User talk:Mauricelavenant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The article on Astrology is obviously not neutral and, as such, needs thorough reviewing. It clearly depicts astrology as a pseudo-science. Fact is, astrology would be better described as a proto-science for, without it, there would be no science at all.

Mauricelavenant (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it WAS a proto-science. But now that we have science, it's obvious astrology is a pseudo-science. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A simple question[edit]

A simple question: Are you familiar with our Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've read the policy. What's your point exactly?

Are you at all familiar with astrology or are you simply peddling second-hand opinions on the topic?

What is my point exactly? Google. And yes I am well familiar with the way professional astrologers make money by feeding bullshit to the gullible. AndyTheGrump (talk)

I see. By the tone of your post, it seems you would love to bring the witch-hunt back and relish the prospect of watching astrologers burnt at the stake, just like the good old days of the inquisition. My initial question was not about the ethics of astrologers but about your knowledge of astrology, which I believe is close to nil. That being the case, you are hardly in a position to evaluate it and are basing your opinion on second hand knowledge, like the vast majority of people which hardly justifies a position of authority.

Now then, may I ask if you trust Monsanto's official research sanctioned by the FDA and claim that the food they produce is perfectly safe to eat or do you prefer the French study that presents evidence to the contrary? What bullshit would you rather feed yourself with? Do you think you are capable of critical thinking or are you just as vulnerable as the gullible? Which "science" do you trust in this case? I am asking these questions firstly to make a point about the fallacy of the "universal truth" science is supposed to dispense. In this case, it would be impossible for both parties to be correct. So, either Monsanto is lying or the French scientists are. You can't have it both ways. Yet, both parties are blinding us with science. And secondly, to make the point that ordinary people such as your good self are quite capable of reaching their own critical conclusions without any help from anyone, including astrologers as I am sure you have regarding this topic.

It seems to me that these are far more important issues in this world than chasing astrologers while foaming at the mouth, Mr Grump. And why don't you have the courage and honesty to present yourself under your real name instead of hiding behind this ridiculous pseudo however well-fitting it may be? Mauricelavenant (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but what on earth are you talking about? What does Monsanto have to do with anything? Do you think your ill-informed views about GMO somehow justifies anything about astrology? Oh, and by the way the conclusions of; [1] are non-falsifiable, and your stuff about cold fusion and zero-point energy machines highlights your scientific ineptitude. To paraphrase your own comments; are you at all familiar with science or are you simply peddling second-hand opinions on the topic? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You never give up do you - Mr Wolfie, this time - another terrier hiding behind a pseudo. Mentioning Monsanto has nothing to do with astrology and everything to do with showing how science can be interpreted in different ways to suit a pre-defined agenda. It depends who conducts the research. These are not my views. These are the views of the science behind Monsanto's GMO that - surprise, surprise - found their products to be totally safe for human consumption and the "other" science behind another bunch of scientists who seem to disagree. Now, you are free to stuff yourself and your family with GM food if you deem it safe which I expect would depend on which study you trust as sound.

And yes, you are right, I am not a scientist, never have been and never will be. However, I am a good researcher. As an astrologer, I am future oriented. The future will bring new technologies that are currently deemed impossible by individuals steeped in dogma. As Einstein said: you cannot solve problems by applying the solutions that created the problems in the first place - And - Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Thankfully, some scientists have taken this on-board and try to apply new solution to our current energy problem: Zero-point energy is well supported by the Casimir effect. Please, read Doctor Valone for further insight. This technology depends on our ability to produce nano-machines which are clearly difficult to make, but I am sure they will be made.

Meanwhile, you still latch out at the *one thing* you can use in my article and totally disregard the rest - an approach I've repeatedly seen used on the talk page. The article nonetheless mentions: Widespread Financial Crisis, Revolutions around the world, Energy Crisis, Ecological Crisis, and yes, "Agribusiness attempting to control the food supply" (I hear millions of people have demonstrated against Monsanto, recently) and so on. Get a grip: the article was written in 2007 when some people thought I was crazy - these topics are now daily news. Now, you are free to think that these predictions were vague - I don't. Keep watching the news because things are going to get much, much worse in the next couple of years. And I maintain that new technologies - such as those described above - will explode on the world scene.

