User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello,, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Addbot (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles


Your recent editing history at Alkaline diet shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MastCell Talk 18:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg 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 Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Alkaline diet, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SÆdontalk 20:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

50% of this article has NO sources, and the rest are not reliable. And some are un-factual. Yet MY comments are the only ones questioned. What a joke.

Edit warring[edit]

Look, just cut it out, it never works on WP. It's too easy to revert edits and block. Use the WP:TALKPAGE. SÆdontalk 20:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I went to the talk page and I saw that a lot of people have said the same thing about this article as I have and they have just been edited out. The fact is simple, that this one particular criticism of the diet ignores the facts, both of the diet and blood science. I have pointed this out. Yet nothing has been said against that and no sources to prove your point of view. You are making this article a joke and exposing yourself as biased. I have never engaged in Wikipedia before and I know why so many people complain about editing it. You believe that you decide what is biased and unbiased websites and articles. Yet Wikipedia is about presenting the facts, and you are not allowing that to happen. (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Alkaline diet edit war[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User: reported by User:Ronz (Result: 31h). EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

I have put factual referenced information on the page. I have been to the talk pages. I have seen others make reference to the bias of the article and the actions of some to remove anything that is not biased. I have asked for details from these people in the Talk page and not had any response. I have not had any explanation for the revert of my post other than the statement that my sources are unreliable. I have looked at the sources on this page and found none to be reliable or unreliable. I am simply presenting facts of science and I have referred to another Wiki page which has reliable sources. There is considerable talk on the talk page about the ongoing bias of this article and the desire of some people to make it into a criticism page. Therefore the talk page offers only the details that this issue is not mine alone. 3 can gang up against one and make that person seem to be in an Edit war. That does not make it right. They wanted sources I have given them. They have then declared them unreliable based on nothing. No evidence for that. No evidence in the talk pages just their opinion. (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The fact remains that you were edit-warring. Wikipedia works on consensus, and if consensus appears to be against you, that hardly constitutes "ganging up". Best practice is to discuss after you've been reverted once, and not continue disrupting the article. Rather than continually trying to force your edits into the article, talk page discussion is the first step in dispute resolution, either on the article talk page or on the talk pages of those who disagree with you. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

(edit conflict) Your block request does not address the reason for your block, which was violating WP:3RR after you were told above in big bold letters that if you kept edit warring you would be blocked. Please see WP:NOTTHEM. SÆdontalk 22:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not Edit War. I was asked to provide citations. I did. I was told that they are not valid because they were "some website". Since the example was a citation of an example of the diet this was a valid citation. I looked at the Talk page and found that despite there being consensus that this article is biased that nothing had been done about the bias. I reworded my post which explained the point in a clearer way. It was again deleted. I was not simply reposting the same information. it is clear that here are people involved in censorship in a way to make it look like I am in an edit war. The talk page is a joke it shows that many people have issues with the page and nothing is resolved. I am new to Wikipedia, now I understand the system. The talk page is not the solution. Nor is this. (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

I understand now that any dispute must be resolved at the Talk page first. I did not understand that changing my post to be clearer or complying with the request for citation still constituted an edit war. I did not understand that people can ignore a lack of citation on parts of an article, yet attack a new part for not having a citation. I did not understand that people can decide what is a suitable citation and what is not, based on their opinions. I did not understand that despite complaints of bias and censorship on the Talk page, and nothing being done about this, that the talk page is the place to resolve disputes. I am new to Wikipedia editing, I saw an error on a page, I tried to correct it. I now wish to be able to access the talk page to have a discussion there about this issue. I have posted a question there that has been responded to and I wish to follow that up. I will not edit the article. (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're making progress here, but before an admin would be willing to unblock you you'll need to drop the battleground mentality. If you trim out the complaints about bias and double standards, I think you'll get somewhere, but given the talk about other people's actions right now I'm not 100% convinced your presence at the talkpage would be a net positive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

I understand now from your comments and from looking at the talk page that while many people have made comments about the article being biased that this is not the purpose of the talk page. Having been directed to the talk page I thought this was an example of how resolution was meant to occur there. I see now that there are clear protocols of communication that some users follow and others do not. I understand that while one user who have deleted my post made comments about me serving up complete bullshit on a platter (their words) I am to refrain from responding to that element of the talk page and simply focus on the verifiable facts. There are three references given there as examples of why my post is incorrect, all of which actually prove my point if you read them. I think there is a misunderstanding of the difference between Body pH and Blood pH, which is at the heart of the issue. I wish the chance to clarify this situation using quotes from those articles mentioned there so that the user and I can discuss the relevance of that difference to the article and the criticisms of the diet. At no point on the article did I attempt to remove the criticism of the diet, I merely wished to make a point of logic that the criticism did I not actually match the facts of the diet. Since one user has now given three references to the diet I now have three references of their choice to explain my point. I would like the freedom to make that explanation in the most constructive way. (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You do not appear to understand why you have been blocked. You were blocked for edit warring, and you must not do that, even if you are right. We don't want to hear your arguments about the article content here. What we need is convincing that you understand how to deal with content disputes, and that you will not continue with the edit war approach. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request. (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

I have stated clearly that I understand the reason for my blocking. I am new to Wikipedia editing. I didn't even see the messages page until I was blocked to know that I was being warned. I now understand the system. I have stated that I will not edit the article, therefore not engaging in any more edit wars. I have stated that I will solve the issues on the Talk page. I have stated that I will do that in an amicable and polite way. I have stated that I will not use the existing comments and style of the Talk page as a guide to my own work there. Rather I will simply politely follow the process of having a logical discussion of the facts of the situation relating to the article. Is this clear enough understanding that I now know the Wikipedia process and will follow it? (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I am unblocking on the understanding that you have said that you will not continue to edit war, that you will discuss issues civilly and collaboratively, without a battleground mentality, and that you will accept that editing follows consensus, even if you disagree with the consensus. If you do not stick to those understandings, you are likely to be be blocked again, very probably for a longer period. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Yes I understand this, thank you. I apologize for my previous misunderstanding. (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Your behavior is being discussed[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SÆdontalk 02:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Great! Maybe some independent minds can shed some light on the truth of your biased censorship behavior? (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, You have new messages at Talk:Alkaline_diet#Lets_find_a_solution.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yes I went there to find a solution and discuss it with you and in the mean time you went behind my back and had me blocked. That actually occurred during our conversation there to find a consensus. I find that contradictory behavior. See WP:COND. It's ok I made this link up, just to show that while you can link to Wiki rules, it makes your comments seem nice and official, but it does not mean they apply... (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


