Jump to content

User talk:LeafRed66

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LeafRed66 (talk | contribs) at 19:29, 23 June 2011 (→‎Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

June 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. PTJoshua (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. PTJoshua (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, LeafRed66. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.
Message added 12:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Impersonation

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because your username is an impersonation of a living person, Farida Sharan, and you have admitted that you are not this person (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Template:Z13--Orange Mike | Talk 14:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

LeafRed66 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Orange Mike - I wasn't trying to impersonate anyone. I said if you would like me to change my user name then I was happy to do it. When I was editing the Iridology page I noticed that there were no pages for several of the leading pioneers of Iridology. I went into safari (I was working in firefox) and created the Milo account so that I could add a Farida Sharan page without messing up what I was doing on the Iridology page under the farida sharan account - I don't know how to go back and forth. I went to farida sharans website and copied and pasted her bio into the wikipage I made for her and I was going through the process of editing it when I was told I was copyright infringing. I wasn't going to leave it the way it was. It was a work in progress. I feel that I am being unfairly blocked just because I didn't know about user name policies or using more than one account. I said I was happy to change my user name. I don't believe that your real name is Orangemike. So why am I being blocked for calling myself a name that I'm not, AFTER I have said I will happily change my name. Would you please help with this. My whole purpose for being on Wikipedia in the first place was entirely honorable and the current Iridology page is biased and factually inaccurate. Surely that is what this should be about and not blocking me for not calling myself OrangeBonny or something. Thanks Faridasharan (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I am unblocking you on the condition that you request a name change before you continue to edit. Do so as soon as you can at WP:CHUS. I will monitor your talk page and if you don't request a name change in a reasonable time I will be forced to reblock you. (And on a side note, his name really is Orange Mike, believe it or not, check out his user page.) -- Atama頭 18:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Orange Mike" isn't my real name in any legal sense, but it's one I'm known by in a number of places around the world and the internet. There are people who don't know me by any other name. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Orangemike ;)

Faridasharan → LeafRed66


Hello - I tried to change my name to LeafRed66 but it doesn't seem to have worked (it was hard to resist calling myself OrangeBonny but didn't want to risk repeating the impersonation offence;) Have I done it incorrectly or does it just take time. Thanks

Faridasharan → LeafRed66

You have to do it HERE, not on this page! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


LeafRed66

Hello OrangeMike - I just realized it was case sensitive so now I am all set. Thank you for your help. I think I am up and running but I have a lot to learn before I feel like I know what I am doing on this site. I appreciate your help. Am I allowed to publish the changes I made to the Iridology page now?

LeafRed66 ====

I would really, really sincerely advise you not to mess with that article, because you are going to be seen as a violator of our WP:NPOV and WP:COI rules, and I get the strong impression that your edits would be rejected in most cases as against scientific and medical consensus (see WP:FRINGE. Just sayin'.... --Orange Mike | Talk 20:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


LeafRed66

Dear OrangeMike, I have very politely asked for help repeatedly and been ignored. Would you please direct me to a way that I can find out how to correct factual biased errors on the Iridology page. I have read the links regarding FRINGG and COI and NPOV and this all point to my point - the information on the page is provably biased, is based on the agenda of the author, is not factually correct and does not even define Iridology correctly. A a dictionary entry it would be wrong. As an encyclopedic entry it is worse. I am a normal, decent, caring, nice person and I came to wiki (which claims that you can edit it) and made an account and have been treated with rudeness and extreme disrespect. WHY? Is this some kind of hazing that people have to go through to contribute to Wikipedia. I don't treat anyone as unkindly as I have been treated...ever. The Iridology page is factually incorrect and is harmful to a group of people. Please advise me how I can change it or point me to someone who can. Thank you ===--LeafRed66 (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LeafRed66

