User talk:Leifern

See also:

Mediation

Will you seek mediation regarding your dispute with User:Midgley? Steve block talk 10:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear what we would mediate about. Midgley launched a series of personal attacks against me throughout Wikipedia; I documented these attacks and defended myself against them. You, rather fantastically, conclude that both sides are equally wrong/right and encourage mediation. I have to give this some thought, to be honest. If neither I nor anyone else has the right to defend himself/herself against personal attacks such as those perpetrated by Midgley, we have a serious problem. --Leifern 14:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are engaged in a dispute with User:Midgley, and mediation is one form of dispute resolution. Will you therefore seek mediation? Steve block talk 16:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, please refer to the above response. I am giving this some thought, as I indicated. For the record, I reject the premise that this is about a dispute. I have, for the time being, disengaged from the articles we're disagreeing about; if Midgley doesn't make any more personal attacks, the page in question will fall into disuse. --Leifern 17:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you come to a decision as to whether to seek mediation or not? Steve block talk 12:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand what we're supposed to mediate about? Please enlighten me: what have I done that I should stop doing so that Midgley will stop his personal attacks on me, not to mention his recent interest in other articles I've edited about Norway. At this point, I'm not even sure what we're disagreeing about - I've left Anti-vaccinationist to its inevitable fate when some of the alleged "anti-vaccinationists" call the office. --Leifern 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that User:Midgley is making personal attacks against you, and that you are unclear what you are disagreeing about, that is reason enough to seek mediation. It is quite clear there is a dispute between you two. Will you seek mediation? User:Midgley has indicated he will. Steve block talk 07:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have documented that Midgley has made numerous personal attacks against me. There are no current personal attacks, because I have stayed away from articles that we disagree about. So, there is no current dispute. I am open to mediation, but I am trying to understand what we are mediating about. --Leifern 10:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above exchange is one of the clearest examples of direct bullying I have seen on Wikipedia yet. Here we have Leifern being blamed for the unusual behaviour and editing practices of User:Midgley aka according to his user page as Dr Adrian Midgley, Exeter GP. It is not Leifern's obligation to regulate Wikipedia. Regrettably, however, there are a number of Admins who seem positively to think it is acceptable to let User:Midgley continue with this unusual behaviour and these practices unchecked.

Trying to bully someone into mediation over something that is caused by the unchecked behaviour of another user seems to defy common-sense - but then, this is Wikipedia.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 07:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC) 07:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's behaviour is disruptive. He was in the start of this row - where it is quite possible an even slightly emollient, or wise, or helpfully detailed intervention owuld have saved a lot of aggravation [1] and is still here trying to get more mileage out of his trolling. Have a look at his contributions to see what he has added that is in any way helpful to producing an encyclopaedia. The answer is not nothing, but it is barely perceptible among the other postings, rather a lot of which are disruptive. The issue of the username is bizarre. If you look at the earliest edits recorded, you'll see an attack on me. This does make me think that some of this is a continuation of anti-vaccinationist and anti-medical trolling in the rapid responses of the BMJ. Perhaps I should be flattered, but I'd prefer to get on with an encyclopaedia, and this user is not an asset to WP. Midgley 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but your behavior is at least as disruptive, and sanctimonious in addition. And it's interesting that you've taken to following me around lately, making edits on unrelated articles. --Leifern 01:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do seem to overlap in some areas, however I have not noticed you following me to most of the areas I edit in. Midgley 14:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, I was the first to edit articles on Norwegian politics and the Battle of Springfield. I have absolutely no idea what else you're involved in; but your efforts are working - my inclination is to stay away from Wikipedia. Congratulations - by being an insufferable fool and jerk, you have pretty much driven me away. --Leifern 00:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SWYMD? Midgley 13:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been my observation that things will end up in the right place without my participation, though perhaps a bit later. Anti-vaccinationist will end up in the dustbin where it belongs; articles on thimerosal, vaccines, homeopathy, etc., will eventually become NPOV; all the arguments you think you've won will be overturned, and you'll either have to sign up for intellectual integrity or find a more receptive place for POV-pushing. But I'm tired of dealing with it all. --Leifern 16:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Det er etter de gode ord det gror, ikke etter småskårenhet og pirkeri. Det har ennå ikke flyttet verden et lusefjed." Johan Falkberget Williamborg 03:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying

Leifern, do you believe my offer of mediation to be bullying in any way, shape or form? Steve block talk 21:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I actually think you have good intentions. --Leifern 00:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commendable Response Re: Bullying

The above response by User:Leifern is commendable. I am more questioning with reason (ie. not presumption). Like him here, I was challenged to agree to mediation with User:Midgley when there was no dispute - see [[2]] - and when I and another were subject to personal attacks by User:Midgley - see [[3]]. Despite no dispute being identified, and my having said there was no dispute User:Midgley started an RfC over a new dispute which was not the subject of the request for mediation - see [[4]]. Accordingly, I find it odd that User:Leifern was asked three times to agree to mediation over a dispute with User:Midgley that also does not appear to have existed at the time the request was made. Those requests bear the implication an RfC (and more) might ensue if mediation were not agreed to.

A further similarity is that this arose after I assisted another editor User:Pansophia who complains of the same thing User:Leifern complains of which is that User:Midgley started following her around Wikipedia and doing battle with her on pages he would not normally have been involved with after she assisted me over User:Midgley's stalking me and impersonating me. See [[5]] and [[6]] - and see [User:Midgley]]'s contributions regarding the Rankism page User:Pansophia created here [[7]] and here [[8]]

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 23:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

‎"‎װיקיפּעדיע‎"‎ and ‎"‎װיקיביבליאָטעק‎‎"‎

sholem-aleykhem Leifern! Beside ‎"‎װיקיפּעדיע‎"‎ ‎"‎װיקיביבליאָטעק‎‎"‎ stared today. I would be happy if you could help building the projects in Yiddish. a gut wokh Gangleri · Th · T 18:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Medicine Addiction

Is it just me or have articles dealing with alternative medicines become way to bias against...well against reality I suppose. I guess a sad side effect of the increasing numbers of wikipedia editors is that articles on theories that the masses believe get presented as mainstream fact, and the opposition to these theories (doctors, scientists, and indeed anybody with common sense) gets presented as fringe beliefs. Anyways, I saw you were involved in the conflict over these articles and I am just recently adding them to my watchlist.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has become a very polarized debate, but there is plenty of bad behavior on both sides. "Reality," when it comes to medical science, is more elusive the more you look into it. There will inevitably be articles on "alternative medicine" topics in Wikipedia, and my view is that they should be written factually and neutrally, their claims presented fairly, and objections to them equally fairly. Right now, there are shrill denunciations on both sides, and the result is trashy articles like Homeopathy and Anti-vaccinationist and lack of progress in other articles. Be very careful about accepting conventional theory on these issues, by the way. Medicine has evolved significantly over the last 100, 200, 300 years and this will likely accelerate - our descendants 100 years from now will likely look back at what is "medicine" today with horror and disbelief. --Leifern 10:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of articles

Hey Leifern. There are a couple of articles being edited that you might be interested in. The first is Israeli settlement, which you have edited extensively in the past, and the second is New anti-Semitism. I'd really appreciate your thoughts on both of these. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting POV one: Palestine Mandate. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Order_of_St_Olav_collar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Order_of_St_Olav_collar.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:New community on the Golan .jpg

Your photo Image:New community on the Golan .jpg, which is described as "New community on the Golan Heights" is without doubt a photo of the Druze village of Majdal Shams. Would it be ok if I changed the description and the caption in the Golan Heights article?--128.139.226.37 14:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine. --Leifern 15:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]