Unfortunately, your editing since you were unblocked has not complied with the conditions stated in the unblock notice. You have certainly not been editing "without a battleground mentality", and it does not seem that you "accept that editing follows consensus, even if you disagree with the consensus". Since your prolonged plugging of the same points over and over again, and apparent inability to see what others have said to you, are disruptive, and since you are causing a considerable amount of other editors' time to be wasted, you have been blocked again for three days. I do hope that, when this block expires, you can manage to be more collaborative in your editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. You have saved me from dealing with this. I think you will find that I have seen what others have said to me, responded to each point and made it clear that these people know nothing of the topic of the article. They have shown a battleground mentality, attacking their own secondary article when they thought it was me. I will just make that clear again, when they thought the article in question was my words they attacked its validity. But when they want to use it to support their viewpoint, the same article is completely valid. That shows a bias to attack whatever the person says, not the substance of what they say. (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is not a vote or a majority rules. I checked that. It means that ALL editors have a voice. I never asked for their edit to be removed, just clarified, whereas they demanded that mine be removed. That is not, consensus as defined by Wikipedia. I was engaged in a dispute resolution when you blocked me. Regardless my points have been made on the talk page, evidence of bias is there and adds to the list of other more experienced wiki contributors who also observed bias there. Since I provided sources, made a clarifying point that an admin agreed had some merit and answered all of their comments, I don't see the point of the exclusion of my point. You say that I was plugging the same point. You did not see that I was responding to their points, which involved them plugging the same point! As I said in my discussion, 5 monkeys can kill a man, that does not make them smarter than the man. None of these people have even a basic understanding of the diet, yet engage in a wholesale biased criticism of the diet. That is the reality, and you are now contributing to that reality. A collaboration is not a majority, I know, I read the rules. Perhaps you can read them again? (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes I was looking at his profile to see if he had a history of disruptive behavior and he did. Since this administrator had taken an active interest in this person's behavior on Wikipedia I thought they might like to be aware of this situation. I left it tot them to decide what to do about it. (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I will not spend time trying to answer all your points, many of which have already been answered elsewhere. however, I will just mention one thing. On Wikipedia "consensus" is not a matter of a majority vote, in the sense that if six people support a point of view and four oppose it, that point of view is not automatically accepted. However, if a large number of people over an extended period of time on several different pages think that a particular position has no merit, while one person endlessly sticks to that position, then that position is clearly contrary to consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked at WP:CONS and it is not what you say here. Sorry. I suggest you read the rules rather than referring to them incorrectly. Regardless of what you say here, as explained below there was consensus for what I said, if we use your definition of consensus. Does that now make my point valid? (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. On the Alkaline Diet page a large number of people over an extended period of time have labeled this article and some of its contributors as biased. Also I question your view of consensus as I read the wiki rules and they clearly stated that all points of view, if shown to be valid, even when opposing, should be included, not excluded by a majority. And if you read up in the talk page you would see that others have made exactly the same point that I have about the I accuracy of the criticism in reference to the facts of the diet. Therefore you will find that it is not one person against a majority, it is several against several. The only difference is that one side has resorted to threats of blocking, reverts and actual blocking when the other side has not. So perhaps you want to go back to the article and read the whole talk page. I actually started my comments following on from those of another and Ronz moved them into their own discussion. I now see how that made it appear that I was a lone voice. I am not. So by your own definition here, my comments, as supported by others may have merit?! Perhaps you want to investigate that? (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Another admin when revising the talk pages sided with my process 3 times only to be ignored. This was not one person's opinions against a group. Or did you miss that in your review of the situation? (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Each of my comments was in response to a request for more information or a statement by another user. Each was a different approach at the same topic yet still the same topic, using the same misinformation to make the same point. Therefore you might find that both groups were sticking to the same point. But as there is 5 or 6 of them and one of me, it looks like I am being stubborn and they are not. I think you really missed that point. And as I said above, others have had the identical discussion on the talk page with the same result. A gang of people denouncing them, no matter what they say, and then blocking. So since this same team have done the same thing to others, I think it is clear there who is sticking to the same point and not allowing for consensus. (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Arcandam (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