The Wikipedia editing cabal has totally ignored my reference whether to protoscience or to Fayerabend's critiques of science and keeps coming back to Popper again and again and again - Is this a form of madness or plain selective hearing?

Now, I would be most be grateful if you could kindly stop persecuting me and quit ridiculing my views.Mauricelavenant (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You are too scientifically illiterate for me to respond to further without banging my head against a table, so I won't bother, good day IRWolfie- (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow, you looked back and thought you were predicting the Monsanto protests. This is the forer effect in a nutshell, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly once more. The person deemed scientifically illiterate is not worthy of any respect or attention - a kind of sub-level human, as it were. How about your command of English, Sir: "You are too scientifically illiterate for me to respond to further without banging my head against a table"? Is that a new form of literacy or is it just plain carelessness? Mauricelavenant (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I shouldn't bother but here goes. You said [2]. On the one hand you said one needs credentials to discuss astrology, but on the other you appear quite happy to discuss science while lacking qualifications. The quote to Newton appears to be made up, and is an appeal to authority. You merely assert that Feyerabend's (or Fayerabend as you call him) arguments are good, yet they are widely rejected by philosophers of science. His views are easily rebuffed, and have been by philosophers of science. I do not appeal to Popper, I discuss his ideas to astrology (in the respective article). "Apparently, the stuff we are made of rests on a great deal of uncertainty" is a simplistic view of quantum mechanics and it does not mean "any old nonsense gets a free pass". You say "as far as I am aware, you have contributed nothing whatsoever to any field of knowledge", but you know nothing about me, so why you would conclude anything is beyond me. Then you say "which only goes to show that you are not particularly capable of original thoughts". Did you see what you did there? You made a speculative claim, which is also false since I have published work in physics, and then (magically) drew firm conclusions from that speculative claim. Your complaint about literacy is a bad attempt to find an issue with my grammar, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

First, I stand accused of gullibility for believing a claim that a man is 118 just because he says he is. I now stand accused of "magically" drawing firm conclusions based on a speculative claim that is proven false since "you have published work in physics". Should I believe your claim at face value or demand reliable, external reference and undeniable proof that you have indeed published such work. Your claim to have published papers in physics is not a proof that you have. Let's be coherent, please. You come here anonymously and post under a pseudonym, hence, there is no way to verify your claims. I come here under my real name and provided reliable, external proof that my work was published before the events. To my knowledge, none of the learned Doctors in Economics saw the economic crisis coming; and none of the learned political scientists predicted the various and ongoing revolutions that are taking place in the Arab world. More of these to come in the Western world - Watch this space. Mauricelavenant (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You're comparing economics and political science to physics? Those aren't even sciences. Your work could not even be called scholarship. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
"First, I stand accused of gullibility for believing a claim that a man is 118 just because he says he is." Yes I think that is the definition of gullibility. You don't have to accept I'm a physicist, my arguments aren't from authority and I could not really care whether you believe me or not. " I come here under my real name and provided reliable, external proof that my work was published before the events", your work was published before the events, but you did not predict the events. "none of the learned political scientists predicted the ...", you are making an assertion from ignorance again. "More of these to come in the Western world", be specific. Give a time frame, a nation, the form of the revolution. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you guys are smoking but whatever it is, I would urge you to stop immediately. You are missing the point once more. Read my post again and consider its content carefully instead or reacting and attempting to ridicule my work based on nothing more than your baseless opinion. Where am I comparing political science to physics? I am merely pointing out that, with all their knowledge, Doctors in Economics and Political scientists did not foresee any of the events I predicted on the basis of astrology. As for your command of English, please, check the definition of the word "scholarship" which means "an award of financial aid for a student to further his or her education" ( That being the case, nobody's work would qualify as "scholarship", try "scholarly" instead. Think before you post. The agenda of so-called Wikipedians is becoming increasingly obvious: To posture as the only guardians of the "Truth" as they see it and to use an electronic platform to spread misinformation, not to say disinformation. This will end badly. Mauricelavenant (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

