasions been advised/asked sometimes with a very clear indication that annoyance has been caused, to get a user name, but who persists ("why for the love of god why" to quote one commentator) in camoflaging his IP address so as to give the appearance of a user name. You may note among those edits that it really irritated me, among others.
4. one of the almost no users who has had a user page not just deleted, but locked shut as a result of the use they put it to - mfd at user pages is very rare.

Depending what an individual is here on WP for - increasing and organising access to the sum total of human knowledge; having an argument; winding people up; pursuing an agenda of promoting their own website or health beliefs or whatever - they may find User:86.10.231.219, Ombudsman and Whaleto to be better or worse mentors, guides and examples to follow. My impression is that many of the well-respected and long-standing wikipedians - say those on the arbitration ctee or just people with 20 000 edits - are helpful with advice and do not draw new users into any quarrels or intrigues they have. You may find one of them who says that 86.10.231.219 is a great chap to follow and depend upon, in which case carry on. You may find their discretion is expressed in offering other advice, in whcih case takign it is worth considering.

To the extent to which we are here to write an encyclopaedia (and why else should anyone be here) I would suggest you consider that people whose talk page edits are unusually more frequent than their article edits probably ought to have a clear reason for this - such as being involved in a great deal of cooperation perhaps. I'm up to abut 3000 total now, and I'm a talkative type, but you'll see a balance between added material - the odd new page even - and edits to old pages and to talk pages that looks similar to many users and is distinctly different from that above.

I've no idea who you are, or what you do, and no reason at all to wish you harm or indeed well to any extent more than anyone else, so take this advice how you will but it is offered neutrally. Do seek additional opinions though. Midgley 23:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7438/476 and other BMJ rabid responses may look familiar - whatever view you take of the occasional doctors who manage to get a word in there, they are in the day to day business of trying to restore or preserve health, and it would be odd if they didn't have a clue about any of it.

Examples for User:Midgley to learn from

More personal attacks and false accusations of bad faith based on fresh air from User:Midgley. Will User:TenOfAllTrades step in again? Let's have a reminder of just a tiny bit of User:Midgley's approach (and that of some of his colleagues in the allopathic medical lobby on Wikipedia):-

[[17]]

[[18]]

[[19]]

[[20]]

And, of course, as a family doctor, the lives of children and their parents depend on his judgement.

User:Midgley should try to be sensible. But if he chooses not to, there are many more reminders of his unusual behaviour if he wants to carry on in this vein (no pun intended).

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 07:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIV - please stay within it

Your persistent removal of a merge tag is one thing - it was actually an afd conclusion, not mine originally.

The incivility of your edit summaries is another matter, and outwith WP acceptable norms. I object to it. You are also quite incorrect in several things you have said, the Invidious Anon should have registered himself a user name, and my registering it and making the point was of course WP:POINT, not any of the other suggested faults. Midgley 00:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You are currently engaged in both WP:POINT and wiki-stalking. You had no interest in these areas until after I weighed in on your theft of Invisible Anon's screenname. I only weight in on the Invisible Anon screenname and have had nothing to do with you otherwise. I ask that you show me the same courtesy. --Pansophia 00:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Midgley - Time for a Block?

Thought you should take a look at this [[21]] which is referring to Doc Midge's contributions here [[22]].

If you agree something should be done, perhaps you could contact User:Leifern.

I will be similarly bringing this to the attention of others also.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 06:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to take a look at [[23]] ^Talk - The Invisible Anon 00:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your support, Invisible Anon! --Pansophia 05:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. Take it slow and take it easy and don't let the local livestock drive you out.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 08:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Further development [[24]]

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 86.10.231.219 09:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC - Your Endorsement Requested

I would appreciate it if, after considering whether you are in a position to assess the facts, you could consider whether to please endorse my holding response to this RfC here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219#HOLDING_RESPONSE

I am going to have to get on with some proper work for a few a while but intend to be back to take matters further.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 10:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)