And you came in to help with a peaceful moderation? I have seen your comments against me on the discussion board, wanting to block me. I see now the charade of your desire to come to a resolution. I see that you were happy i was blocked so that a resolution process would not occur. (talk)
Ehm, dude, you have the timeline wrong. Arcandam (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
(Revised) Sorry I see that your comment was not a personal attack but a reference to a link. Please ignore my last comments which I have deleted. As for the dead horse argument, it has been the method that the collective five or six contributors used to get others making my same point to give up. They provide incorrect responses to my claims, that over time create a sense of an argument going nowhere. In fact five times I showed that their argument was false and each time they came back with a new argument that false. But that creates the impression that I am in a dead horse discussion. I think you missed that point and I suggest you are fooled by them. Like others to the talk page, I also gave up, as it was clear they used their numbers to overwealm me. Regardless the evidence is there for others who come to the talk page, so maybe the next lone voice of reason who actually knows about the diet, will not be seen to be alone by people in power such as yourself. (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah, OK, no problem. Yeah, Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass has a bit of a weird name but it is not a personal attack, just the title of the story. Arcandam (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I read the reference to WP:BRD you refered me to and it actually said to do what I did. It said that "Occasionally some editors will use Gibberish just to confuse, pretending to be experienced." (talk).
As an example some people have referred to WP:FRINGE as an example of my my concerns do not meet the Wikipedia standards. When I looked at the article I found that WP:FRINGE refers to placing fringe issues on a mainstream article. Since this is a fringe article it is not relevant. As I look deeper into this I see that some of you like to shoot off these brief WP:XXXX statements as proof that I am wrong, but when I look into it the WP:XXXX is not actually relevant. Now if I go back to the talk page and make this statement where the WP:FRINGE was stated, am I being a) argumentative b) battlefield mentality c) disruptive d) flogging a dead horse, or e) telling the truth? I think that because I actually took time to explain my points rather than shoot off irrelevant one liners with WP:XXXX in them you call that endlessly sticking to one point. (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
User Saedon has made a great offer below! The WP:XXXX statements are useful jargon, but hard to understand at first. Arcandam (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
These jargons are links to Wiki rules, and of course they are useful as a link. But when they have no actual relevance to the issue, and they are used without explanation they serve little purpose. Which is why I went to the pages and read them and saw that they are being misrepresented. I can say that you are wrong because of WP:CONS, WP:TS, WP:BS, WP:BOLD, and WP:FOOL but unless I explain what that actually means, it is just a lazy way of not actually explaining you point while trying to appear Wiki Knowledgeable. It even mentioned this behavior on one of the pages and said that I should not be fooled by this or bullied by people using this jargon, nor think they actually know more than me. That's what Wikipedia actually told me... (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A Genuine offer[edit]

For reasons I feel would be inappropriate to elucidate here, I'm feeling very generous and open this fine morning. So I have an offer to you: follow me around, join the discussions I join on wiki and lend your opinion when you have one to offer. I think if you spend some time doing some regular editing with me we might perhaps both end up with a fresh perspective at the alkaline diet and perhaps said perspective will help find a compromise, or at least a better understanding. Some sort of quasi-mentorship I suppose. I think you'll find that while I do have my biases they are probably different than you think. How does that sound? SÆdontalk 14:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Saedon, thank you for your kind offer. With all due respect, I am unable to accept for reasons of time and focus. I have invested 2 days and thousands of words to attempt to have a single qualifying statement attached to one minor source out of 7 on a fringe Wikipedia page. As with several others on the talk page in the past, I also found a reluctance from those well established there to allow anything other than criticism of the diet to exist on that article. I just raised a line of questioning of the validity of one of the sources in the article. This was a question that others before me had also raised. I now understand why my discussion of these points was generously moved by Ronz to the bottom of the talk page. It was not to make it easier for people to follow. Rather this action made my statements appear independent and isolated, when in fact they were simply supporting the statements of several others on the talk page. These are other editors who also gave up making the same points as me after they received a barrage of reverts, threats of blocks and actual blocks. (talk)

Fortunately that history of others presenting the same concerns as me on the article is still evident on the talk page so I know I was not alone, despite the viewpoint that I was one man against the consensus. Rather I was part of a long running consensus. Since others who agreed with me gave up, they were not there to defend me. While an independent administrator provided 3rd party viewpoint supporting my line of questioning 3 times (and now also in a conclusion) these supporting comments were also ignored. I was therefore viewed as the loan individual against the consensus. That was not true at all, but it successfully served its purpose for the wishes of those that control this article. It enabled me to be blocked for three days. This block actually occurred during a dispute resolution process. Interestingly the person who asked me to engage in a dispute resolution was at that same time behind my back asking for me to be blocked. This allowed them to make their points on that dispute resolution while I was unable to respond. I found this out in the discussion page (talk)