[3]. I suggest you look up 'ignorance' while you are there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL... this is getting better by the minute! Haven't you yet learned that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit? Your hostility is remarkable. Since when can a noun be used as an adjective? This will end badly and that's a promise. Mauricelavenant (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Basically, you are resorting to mockery, shame and guilt to avoid the issue at hand, avoid answering questions, and divert the arguments into irrelevancy: posturing as unquestionable authorities without offering any proof to support it all the while shaming people who beg to differ with the views (logical positivism, in this case) of the self-appointed authority is nothing new and has been used for centuries by various authorities including the catholic church. Good try, but not particularly convincing as a proof of authority - One of the oldest trick in the book akin to psychological bullying, intimidation, and magical thinking.

Please, provide a reliable, external reference to a scientific proof that scientific proofs alone are real as per WP:SOURCE policy. Once you have managed that, we might restart this debate on a healthier footing. Wikipedia started as a platform for democratic pluralism, a position Feyerabend defended and that I would defend as well. However, It seems clear enough that it has fallen under the exclusive control of logical positivists. Mauricelavenant (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

"Basically, you are resorting to mockery ... " You are the one trying to nitpick grammar, not us. Please stop wallowing in your scientific ignorance. It is one thing to not understand a topic and acknowledge it, it is quite another to raise that mishmash of misunderstanding and ignorance and treat it as a valid argument. There is no such things as scientific proofs. I would have thought you would know that considering you quote Feyerabend like it means something. A discussion about scientific evidence and the philosophy of science from an alchemist astrologer who believes in magical nonsense is pointless, no offence, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

When redacting an article, syntax seems rather important. As for the mockery, here are some examples:

"Ptolemy, Tycho Brahe, Kepler and Newton are respected for their contributions to astronomy IN SPITE OF their silly and unenlightened dabbling in astrology." A totally unverifiable and purely subjective opinion: there is no way to confirm or deny this claim - a clearly mocking statement.

"For evidence of how easily you have been duped, the BBC show you rely on doesn't mention the "powerful sedatives and large doses of local anaesthetic that were used during the surgery". Right, as if I was not aware of that, being a TCM professional for over 20 years. The use of powerful sedatives and large doses of local anaesthetic in no way invalidates the effect of acupuncture as they only act locally and do not have any effect on internal organs. A clear attempt to mock me and my profession.

"5,000 years of empirical observations supporting ...". Pull the other one, it's got bells. 5000 years of anecdotes does not constitute empirical observation. Astrology is non-empirical (i.e pseudo-empirical) by its very nature, empiricism in astronomy does not imply empiricism in astrology, and if they were doing Randomised controlled trials 3000 BC for chinese "medicine" that is news to me. I suggest you even give a cursory glance into the relevant philosophy of science Astrology_and_science#Philosophy_of_science and that article in general, lest your nonsense leak out and spread further. That a concept is very old does not mean it is correct or not moronically stupid in the light of what we now know."