Hi Mike - is there any way to get beyond that perception? Currently the article presents only 'cons', primarily from QuackWatch, presents none of the legitimate studies, only two that are bogus studies as they only prove that Iridologists cant diagnose disease when no qualified credible iridologist would ever say it did. The article does not describe Iridology for what it actually is, has the history wrong, and doesn't mention the majority of the pioneering Iridologists of the last century. It is a bogus page, factually incorrect, written by someone who isn't an iridologist, whose sole aim is to discredit it. There are people out there that hate natural medicine. They just do. It is irrational and not based on facts. Iridology deserves a better page than is currently up. Right now it is just an 'Iridology bashing' page, which I don't believe is Wikipedia's goal. I would appreciate your help. I have been an Iridologist for 25 years, have studies with most of the pioneers of the last century (only one left living) and it is such an insult and a shame to see Iridology so completely disparaged by statements that are not even describing what Iridology is in the first place. I can guide someone to external sources to confirm what I am saying. The page there though really is wrong. Can you help?

Best wishes, [User:LeafRed66|Leaf Red66]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.231.71 (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


LeafRed66

Dear OrangeMike, I really don't understand what is going on. Why would I be violating anything, as a qualified experienced person in my profession, to correct incorrect statements made on a page that is supposed to be an accurate description of what Iridology is? You mention 'accepted medical' opinion. Whose? There are two studies mentioned there. One is a study with three Iridologists (what iridologists) who are testing for something that Iridology doesn't do...diagnose disease...and lo and behold...the study finds that Iridology can't do it. There is an identical approach shown in a second study with five iridologists (what iridologists...no credible iridologists would participate in such a study). This are not legitimate studies. So two not legitimate studies are used to back up statements made by a non iridologist and now those statements are being considered as fact when a qualified iridologist, with years of experience, is able to communicate accurately what Iridology really is, and what it claims to do, with references, and I am being told that I can not do that because someone unqualified got to the Iridology page first? There has to be a process to correct incorrect information on Wikipedia. What is on the page is written by someone with a personal anit-Iridology agenda. He doesn't even list one legitimate Iridology site on the page. Just con pages from QuackWatch which is a website whose sole purpose is to discredit natural medicine. You can't get any more biased. It is like having George Bush's opinion on abortion being the only opinion allowed to be published. That would not give an accurate representation of what American's as a whole think about this subject. If you can't help, or are too busy, I understand and if that is the case can you please direct me to someone who can. The Iridology page is harmful slander to a profession that helps a lot of people. The people who work in this field do not deserve it. And no one is this field claims to diagnose disease. The entire philosophy of Iridology is holistic and does not even venture into the area of disease, which is all about putting a name to a combination of symptoms and conditions in the body. Iridologists look at body systems, not disease. The article on Iridology is simple not talking about Iridology and it shouldn't be there like that. Thanks for your help. P.s I don't seem to know how to sign these posts properly. sorry. Leaf Red66

LeafRed66

Dear OrangeMike, I really don't understand what is going on. Why would I be violating anything, as a qualified experienced person in my profession, to correct incorrect statements made on a page that is supposed to be an accurate description of what Iridology is? You mention 'accepted medical' opinion. Whose? There are two studies mentioned there. One is a study with three Iridologists (what iridologists) who are testing for something that Iridology doesn't do...diagnose disease...and lo and behold...the study finds that Iridology can't do it. There is an identical approach shown in a second study with five iridologists (what iridologists...no credible iridologists would participate in such a study). This are not legitimate studies. So two not legitimate studies are used to back up statements made by a non iridologist and now those statements are being considered as fact when a qualified iridologist, with years of experience, is able to communicate accurately what Iridology really is, and what it claims to do, with references, and I am being told that I can not do that because someone unqualified got to the Iridology page first? There has to be a process to correct incorrect information on Wikipedia. What is on the page is written by someone with a personal anit-Iridology agenda. He doesn't even list one legitimate Iridology site on the page. Just con pages from QuackWatch which is a website whose sole purpose is to discredit natural medicine. You can't get any more biased. It is like having George Bush's opinion on abortion being the only opinion allowed to be published. That would not give an accurate representation of what American's as a whole think about this subject. If you can't help, or are too busy, I understand and if that is the case can you please direct me to someone who can. The Iridology page is harmful slander to a profession that helps a lot of people. The people who work in this field do not deserve it. And no one is this field claims to diagnose disease. The entire philosophy of Iridology is holistic and does not even venture into the area of disease, which is all about putting a name to a combination of symptoms and conditions in the body. Iridologists look at body systems, not disease. The article on Iridology is simple not talking about Iridology and it shouldn't be there like that. Thanks for your help. P.s I don't seem to know how to sign these posts properly. sorry. Leaf Red66 ====--LeafRed66 (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