Check the timeline dude. Arcandam (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
That you would either offer to dispute resolve and then try to block me, or block me and then offer to dispute resolve, both versions are pretty sly. So the timeframe is irrelevant which you started first. If either version happened in the same day I'd find that pretty weird. Therefore I don't see the timeline as relevant. The block actually took effect during the start of the dispute resolution discussion, so I guess you initiated both within the same hour or something like that. Your block certainly stopped me engaging in your dispute resolution process. And you had to have been aware of it coming when you were in the discussion with me, and you made no mention of it. So that is also pretty weird. So my statement stands. (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I know a lot more about the diet than any of those who made statements against me there. Yet by the misuse of the term "consensus" and the reference to the link WP:CONS (with no explanation of how it is relevant) I am now unable to express my concerns that others have shared. I have done some research on the WP:CONS page to discover that the concept of consensus is being blatantly misrepresented. I do not wish to become a Wikipedia editor or to become familiar with the methods for obtaining this misrepresented viewpoint of Wiki Consensus. I followed the principles on the WP:BOLD page and yet I was blocked. (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Having done further research into Wikipedia rules I see that WP:FRINGE has been used in an inappropriate way to discredit my concerns. It relates to the use of fringe medical concepts on mainstream medical pages, not the use of fringe medical concepts on pages about that very fringe concept. Therefore I do not wish to engage in a process of learning how to misrepresent the rules of Wikipedia to achieve a censoring of a valid point on a fringe article, by those with no basic understanding of the primary source or the topic of the article. Please note again, I do not follow this diet or support it. I have simply know about it. (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I would not attempt to edit an article about brain surgery or rocket science, since I know nothing about them. I find it laughable that people are vigorously controlling and editing an article about the Alkaline Diet when they don't even know the basics of how it works. Not even the basics as explained online, let alone the basics as explained in several substantial independently published books. Some of this laughing came through in my choice of words. While I am sorry if that insulted people, I found their arguing against me with authority from a place of ignorance also insulting. Especially when this consumed a considerable amount of my time answering their uninformed arguments and questions. To put it another way I do not want to learn how to state through the use of Wikipedia rules that Harry Potter is a girl, when the primary source states that he is not. (see the Talk page if you don't understand that comment.) (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I also did some further research into the source I have questioned and found that it was reviewed by Harvard Medical School (and probably created) in 2010. The primary sources of the diet being books were created several years earlier. For example 2004 (The Acid-Alkaline Diet for Optimum Health) and 2007 (The pH Balance Diet) and 2006 (The Ultimate pH Solution). Therefore the source in question was unfamiliar with three of the main books about the diet available at the time it was written. Therefore the argument that proponents of the diet have been "moving the goalposts" is against the facts. Despite that there is a "consensus" among several people that this is the case. They have been happy to use this argument against me as proof that the secondary source in question is valid. This has been done without providing a single source that validates their argument and without reference to the facts. Any attempt by me to explain this has been interpreted as me flogging a dead horse. Yet that same dead horse analogy didn't apply to them making this same claim repeatedly. (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Now if I go to the talk page and post this evidence of the goal post not moving, (in 3 days time when my ban comes off), am I then being argumentative, showing a battleground mentality, disruptive editing, beating a dead horse? Or am I just doing the maths of 2010-2004 and saying that 6 years before the source was written the goalposts were fixed? Thanks to you and others I know the answer to that. I will be attacked, goaded into questions and answers that anyone familiar with the diet would already know about, and stupidly I would put detailed answers. This would then be seen as me blabbering on about the same point. Others would use nice brief comments like "This is against WP:XXXX and therefore irrelevant." That makes them appear to be nice and happy and educated in the ways of Wikipedia. It also doesn't change the fact that the secondary source is inconsistent with the primary source and therefore questionable. This defeating of my detailed logical and well sourced arguments is possible because I am seen as just one person and therefore my logic does not count. Yet I am not the only one to question the article's bias or the validity of this source. I just came in later and those people already gave up, as I have now done. (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please be aware that at no time did I wish to remove the criticism of the diet, or remove that source from the article. As this is a fringe topic I believe it is important to have as many viewpoints represented there as possible. I just wished to add a sourced note to the criticism to express my concerns. I will now say that Wikipedia has lost an editor with detailed knowledge of this topic, in favor of a bunch of biased editors that know nothing about it. I hope that you know you are one of the main people that has encouraged me to leave editing Wikipedia. Your polite questions about the diet to encourage me to respond took up my time when you had no interest in the response. It was just an opportunity for you to then attack me. This attack on me caused the reaction it was intended to create, and now I am blocked and you are kindly offering to mentor me. Note I made no attempts to further edit the page, confining myself to the talk page. While others used the word "bullshit" against me, they were not blocked. I was actually blocked during a dispute resolution process. In other words it was not enough to silence my voice from the actual page, I also had to be silenced from the talk page. I don't see that as consensus as defined by Wikipedia. (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you and MastCell were happy to talk from your own area of medical expertise into an article about a topic which you clearly know nothing about. I would never be interested in learning how to do that. I see no reason to follow someone around on a forum that I no longer believe in (Wikipedia) to be taught how to hide and delete the facts and give credit to one source that is clearly wrong. Thank you again for your offer though. I believe it was made with the best intentions. It just does not suit my personal preferences and time constraints. And in reality I'm probably not knowledgeable enough to give valid opinions on the pages you might be visiting. I know about the Alkaline Diet and the Atkins Diet. The Atkins Diet page is well represented and without bias. I don't have an understanding of biology beyond that of a lay person. Since I would not comment on something I know nothing about I am best not commenting at all. (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Lastly, my own administrator, my wife, has blocked me from further comment on this article as she has stated that for the time I have invested there has been a basic lack of respect, consideration of my knowledge or appreciation of my voice. For what I have given to this article I have received nothing back. She has also pointed out that I have more important things to do with my time and my life than argue over the validity of a tiny link on some obscure page. (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Therefore to conclude, I quote Ricky Bobby from Talladega Nights, "With all due respect, and I say, with all due respect..." You can fill in the rest. Maximus. (Or as you have all rightly been calling me due to the lack of a proper user page, the IP). (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to help you anymore. Maybe Saedon can help you if you decide to return to Wikipedia, but I think that is unlikely after the way you've treated him. Arcandam (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I was not actually aware of you helping. I thought starting a dispute resolution process was helping, and I was really happy about that. Then I was blocked and frustrated as I thought we would sort this out together. Then I found out you had also started a process to have me blocked. Then I saw that you were happy when I was blocked as that ended the dispute resolution process. If this is what you call helping I am happy to be without it. I have only observed Saedon asking me questions to goad me into a place he then attacks me, so I am happy to live without his help either. (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
That is bullshit and you know it. Sorry, I've lost interest, you just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again. Yes, you are a superhero, and we are all evil, even those of us who tried to help you. If you ever manage to deal with your WP:COMPETENCE, WP:ABF & WP:IDHT problems and you've read WP:MEDRS and you understand the difference between Primary, secondary and tertiary sources you can try again. Arcandam (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually I really did not know that. I know you like short responses now without facts just WP:XXXX links without explanations, so I will give you one. Short answers that have no details and no facts are not better than long ones that do. In fact quite the opposite. (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE Says, "Factual incompetence - The best good will is unavailing if basic understanding of the facts... is lacking." It also says "Lack of technical expertise - Not usually a problem at all, as long as they don't delve into areas that require it. Not everyone needs the same skill set—and as long as people operate only where they're capable, it's not a problem." Well on that basis MastCell and Saedon, who have no knowledge of the diet cannot be editing on a page about the diet. Ooops. Sorry I'm just supposed to give short meaningless answers. Sorry... (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:ABF says "That editor is a...sockpuppet". You have started an investigation into me for this. Ooops, am I not meant to actually look these WP:XXXX up? (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:MERDS refers to medicine. This is a diet you all agree is fringe, and now you want to apply the rules of mainstream medicine to it? Like I said, you love to sprout all these WP:XXXX but when I go there I see no relevance. But me saying this shows I am talking too much. Sorry i will just submit to WP:SUBMIT. (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A slightly longer answer, here since I cannot edit the talk page. Saedon cannot tell the difference between alter and affect. To affect means to put a pressure on something. To alter means to change it. I have had an affect on the talk page by my comments. You have all responded to me and had an affect on your time and on my opinion of Wikipedia. Yet despite all this affecting each other, the article has not been altered. Much like the Alkaline Diet says that acidic residue food affects the blood pH, but does not alter. Now maybe you can explain to him that this is not semantics. That is why the two words are different in the English language, because they don't mean the same thing. (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