The tone of this quote speaks for itself. And what do we know now? I doubt anyone can provide any anthropological evidence supporting any of these claims. Has it ever occurred to the editors that astrology is ONLY concerned with MEANING and TIMING: From EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS over long periods of time, the Sumerian Priest-astrologers noticed the orderly fashion in which celestial bodies moved and used them to built megalithic structures to mark the moment of solstices and equinoxes which signalled the TIMING of sowing, ploughing and harvesting which MEANT no less than the difference between survival or death in all agricultural civilisations. In order to achieve this, the Priest-astrologers had to invent no less than: mathematics, astronomy, geometry, spatial geometry, writing and architecture. Their only MOTIVATIONS were TIMING and MEANING. They did not invent these things because they were motivated by a pure pursuit of knowledge. To claim that astrology is rooted in magical thinking is nonsensical. Occam's razor rules! There is no claim that the sun crossing the vernal point had a physical effect on people, but it certainly meant something crucially important to them. And by the way, Chinese "medicine" is recognised by the WHO, so I fail to see the relevance of the quote other than one more attempt to mock valuable empirical knowledge from an arbitrary position of relative ignorance.

"I am well familiar with the way professional astrologers make money by feeding bullshit to the gullible..."

"your stuff about cold fusion and zero-point energy machines highlights your scientific ineptitude." A clearly mocking and totally unsupported comment. You don't agree? Go and argue the toss with Thomas Valone here:

"You are too scientifically illiterate for me to respond to further without banging my head against a table, so I won't bother, good day"

"You're comparing economics and political science to physics? Those aren't even sciences. Your work could not even be called scholarship."

"At Wikipedia nothing is considered self-evident, and everything requires reliable secondary sources."

Fine. That being the case, please provide a reliable secondary source of a scientific proof that scientific proofs alone are the only real ones, as repeatedly asked and carefully avoided and ignored, so far. Mauricelavenant (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have already address your concern about scientific proof. On "Has it ever occurred to the editors that astrology is ONLY concerned with MEANING and TIMING:", other astrologers strongly disagree with this statement and have come to argue the opposite in the same way you are doing now. Many astrologers have in fact contributed to the article you are criticizing. Particularly the principles and practices and the history section.
The World Health Organisation [4]:
  • "Traditional medicine includes many different practices and remedies, and varies from one country to another. While some practices seem to offer benefits, others remain questionable."
  • "There is some evidence that seems to support the use of traditional and complementary medicine – for example, acupuncture in relieving pain, yoga to reduce asthma attacks, and tai ji techniques to help elderly people reduce their fear of falls. WHO does not currently recommend these practices, but is working with countries to promote an evidence-based approach to addressing safety, efficacy and quality issues."
  • "Unfortunately, the misuse of certain herbal remedies can cause harm – even death – in some cases. The herb Ma Huang (ephedra) is traditionally used in China to treat short-term respiratory congestion. In the United States of America, the herb was marketed as a dietary aid, whose long-term use led to at least a dozen deaths, heart attacks and strokes. In Belgium, at least 70 people required renal transplants or dialysis for interstitial fibrosis of the kidney after taking the wrong herb from the Aristolochiaceae family, again as a dietary aid. "
IRWolfie- (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot see any reference to a scientific proof that scientific proofs alone are the only real ones anywhere around here or anywhere at all for that matter. Please, provide a link, book or other reliable reference as per Wikipedia's own policy.

Your claim that some astrologers strongly disagree with the notion that astrology is primarily concerned with timing and meaning is unsupported by any evidence. Please, provide evidence for this claim. In any case, science has nothing to say about meaning. It can measure all the biochemical processes of a dreaming person but it cannot reveal the content of the dream and has nothing to say about its meaning.

As a TCM practitioner, I am well aware of the problems associated with herbal medicine. So, you are now presenting me with about 12 documented iatrogenic deaths in the USA and 70 cases of kidney failure in Belgium. Obviously, this is regrettable. However, how does that compare with 250,000 documented iatrogenic deaths caused by Western Medicine in the USA alone:

On these figures alone, the WHO should then take a much harder stance on Western Medicine. And who funds the WHO? Find out here: Mauricelavenant (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You were the one talking about the WHO initially, and now you reject the WHO. Make your mind up. For my comment about scientific proof use Control + F and look for the text scientific proof on this talk page, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The information you selected from the WHO demonstrate once more your negative bias on the topic. While there is no dispute regarding the information you presented, you might as well have presented the content of this page:

"Traditional medicine has been used for thousands of years with great contributions made by practitioners to human health, particularly as primary health care providers at the community level."