LeafRed66

The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. - Currently the Iridology page is NOT neutral - OrangeMike - will you please be neutral and point me in the direction to get help with this article that is not factual and is deliberately declaring the opinion of the author - against Wiki's own guildlines ===--LeafRed66 (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC) LeafRed66[reply]

Read WP:FRINGE and WP:COI; I would also advise you to read WP:THETRUTH. I'm sorry, but I didn't want to offend you by expressing my own opinions on the matter of iridology, so I've hesitated to respond here.

Hello, Thanks for posting. I have looked at the links that you recommended and had a good chuckle at 'the TRUTH.' It doesn't bother me if you don't 'believe' in Iridology as it wouldn't take much to show that the mainstream view, as presented on Wiki, is not relevant to what Iridology is or tries to do. With a clean slate you can't 'not believe' in it any more than 'believe' in it, if you know what i mean. Currently the Iridology page shows three studies. They are actually one studyItalic text made by E. Ernst, MD PhD and presented as three studies and he submitted the third study mentioned to the two locations listed. If you google E. Ernst, MD PhD the first reference to him states: "E. Ernst, MD PhD, who is hyper-antagonistic" Fallacious.... The co-author of this 'review' was the notorious E. Ernst, MD PhD who is hyper-antagonistic to virtually any type of alternative or... It is a www.huffingtonpost.com article. E. Ernst, MD PhD is famous in the world of natural medicine for creating bogus studies and publishing them. He has published more than 600 in his career. So in fact all of the studies represented on the Iridology page are from one man. One man who hates natural medicine. When you look at the references in his own study (at the bottom of the page on the link on the Iridology page) there is only one reference to an actual Iridologists work. That is the primary textbook on Iridology by Farida Sharan - Sharan F. Iridology: A Complete Guide to Diagnosing Through the Iris and to Related Forms of Treatment. Wellingborough, England: Thorsons Publications Ltd; 1989. (Farida Sharan is one of the three pioneers and researchers of Iridology in the last century - all the others have since passed away) where Farida Sharan states "Iridology Does Not "Diagnose specific diseases (only analyses tissue changes). It goes on to say that Iridology Does Not "Show where operations have been performed under anesthetic, identify gallstones, kidney stones (only tissue predisposition), identify male or female, or pregnancy in the female, show presence of micro-organisms, parasites, etc. (only predisposition), cannot predict lifespan, or time of death (Europeans claim death signs), specifically identify individual drugs, poisons, or preservatives. - - So I put that there to point out that the Iridology Page on Wiki is a page where studies by E. Ernst MD PhD, a notorious and famous man, who will probably go down in history for his enthusiasm for creating false studies, discredits Iridology by claiming it doesn't diagnose disease, when it doesn't. No Iridologist would disagree. Iridology doesn't diagnose disease. It doesn't try to. The two studies E. Ernst MD PhD refers to are to find out if Iridology can identify Gallstones and Kidney Disease. No it can't. No Iridologist would disagree. Then, in addition to these problems with the page, the page does not say what Iridologists claim Iridology does do. I understand that it is only a claim by mainstream medical standards. Mainstream medicine isn't interested in conducting studies on a system of tissue analysis that doesn't diagnose disease. An Iridologist is looking at something entirely different, that doesn't interest medical researchers, as the goal of Iridology is PREVENTATIVE. It is pro-health not anti-disease.