And Sadeon, you say once again, "where the main point is that the sense of the words is to refer to 'change,' which is what the diet purports to do and what the Harvard source says the diet can't do." Ooops, is that you pushing the same argument again? Well the diet doesn't say that, and has not said that since 2004 at least. Read a book would you? Please. (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet and I am not linked to this diet. If I was I might have had an issue with 90% of the article. I just sought to clarify one minor point. I didn't even ask for that point to be removed, just clarified. As others before me has tried to do. (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a WP:BULL**** but if there is then I guess you should be blocked for a few days. Don't worry, I won't tell anyone, I'd rather you had the right to speak since this is just a talk page. (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

And lastly, an admin who was involved in my initial block had a look at the article and said that those against me might have misunderstood secondary and second hand sources, but hey, he's just an admin... (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Against my better judgement I'm going to do you the favor of pasting the google definition of the word "affect," as you for what ever reason have very odd definition of it: "Have an effect on; make a difference to:. Just so there's no confusion, here is the definition of the word "effect," since it is used to define affect: "A change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause." Please note that there is nothing in that definition that would lead one to conclude that the word means "to put pressure on something."

Then you are right, I have used the wrong wording. The actual details of the diet remain the same though. It has never said that it tries to change (is that a better word) the blood pH. Once again, read a book on the diet please before you get involved in a page about the diet. (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Lastly, using your talk page while blocked for anything other than unblock requests or block discussion is prohibited, and if you continue you should expect that an admin will revoke your talk page access at some point. Other than that, I'm out, not interested in joining the WP:BATTLEGROUND, which is an wikilink that definitely fits the bill. SÆdontalk 20:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

OMG, I am so sorry. Please ignore everything I have said on this talk page and the Alkaline Diet talk page. I now understand the system. Just replace it with this: "Understand the diet before commenting on this article please, see WP:COMPETENCE." What was I thinking? (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg 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 Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Alkaline diet are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. SÆdontalk 19:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

SAEDON, I did none of the above. I exposed a WP:GANG, which you are a part of. I made some very specific points about the article. I did not promote anything or advertise anything. Your use of the WP:SOAPBOX is completely inappropriate and designed to hide your own bias and lies. Your repeated use of WP:XXXX terms to hide your lack of WP:COMPETENCE is disturbing. Your behavior and your ability to get away with it, is the reason that I find Wikipedia a joke. (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Auto-archiving of User_talk:Jimbo_Wales[edit]

Hello, user Wikid77 here. The issue about auto-archiving of messages, on Jimbo's talk-page, is based on lack of responses after 2 days (or such), at which point, an automated Bot program moves the older messages into a talk-page archive file. That is what I meant by "Will be archived" because Jimbo was probably too busy to respond to all the issues noted in your message of 13 May 2012. The auto-archiving, of your specific message thread, was not a "punishment" based on some people thinking that you had been on Wikipedia longer than 3 days (which was more like 6 days). Instead, the archiving was triggered by lack of responses within 2 days. Anyway, currently, Jimmy Wales is preparing to travel on some international trips into the Ukraine, during the month of June, and is likely to be too busy to respond to your recent messages. However, at the end of June, or into July, he might have more time, and perhaps you might try to re-contact him a month from now instead. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you that is a very clear response. My comments regarding your opinion that I was "hard to believe" still stand. Your comment made here would have been a far better explanaition than your assumption I must be lying, simply because I had learned a few WP:XXXX rules in 3 days. Also your failure to see that my issue was not with my first block but my second still stamds. That this attitude of mistrust of a newbie is the only response that appeared after 2 days just shows my point even more. As for the 3 days / 6 days comment, I was there 3 days then banned for 3 days and when unbanned I posted my comment. So 3 days active on there before the 3 day ban, which occurred during a dispute resolution process. So now it is clear that no one actually has an interest in the princle of WP:BOLD and no one cares that a newbie got bitten during the use of a talk page by a well organzied WP:GANG. You people are so quick to budge and block someone, but when it takes time to actually look into a WP:GANG there is no response. Just assumptions and excuses. That is WP:SAD. Maximus. (talk) 04:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


link=User talk: (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello, You have new messages at [[User talk: (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)|User talk: (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Harry Potter Is A Girl[edit]

This is the text removed from the Alkaline Diet talk page on the basis of being a soapbox addition. Maximus (changing IP as in transit) (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

WALL: I apologize for my “wall of text.” I type about as fast as I think and I speed read and I forget that others do not do this. I could have found shorter ways to make my points and I apologize for this. I thought that detail was better and I was wrong. I have learned that links to Wikipedia rules with no explanation as to how they are relevant, accompanied with one line statements devoid of any fact or reason are better. I have used this style in my comments here, throwing in as many Wiki rules as possible. Which as a newbie took considerable time to research and understand. During which time I found that most of the rules were being misused by editors in this talk page to fool a newbie into thinking they are doing something wrong. WP:BOLD. Sorry for breaking WP:TLDR. (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

UNDUE WEIGHT: A number of people have given undue weight to a casual one page website article which is not a medical paper and not written by an MD nor by the Harvard Medical School. It is a web article written by a nutritionalist and reviewed by the Harvard Medical School. It has zero references, sources or links to the primary material to support its claims. It is presented by some editors here as medical research and a valid secondary source because it was written by a doctor at a prestigious medical school. The truth is quite the opposite. According to the article itself “Stephanie Vangsness, M.S., R.D., L.D.N., received her master’s degree in nutrition and health promotion from Simmons College, Boston. She is a senior clinical nutritionist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital.” WP:UNDUE. WP:MERDS. WP:GEVAL. WP:SUBSTANTIATE. WP:WEIGHT. An editor said: “There is a reason, however, that Harvard medical faculty is commenting on blood pH levels with the alkaline diet and it would be quite audacious for us to second guess that.” An editor said: “No offense but your analysis doesn't carry the same weight as someone who actually has a medical degree and works for one of the best medical schools in the world.” (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