I am afraid we are dealing, yet again, with a severe case of selective hearing.Mauricelavenant (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't dispute that TM has been around a long time, that doesn't make it useful. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If TM is not useful, what does "great contributions made by practitioners to human health" means to you then? I never rejected the WHO. On the contrary, I quote it as a reference. As matter of fact, I hold a diploma from a WHO recognised acupuncture training centre located in Nanjing, China. But if you are using the documented few deaths due to TCM, then chose to selectively quote the WHO on the "dangers" of TCM, by your own logic, the WHO should reject Western Medicine on the sole count of numbers. However, the WHO rightly embraces both Traditional and Western Medicines. Here is what the WHO publishes, on the topic of TCM:

"Increasingly, TM/CAM is being formally used within existing health-care systems. When practised correctly, TM/CAM can help protect and improve citizens’ health and well-being .../... Traditional Chinese medicine has been practised in China for over 2,000 years. TCM was developed empirically from clinical experience, and documented in many classical texts (4). There is today a sophisticated body of knowledge built over centuries, including basic theory, diagnostic procedures and treatment approaches. TCM is commonly used for chronic diseases, but also for some acute conditions. It has been used in such areas as internal medicine, gynaecology, paediatrics, traumatology, external medicine, dermatology, emergency medicine, and eye, ear, nose and throat. According to TCM theory it is used to treat not only the secondary manifestations (Biao) but also the primary causes (Ben) of various conditions."

Here is a paper assessing the efficacy of TCM:

If you have further interest in TCM and its effectiveness, here is another link:

Here is what the WHO says about the effectiveness of acupuncture:

"The effectiveness of acupuncture analgesia has already been established in controlled clinical studies. As mentioned previously, acupuncture analgesia works better than a placebo for most kinds of pain, and its effective rate in the treatment of chronic pain is comparable with that of morphine. In addition, numerous laboratory studies have provided further evidence of the efficacy of acupuncture’s analgesic action as well as an explanation of the mechanism involved. In fact, the excellent analgesic effects of acupuncture have stimulated research on pain.

Because of the side-effects of long-term drug therapy for pain and the risks of dependence, acupuncture analgesia can be regarded as the method of choice for treating many chronically painful conditions.

The analgesic effect of acupuncture has also been reported for the relief of eye pain due to subconjunctival injection (14), local pain after extubation in children (15), and pain in thromboangiitis obliterans (16)."

I invite you to read the rest of the studies by yourself.

In spite of this reliable, external references, the clearly biased opinion of Mr IRWolfie and his acolytes prevails on Wikipedia, and based on what evidence?

When asked about a reference to a scientific proof, your answer is that there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Yet, the article clearly state that astrology has been rejected by the scientific community entirely on the basis of scientific proofs. In other words, astrology is a load of baloney. And although this debate is not related to TCM, your negative opinion on the topic is unequivocal as amply demonstrated by your disparaging comments and those of your colleagues.

Thank you for providing ample and undeniable evidence of the psychological bullying, "scientism", gang mentality and other such psychopathic behaviours practised by editors on Wikipedia. I have now a wealth of material at my disposal to write a very convincing article on this topic. I intend to submit this article to the relevant bodies representing the Traditional Medical profession - including the WHO - as well as every astrological association I can think of. Note that this was never my initial intention but your astonishing and rabid determination to fight me every inch of the way as well as your obvious negative bias now force me not only to withdraw from these fruitless exchanges, but also to become proactive in preventing further abuse. Wikipedia is not a forum for a few people to spread misinformed opinions. It is supposedly a democratic and pluralistic platform to disseminate a neutral presentation of human knowledge. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Respectfully yours,