Well all of that is a start. I can provide links from external sources to confirm my statements. I would like to make some beginning edits to the Iridology page that point out the fact that Iridologists do not claim to be able to diagnose disease and to include what they do claim Iridology does do. I did a google search on Iridology and, excluding sites that sell Iridology equipment, or that are schools that teach Iridology, or sites like Quackwatch that we know are going to say bad things about Iridology, I gathered the first three sites that state what Iridology is/does. Of note is that each one contains a description, by Iridologists, that states that Iridology does not diagnose disease and stating what it does do (according to Iridologists). I didn't have to look far for these websites. They are on the first 1 1/2 pages of a google search for Iridology. Wiki is, of course, the first listing.

http://www.webwombat.com.au/lifestyle/health/iridology.htm (last three paragraphs)

http://www.naturaltherapypages.com.au/natural_medicine/Iridology

http://health.ninemsn.com.au/whatsgoodforyou/theshow/694059/does-iridology-really-work

Thanks for your help with this. PS.- I sent a link to the TRUTH page to my mother. She will get a good chuckle on that one too. Whoever wrote that has a great sense of humor. ===LeafRed66 --LeafRed66 (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello, I'm sorry I haven't responded. On the weekends I'm usually out running around and don't spend much time on the computer. If you haven't actually left, let me know on my talk page and I'll see if there's anything I can do, but I might not have a chance until Monday. If you felt that I was deleting your requests, I apologize, you had left the messages on my main user page (the page where I try to show information about me) so I moved them to my talk page. I didn't have a chance to respond, however, I've been out of the house all day. Using Wikipedia does take patience, however, and you can't always get an immediate response to a request, and you also need to make the effort work with other editors, especially those who disagree with you. If you can't, you won't be able to participate effectively. -- Atama頭 04:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Atama, Thank you for getting back to me. I almost gave up but checked online this morning to see if you had responded (or if I had been blocked;) and was very happy to hear from you. I wrote a response to OrangeMike and will paste it below. What I would like is to be able to edit the Iridology page to show what Iridologists claim to do, with references, and what they don't claim to do, with references. This I feel is important so that criticism of Iridology can be based on what it is and not on what it isn't...if you know what I mean. Also, for readers, it will be more representative of the field of Iridology. Neutral phrasing like 'Iridologist's claim,' etc, is ideal and in looking through some wiki pages this is the terminology that I see. Iridology has a long way to go but it also has come a long way. What is does claim to do is really interesting. It is not medical. It is seeks to understand how we become susceptible to dis-ease in the first place, and how we age - why people age in different ways. Also I would like to be able to add to the history part of Iridology, because it has had an interesting history. There are external links that describe the history as well so those are verifiable, and of course there are books that reference it. So those are my goals. I have a lot of areas of interest, not just Iridology, but when I saw this page I really felt something should be done about it. I hope that you can help. Thanks and here is my post to OrangeMike:

Hello, Thanks for posting. I have looked at the links that you recommended and had a good chuckle at 'the TRUTH.' It doesn't bother me if you don't 'believe' in Iridology as it wouldn't take much to show that the mainstream view, as presented on Wiki, is not relevant to what Iridology is or tries to do. With a clean slate you can't 'not believe' in it any more than 'believe' in it, if you know what i mean. Currently the Iridology page shows three studies. They are actually one studyItalic text made by E. Ernst, MD PhD and presented as three studies and he submitted the third study mentioned to the two locations listed. If you google E. Ernst, MD PhD the first reference to him states: "E. Ernst, MD PhD, who is hyper-antagonistic" Fallacious.... The co-author of this 'review' was the notorious E. Ernst, MD PhD who is hyper-antagonistic to virtually any type of alternative or... It is a www.huffingtonpost.com article. E. Ernst, MD PhD is famous in the world of natural medicine for creating bogus studies and publishing them. He has published more than 600 in his career. So in fact all of the studies represented on the Iridology page are from one man. One man who hates natural medicine. When you look at the references in his own study (at the bottom of the page on the link on the Iridology page) there is only one reference to an actual Iridologists work. That is the primary textbook on Iridology by Farida Sharan - Sharan F. Iridology: A Complete Guide to Diagnosing Through the Iris and to Related Forms of Treatment. Wellingborough, England: Thorsons Publications Ltd; 1989. (Farida Sharan is one of the three pioneers and researchers of Iridology in the last century - all the others have since passed away) where Farida Sharan states "Iridology Does Not "Diagnose specific diseases (only analyses tissue changes). It goes on to say that Iridology Does Not "Show where operations have been performed under anesthetic, identify gallstones, kidney stones (only tissue predisposition), identify male or female, or pregnancy in the female, show presence of micro-organisms, parasites, etc. (only predisposition), cannot predict lifespan, or time of death (Europeans claim death signs), specifically identify individual drugs, poisons, or preservatives. - - So I put that there to point out that the Iridology Page on Wiki is a page where studies by E. Ernst MD PhD, a notorious and famous man, who will probably go down in history for his enthusiasm for creating false studies, discredits Iridology by claiming it doesn't diagnose disease, when it doesn't. No Iridologist would disagree. Iridology doesn't diagnose disease. It doesn't try to. The two studies E. Ernst MD PhD refers to are to find out if Iridology can identify Gallstones and Kidney Disease. No it can't. No Iridologist would disagree. Then, in addition to these problems with the page, the page does not say what Iridologists claim Iridology does do. I understand that it is only a claim by mainstream medical standards. Mainstream medicine isn't interested in conducting studies on a system of tissue analysis that doesn't diagnose disease. An Iridologist is looking at something entirely different, that doesn't interest medical researchers, as the goal of Iridology is PREVENTATIVE. It is pro-health not anti-disease. Well all of that is a start. I can provide links from external sources to confirm my statements. I would like to make some beginning edits to the Iridology page that point out the fact that Iridologists do not claim to be able to diagnose disease and to include what they do claim Iridology does do. I did a google search on Iridology and, excluding sites that sell Iridology equipment, or that are schools that teach Iridology, or sites like Quackwatch that we know are going to say bad things about Iridology, I gathered the first three sites that state what Iridology is/does. Of note is that each one contains a description, by Iridologists, that states that Iridology does not diagnose disease and stating what it does do (according to Iridologists). I didn't have to look far for these websites. They are on the first 1 1/2 pages of a google search for Iridology. Wiki is, of course, the first listing. http://www.webwombat.com.au/lifestyle/health/iridology.htm (last three paragraphs) http://www.naturaltherapypages.com.au/natural_medicine/Iridology http://health.ninemsn.com.au/whatsgoodforyou/theshow/694059/does-iridology-really-work Thanks for your help with this. PS.- I sent a link to the TRUTH page to my mother. She will get a good chuckle on that one too. Whoever wrote that has a great sense of humor. ===LeafRed66 --LeafRed66 (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC) ===LeafRed66 --LeafRed66 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRUTH isn't a joke, it's based on one of the core principles of Wikipedia. If you don't take it seriously, you're going to run into serious conflicts with other editors. While "Truth" is an essay, it's based on our verifiability policy. Verifiability requires reliable sources. These are policies you really must familiarize yourself with when discussing what should or shouldn't be in an article. My strongest suggestion to you, though, is to participate on the article's talk page. This is absolutely required when you are in any kind of editing conflict with someone (you want to add something but they remove it, or you disagree with what someone else is trying to add, etc.). Neglecting to do so and participating in an edit war will get you blocked from editing. If you haven't yet, I also suggest that you look at our help pages so that you'll be able to avoid any misunderstandings from here on. -- Atama頭 18:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Atama - I was chuckling because of how true the TRUTH article was. I am confused about how someone who is trying to change an inaccurate page with such consistancy and politeness can be confused with someone who isn't interested in making an effort to work with your policies. CONTRARY to your statement regarding 'edit wars' it is someone else who keeps deleting my entries and, if you look, you will see I stopped trying. I