PRIMARY SOURCES: A number of editors here discredited my concerns about this article on the basis that these concerns were based on primary sources and not secondary sources. They have referred to WP:V. It has been noted several times by an administrator that this argument was in contradiction with WP:PRIMARY. They did this to the point of claiming that Wikipedia would state that Harry Potter is a girl if the secondary sources said this, regardless of the primary source. This is a complete misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY and WP:V. Despite this exact point being made to them by this administrator three times, they continued repeating this same line of argument, pushing the same point, despite lacking consensus for their idea. WP:CONS, WP:BATTLEGROUND. At no point did they provide secondary sources that contradicted my claims about the primary source, despite insisting 6 times that they had done this. This mistake is due to a lack of basic understanding of the primary material. WP:COMPETENCE. This repeated use of the same argument shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

COMPETENCE: A number of people have made comments on this article that are inconsistent with the primary sources, showing they they do not understand the diet at all. Despite this they have been commenting on this article, deciding if sources are valid and relevant, reverting edits and blocking anyone posting information here who actually knowns about the diet.” WP:COMPETENCE. This issue has been going on for some time with a number of editors noting this behavior. These are quotes from previous editors on the talk page: “I have read many websites and other materials supporting this diet pH concept and there never seems to be any claim of modifying the blood's pH levels.” “Criticisms only all based on personal opinions and twisting of the theory.” “Attempts to balance this article have continually been thwarted by what appears to be biased policing of editors attempting to make the article more realistic.” “It seems all attempts by many to neutralize this article's bias have been attacked and the users threatened with severe warnings of punishment or embarrassment” “Each time a reference or statement has been added with links to any positive information it has been deleted.” “Most attempts to correct this bias, to more factual statements, have been thwarted by selective editing by certain moderators. Some edits, reverted by conscientious moderators, have even been reverted only to be reedited to the original edit. This demonstrates severe bias as noted in another section.” “Comments not inline with the moderators in charge have been removed. It was so bad at one point an editor replaced a dead link I removed twice, with threatening notices about vandalism, only to discover it was a dead link.” “A previous editor included links to research by MDs and it was reverted as ‘Primary Research’ conflicting with their secondary research in the article.” “The present day version of this article shows no support for the diet, only criticism... Presently, there are no supporting arguments, or even a thorough explanation of the principles behind the alkaline diet.” “Some references were provided (check history) however they were reverted by editors concerned with the content, repeatedly without consensus.” “I think it is fair to say that the alkaline diet article totally misrepresents the perspective shown in the scientific literature.” (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

MOVING GOALPOSTS: A number of people have said that the article I have doubts about refers to examples of the diet which claim to significantly and lastingly alter blood pH. I have seen a lack of any examples of the diet that claim this. This evidence is then said to be because former forms of the diet have been superseded by other forms of the diet as proponents attempted to “change the goal posts”. As a point of fact, the article in question was reviewed and therefore probably created in 2010. The primary sources of the diet at that time, being several substantial independently published books, were created several years earlier. For example 2004 (The Acid-Alkaline Diet for Optimum Health) and 2007 (The pH Balance Diet) and 2006 (The Ultimate pH Solution). None of these primary sources claim that the diet alters the blood pH. Therefore the writer of this article in question was either unfamiliar with three of the main books about the diet at the time her article was written, or she ignored their content in favor of some other obscure sources that I have never seen. Therefore the argument that proponents of the diet have been "moving the goalposts" is against the facts as I see them. I have been referred to 5 websites by editors of this article that they claimed showed the diet said it changes blood pH. When I examined each of them, none of them claimed this. In fact they said the opposite. I have not seen a single source to support this claim of moving goalposts. Yet even now, one of the editors claims to have provided proof of this point. This misunderstanding of these minor website primary sources of the diet occurs because of the editors having a complete lack of understanding of the diet or any knowledge of the published primary source material for this diet. WP:PRIMARY. It occurs due to their refusal to think that such a lack of knowledge matters when editing this article despite the principle of WP:COMPETENCE. They believe they have a valid basis to edit this article despite their lack of knowledge because they can make repeated reference to Wikipedia rules, without any explaining of how these rules are actually relevant. Their incorrect use of these Wikipedia rules has been pointed out to them four times by an administrator. Each time the tried to explain their point again with an ever increasing wall of text. When I did that it was judged to be a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. When they do it then it is just them discussing the issue. (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

BATTLEFIELD: A number of people have made personal attacks against me while at the same time having me blocked for using insulting language or being argumentative. WP:BATTLEGROUND. WP:NPA. Here are some examples: “Bulls#!t.” “Bulls#!t.” “You just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again.” “Yes, you are a superhero, and we are all evil.” “I'll leave aside my follow-up personal questions.” “I'm a biologist... and your specialty is film finance - which two of us do you think are more qualified to comment on this subject?” (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

EDIT WARING: While I was ignorantly guilty of edit waring as I didn’t know what that was, or even that I had a “messages” page, I was being WP:BOLD without knowing it. I have since confined my activities to the talk page. WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Regardless editors here have used claims of disruptive editing to have me blocked again. Yet I have not done any editing or reverting of the article since the initial block. Rather I have answered every point or question that was presented against me. If you look at the talk page you will see that all my comments are in response to someone else, and not me making endless claims without provocation. This is not WP:BATTLEGROUND. This is discussing the issues. Because there is a WP:GANG of people asking me questions or making false statements, they each made 1 point and I have to make 5x1 points in response. That makes it look like I am “repeating the same nonsense over and over again.” Yet each time it was a different statement to a different person about a different point that they had made. (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