Mauricelavenant (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. You have very strong opinions about science, but they are unfortunately mostly wrong and uninformed. I am well aware what acupuncture can be used for: "A number of studies comparing traditional acupuncture to sham procedures found that both sham and traditional acupuncture were superior to usual care but were themselves equivalent; findings apparently at odds with traditional Chinese theories regarding acupuncture point specificity". On your "papers", I do not deem these non-peer reviewed sources to be reliable for statements of efficacy. NCCAM is well known for its pseudoscience. Selectively looking at the positive me thinks. Try the real medical literature, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Right! And the WHO controlled clinical studies are a load of bollocks and do not qualify as real medical literature. As much as I love science, my opinions about science do not allow for scientism.. Enough already with the troll brigade. Good bye. Mauricelavenant (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You are a beacon of wisdom. You must share it with the world! Go publish in a WP:MEDS compliant source, telling of the woo the WHO engages in. I'd love to see that added to wikipedia. TippyGoomba (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Here comes Tippy, Tippy quite contrary, dumping her two cents of sarcastic excreta, presumably to elevate the ongoing debate. Where would the world be without you, dear Goomba-Boomba-Toomba-Woomba, a clear proponent of demoting all Human sciences to the level of mere delusions on the basis that they are not pure science? We are all in awe of your privileged relationship with knowledge and totally dazzled by your choice of pseudonym for its unparalleled evocative value, down here. As for Mr Wolfie, the alleged physicist so well aware, so informed and so enlightened on so many topics that he now believes himself to be the ultimate worldwide and unquestionable authority on just about everything. Got a question on Astrology? Acupuncture? Chinese Herbal Medicine? Alchemy? Qigong? No problem, ask Mr Wolfie whose spectacular "awareness" on these topics is based on no academic qualification, no practical knowledge and no direct experience whatsoever. Ask the eminent Mr Wolfie who has, so far, failed miserably to provide even the slightest shred of evidence of his contribution to the discipline of physics. What a joke! As for me, I am now "well aware" of your psychotic approach based on the evidence of this lunatic experience. I will now return to the deluded real world and apply my deluded practical skills to relieve the illusory suffering of deluded real people. Meanwhile, I hope you derive some kind of satisfaction with your meaningless pseudo-lives on Wikepedia.

Mauricelavenant (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of article talk page[edit]

An article talk page is not a forum or a place to post rants. See WP:TPG for more information on what the talk page can, and cannot, be used for. Also see WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:ETIQUETTE and WP:CIVILITY as your post was very rude and confrontational. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The astrology article is also rude and confrontational; not in its form but in its content. It is a blatant and clear insult to astrology both in its historical and contemporary presentation - Astrology is NOT a causal science and therefore cannot be explained or assessed by causal means - Astrology is a synchronistic phenomena. Yet, the word synchronicity is not even mentioned once on the page. Furthermore, the exchanges with the editors in control of the page clearly demonstrate their negative bias towards astrology and their rabid determination to censor systematically any point of view that might present a challenge to them. The editors have repeatedly ignored my request to demonstrate any knowledge related to astrology and now resort to systematically censor my input. Has it occurred to the editors that astrologers might actually have something to say about astrology or is this too radical a notion for them to take on-board?

There is no point inserting links pointing to various Wikipedia policies when the editors themselves have made a mockery of neutrality which is the alleged overarching principle of this site. I came to Wikipedia in good faith and with the best intentions only to meet with shocking hostility by people hiding behind pseudonyms who seem to know nothing about the topic they are controlling and who systematically censor the editing attempts of knowledgeable people. This is a serious issue. It is becoming increasingly clear that the agenda is not to reach a common consensus. I will get to the bottom of this, one way or another.

Mauricelavenant (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a template for suggesting changes to the article talk page: "Let's change sentence X to Y, here are my sources...". Read WP:RS to see what we consider reliable sources. Why don't you try a few of those and get a feeling for how things work around here. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Or, if an editor wants to say something is not neutral: "Sentence X is not neutral because of Y according to policy Z". IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)