am beginning to think there is nothing but hostility on this site. YOU HAVE AN INCORRECT PAGE - I AM TRYING TO CORRECT INCORRECT PROVABLE INFORMATION WITH REFERENCES - I find your letter to have missed the point of me entirely. I am a decent kind hearted person trying to do this properly. I have been nothing but mistreated in my efforts. The page you have on there has been hijacked by people with personal agendas. The FACTS exist and I AM REPEATEDLY ASKING FOR HELP!!!!! How does that make me the person instigating edit wars. The fact that this page is being instantly deleted when anyone puts the TRUTH on it suggests that someone is watching it very carefully and is WAITING for people to change it. WHO is it who has an agenda? I asked you for help Atama - but perhaps you have a bias against new editors and Iridology as well - by the way, as I have repeatedly said the DEFINITION of IRIDOLOGY is INCORRECT on WIKIPEDIA - that is THE TRUTH and a PROVABLE FACT with COUNTLESS REFERENCES if you were at all interested in finding out the TRUTH. If you look at your note to me, after all of my effort, there is nothing welcoming or kind in it. ===--LeafRed66 (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying as best as I can to help you. Wikipedia is a collaboration between millions of strangers, with almost 150,000 active people currently trying to improve the encyclopedia. The only way for that to work is for strangers to talk to each other. You have made 19 edits to the iridology article, but not a single edit to the article's talk page. I've told you before, you must bring disputes to that talk page. It's not optional. It might help to explain what we call "BRD", which stands for Bold, Revert, Discuss. We encourage people to "be bold"; if you see something wrong or missing in an article, change it. If someone "reverts" you, by either deleting your contribution or otherwise changing it, you should go to the talk page of the article and "discuss" it. (Or you can talk to the person directly on their user talk page, that might be better depending on circumstances.) If you try to put back the information that was reverted, you have just begun an edit war. The reason you are being resisted so strongly on that article is because you aren't explaining what you are doing on the article's talk page. Wikipedia requires collaboration, as I said, and that means you have to convince people who disagree with you that your information belongs in the article. If you're unable or unwilling to take that step, you're not going to be able to participate at Wikipedia. Everyone does this; you aren't being singled out or prosecuted, that's the way the entire project functions. I'm not trying to come down on you, I'm trying to help you. -- Atama頭 16:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Atama, Thank you for explaining this to me. I thought I was supposed to respond to the people directly who were deleting my edits. As far as I can see that is someone called Joshua, you and OrangeMike. Each of you I have tried talking to. So what I am hearing is that I need to talk with you on the talk page of the article. I will do that. Thank you for your help. ===--LeafRed66 (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Atama, One last thing. I was deleted by Joshua because he claimed I was 'self promoting' when that was NOT a fact. Then I was deleted because I was impersonating someone. That wasn't deliberate and that was cleared up. But I was deleted anyway. Then I asked OrangeMike if, now that was cleared up, I could add my edit to the page. He WARNED me that if I did so I would be banned or whatever. As if he had the right to determine what was on the page. Therefore I tried to reason with him. You became involved because I was banned. So far NOONE has said that what I am trying to add to the page is not correct. They have used every other reason. And it is only three of you. I will take this conversation onto the talk page for Iridology but I think it is pretty clear that I am being bullied off of editing an incorrect page for prejudicial reasons - the fact is that this page is not accurate and is abusive. That I have taken so much effort to correct it and gotten nowhere is shocking. There are only three of you. I have to ask why I am not being allowed to edit by you THREE. Thanks ===--LeafRed66 (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on the editor. When you're wanting to make changes to an article as drastic as those you seek to make, and when you have a (clearly disclosed, but still extant) conflict of interest such as your own, our rules dictate that you should only make those changes after a full discussion on the talk page of the article. That's what we've attempted (apparently ineptly) to convey with our warnings and cautions. I'm genuinely sorry if this has come across to you as bullying, or as what we here calling "biting the noobie"! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now looked at the talk page of Iridology. You have some serious anti anti people on here - if you look at this persons response to a comment on the articles page . -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC) you will see that he is threatening banning someone just for commenting that the article needs some work on the article page - what kind of game is this? Brangifer looks like he is an aggressive biased nut. Surely this is not the 'police' for this page I need to go through in some horrible word battle to correct inaccuracies of the FACTS on this page. Your asking me to surrender to vile abuse from some kind of crazy person. Surely that isn't what wikipedia is all about === --LeafRed66 (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry OrangeMike - I didn't see your edit there. Thank you for that. I will go through it this way but I can see that I may not have the nervous system to cope with someone's extreme hatred and bias. I will do my best. I get this feeling that wike edits are best left to hardy people who don't mind it when people are nasty. ===--LeafRed66 (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LeafRed66&oldid=435853900"