NEWCOMER BITE: Editors have been quick to have me reverted and blocked, aware that I am a newcomer to Wikipedia editing, on the basis that I did not agree with them. This was despite me presenting sourced evidence for my concerns and defeating any claims against my evidence. When I was engaging in a dispute resolution process with an editor that same editor was also in the process of having me blocked, and was then happy I was blocked. No dispute resolution then occurred. WP:NEWCOMER and WP:DONTBITE. This was when I was following the principles of WP:BOLD as newcomers are requested to do. Editors have talked on my talk page while I am blocked, then when it didn’t go their way, one said that if I use my talk page for anything other than being unblocked I will be blocked from this talk page as well. This is despite them engaging me this way. So it is one rule for them, and another rule for me, because I am just the newcomer. Welcome newcomer to Wikipedia! Do as we say, not as we do. See WP:BOLD and WP:DONTBITE. This has resulted in a newcomer in just three days giving up on the idea of doing any Wikipedia editing in the future. I now reject Wikipedia. WP:SHUN. This “bite” of a newbie was made over a simple qualifying note I added to a minor source on a tiny fringe article which I have considerable knowledge about. The other editors who made this newbie bite do not have any real knowledge about this topic yet happily blocked me from the conversation. See WP:COMPETENCE, WP:TALKDONTREVERT, WP:BITE. (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

SOCK?: WP:ABF says that you should take a break if you immediately assume "That editor is a... sockpuppet". An editor started an investigation into me for this based on one supporting comment. Maybe they were just someone supporting me? I didn't even know what "the 86" meant. I had to work it out. I didn't know what a sock puppet was until I was accused of being one. Now that I understand, let me ask this. Why would I edit the article page and go into an edit war knowing already that I would get blocked immediatelyfor doing this? If I was going to support myself I would do that on the talk page in detail. (Yes, another wall of text) The person you claimed was a sock didn’t even talk about the same issue I have focused on, they rather mention something totally different. Yet it was assumed that they were a sock of me just because they supported me. See the WP:DUCK test which they clearly fail. Is it possible that they were simply agreeing with me? No way according to an editor of this article. There was no “He might be socking.” There was just “He is socking.” See WP:ABF again and WP:DUCK. You might learn something. Maybe there is a WP:GANG here and I really am just a valid editor of the article? Let’s look a bit deeper. It was said that I made an edit, it was reverted, I was blocked, and then a comment supporting me was made 1/2 an hour later. That was proof that I was a sock. I followed the link to the log and I saw that the comment supporting me was made a day after I was blocked, not 1/2 an hour later. Plus now an editor seems to be lying to make me appear to be a sock. I would say that WP:LIE and WP:BATTLEFIELD applies. (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

FALSE CLAIMS BY SAEDON: You say to the administrator involved that you have already given a source where the diet says it changes blood pH. You have not provided one source that makes this claim. You believe you have because you know nothing about this diet. I have read three 150-200 page books on this diet. You have read a few one page website articles. Your intentions are good but your knowledge is not. See WP:COMPETENCE. You don't understand that I proved five times that these web articles do not say that the diet changes blood pH. You do this due to your total lack of understanding of the main primary sources being being independently published books by qualified nutritionalists from 5+ years ago. Beyond this you give these recent one page website articles more weight than the independently published books on the diet because you have not read them. See WP:BURDEN. WP:SOURCE. WP:WEIGHT, WP:UNDUE You described a secondary source as "someone who actually has a medical degree and works for one of the best medical schools in the world." In fact the author is neither of these. She is described on that same website as "Stephanie Vangsness, M.S., R.D., L.D.N., received her master’s degree in nutrition and health promotion from Simmons College, Boston. She is a senior clinical nutritionist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital." Her article is an opinion piece with not one single reference or source quoted. It does not give any primary sources upon which it bases it's opinion. It is not a medical paper in any way. See WP:V, WP:MEDRS. It's author confuses blood pH and body pH just as you have done. I have made this clear and in doing so another editor actually attacked this same source for being confusing, thinking it was me. See WP:COMPETENCE. You have given undue weight to this article as you have misunderstood it for a medical research paper. See WP:UNDUE. WP:MEDRS. You have misunderstood the purpose of WP:FRINGE which is to exclude fringe theories from articles on mainstream topics. I quote "Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong." This is not a mainstream article trying to mention a fringe theory, this is a fringe theory article trying to mention itself. I could have done the work of reviewing these books in order to improve the diet. When I was first blocked and my mistake was made clear to me, I offered to do this. “Perhaps it is better that I rework the description of the diet section, and explain in detail what the current description of the diet is. There (with the references I am hoping you and Ronz provide) I will be able to discuss how the diet has "morphed" as you say. Then with the current incarnation of the diet I will describe how the blood pH does not vary and this condition is what causes the acid accumulation in the body (as the diet claims). That way any criticism that refers to the blood pH changing will be clearly leveled at the previous incarnation of the diet and not the current incarnation. I will give your references and mine in that section to refer to the description of the diet. Is that a satisfactory solution to you?” Instead Ronz attacked me with the “No true Scotsman fallacy.” I mean where do you people find this junk? I read it and it has nothing to do with what I was saying above. But being a newbie I was fooled and I complied. I did not improve the diet article. I did not follow WP:BOLD as I did not yet know about it. Instead I just responded to Ronz and others. (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Now you say that you will do it when you have time. For all the thousands of words I have written here there could have been an amazing unbiased and factual Wikipedia article here consistent with all the rules of Wikipedia. Instead I was constantly harassed again and again to prove a point that I made five times that you just didn’t understand due to your basic lack of knowledge. See WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:DONTBITE. WP:BAIT. WP:NEWCOMERS. (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE. In particular I see evidence on the talk page of WP:OWN and WP:TAGTEAM involving you, and with a long history of this involving others. I see a number of other victims of this same WP:TAGTEAM. (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

THE ADMINISTRATORS: Dear administrators. As I am leaving Wiki editing after three days of being involved in it. I shall leave you with this information which I doubt you will read or care about, for my own self respect that I said it. I made a comment about the user Ronz for the administrator WormTT to read. As a newcomer to Wikipedia I followed the WP:BOLD rules and made a comment with uncertainty. I did not know if it was appropriate or not and I explained that with the very clear "Sorry if this is not the appropriate way to communicate this, and please fell free to delete and ignore this message if that is the case." WormTT might have said "Thanks I need to know that as I have to monitor that guy." Or WormTT might have said "I don't need to know that, what were you doing telling me that?!" Being a newcomer I didn't know the answer to that question. As there is another administrator dealing with the Alkaline Diet issues there was no intention to bring this administrator into that discussion. Therefore I was not trying to get support against Ronz. And since I'm not returning to Wikipedia editing, this post is also not made to get any support. Now that I have read some of the rules thrown at me these last 3 days, I can say that your comments here are WP:BATTLEGROUND and also WP:BITE. Rather than respecting my ignorance and reading my clear acknowledgement of this ignorance you have instead attacked me. Having been here three days I have noticed that those who have been here longer like to use countless unexplained WP:XXXX links to justify whatever they say, when ignoring those rules the links refer to. I was warned in WP:BOLD to not be fooled by this. I was also told in WP:BOLD to stand my ground. For example one editor criticized me for being impolite by me saying the words "Funny isn't it?" about another user attacking the very source he was defending, when he thought the comment was from me. Then the editor used the word "Bulls#!t" in a tirade against me. Then he sought to have me blocked. It's ok for him to break the rules but not ok for me the newbie. The same editor entered into a dispute resolution process with me while also asking for me to be blocked, thus cutting me off during the very dispute resolution he initiated. This allowed him to make his points with no way for me to respond. Then he claimed he didn't do that, while posting on a discussion board that he was happy I was blocked. Seeing I was blocked he didn’t say to the administrator “He is a newbie, I’m trying to educate him and resolve this, please unblock him.” Of course this block was also supported by the administrator who blocked me who could have seen I was in a dispute resolution process. I don't know how to block someone. But why would I want to? A few harsh words were said to me. Big deal. I'm an adult and I know that sticks and stones can break my bones, but words cannot hurt me. WP:CONS Consensus can only be reached when both sides can communicate, not just one side, because the other side is blocked from expressing their opinion. This would be against the Wikipedia rules WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BOLD. Yet me having real points worth discussing has seen me blocked for a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. It's not such a mentality, it is just me knowing what I am talking about, while also being a newcomer. Some more experienced editors who know nothing of the topic are controlling the article as if they own it. See WP:OWN, WP:GANG, WP:TAGTEAM. None of you administrators have done anything to help that newcomer other than block him. Perhaps you could acknowledge my relative WP:COMPETENCE and follow the principle of WP:DONTBITE. And please don’t say that I was offered a mentor to guide me. This guy had attacked me repeatedly without any knowledge of the topic, and rather than wanting to resolve this article, wanted to take me on a journey following him around Wikipedia to see him edit articles I would probably know nothing about. I mean WP:WTF? Having had 3 days to look over the rules I have seen that most of what experienced editors claim against me are followed by WP:XXXX, yet they are not in line with the actual rules they quote. Once I looked up the rules I saw that they were often acting totally against the rule they were quoting. Fortunately an administrator has taken up my points as he knows the rules and knows that the comments against me were false. Since the administrator cannot easily be blocked the people that blocked me have had to actually communicate with him. Having seen them do that, they now agree to my points about the article. This only happened when those points came from an administrator, not me. I now see the WP:TAGTEAM that blocked me twice have been defeated by an administrator. With your help though they were able to block me twice, directly against the principles of WP:BOLD and WP:BITE. The debate about the accuracy of one source in the article has been the same for the administrator as it was for me. Yet when this opinion came from a newcomer it was dismissed and I was blocked. When it came from an administrator, who is not even as WP:COMPETENT as me, it was listened to and agreed with. So well done for biting the newcomer and now I am leaving Wikipedia. See WP:DONTBITE. Rather than contributing to an article I know a lot about, it will remain with those people who have no knowledge of the topic, who misrepresent the topic, misquote a secondary source, give it undue weight WP:UNDUE. They have been repeatedly accused of bias, abuse and destructive editing over a period of time by a number of other editors. Just look up on the talk page and you will see this. My original post was added to their comments and Ronz kindly moved it down to the bottom so that I seemed like a lone voice in the wilderness, rather than yet another person with concerns about this article. See WP:GANG. (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

SERIOUSLY: Since this really is my last post, I will say this. Some of you people take this Wiki thing way to seriously. All I wanted to do was make a tiny qualifying comment to a single reference out of 7 references, to one point on a fringe article. See WP:FRINGE. I happened to be passing through and I saw that it was inconsistent with the main primary source material which I am familiar with. WP:COMPETENCE. I did not want to remove the reference, or the criticism, or even change it in any way. I did not do any disruptive editing to the article. All I did was add value by making this one qualification in line with the main primary source material. Regardless I was immediately reverted and then blocked then attacked, then blocked again. What about the principles WP:BRD, WP:BOLD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT? Is it really that serious and that important that my knowledge of the primary source material WP:PRIMARY be deleted from this article immediately and aggressively by a WP:GANG who know the jargon and know some administrators? Now three days later after a lot of energy and time has been spent on this, nothing has changed on the article. But something has changed in me. I have learned a lot about people here, their need to control WP:OWN what they don’t understand, and their desire to WP:BITE rather than help or listen. I have also learned a lot about the rules of Wikipedia, which I see are mostly confusing, contradictory, and I can find a rule to justify whatever action I might take. As long as I have an administrator as a mate I can get away with anything by blocking those that oppose me. Like claiming that Harry Potter is a girl. With a few incorrect secondary sources and a WP:GANG I can actually do this. (search the talk page for “Potter” to understand this comment.) I won’t be involved in this extreme seriousness over nothing again. This situation I have experienced here is much like the theory of the Alkaline Diet: the blood pH doesn’t change, but the effort to maintain that pH unchanged takes a significant toll on the body. You have your precious little article intact, and you have lost an editor knowledgeable in the topic, in favor of six editors who know almost nothing about it. At least they know how to play Wikipedia politics. (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously guys, lighten up. It’s not an encyclopedia, it is a wiki. I will part with one final quote from Talledega Nights. “Anarchy! Anarchy! Anarchy! I don't even know what that means, but I love it!” Maximus. (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)