User talk:Mccready/Archive 1

Welcome

'Bold text'Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Anser 4 July 2005 11:21 (UTC)

Chinese language

No, the topic of the article in question is the Sinitic (Chinese) languages, not the Sino-Tibetan languages. Other Sino-Tibetan languages such as Tibetan and Burmese are much further removed from the Chinese languages than the Chinese languages are from each other; in fact the very grouping of "Sino-Tibetan" is rather tentative. As for your vague statement about the "language of Guangxi", there are at least five languages spoken in Guangxi (Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, Pinghua, Zhuang), of which only Zhuang is Tai-Kadai (like the Thai language), and as such it is not even Chinese. -- ran (talk) July 4, 2005 17:19 (UTC)

I don't see where I reverted your edits to Chinese language. can you link and maybe we can then discuss?

FYI, I reverted your edit at Wenlin Software for learning Chinese. If you would like the article deleted, please use wikipedia:votes for deletion. Cheers, --Jiang 8 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)

When an article gets nominated for deletion, people can vote whether they would like to keep or delete the article. And unless there is a majority of about 70% supporting deletion, the article gets kept. So, while you think the article is an ad, others thought it was a fine article that should be kept, so the nomination didn't got the necessary amount of deletion votes. I just closed the nomination based on the votes I read, it is not my task to decide whether the article is an ad or not, that is up to the community.

Theoretically you can always nominate an article for deletion, but there is no point in renominating an article if nothing really happened since the last nominante that would change the mind of the voters. So, renominating again with the reason "this is an ad" would quite likely yield the same result as last time. --Conti|✉ 21:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Plurality electoral system

Please see Talk:Plurality electoral system. Notinasnaid 22:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Annie Emily Lawrence

I didn't propose the deletion (Doc glasgow did), although I don't object to it. I think the article is just genealogical info and I don't see why that person is important for Tasmanian history. I know nothing about Tasmanian history, so I just put up a tag asking that somebody should please explain why she is important enough to be included. I wouldn't mind her being mentioned in Early squatters in Tasmania, but I don't see why she should have her own article. While I agree that this kind of information is useful for local historians, I disagree that it belongs in an encyclopedia WikiTree is probably a better place for these things. Kusma (討論) 16:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Kusma, I didn't know of wikitree and having seen your arguments am inclined now to agree with them. Mccready 16:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Drusen

Nice. You are not wrong about anti-vaccinationists. Midgley 01:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic

I just wanted to let you know that I think you are doing a fine job of keeping your head under increasing rubbish from the pro-chiropractic lobby. It is difficult fighting for evidence-based medicine at the best of times. I appreciate your work. Maustrauser 09:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Mccready's unprofessional behaviour at Wikipedia

Mccready I have some very serious concerns about your editing, and the article about Chiropractic.

I, and others, make changes with explanations that we feel are more NPOV and you revert them with warnings - - your way or the highway!

It has become an impossible situation for those of us who are trying to present a neutral, informative article. It seems to me you are creating a soapbox for your very anti-chiropractic POV.

You and Fyslee, have sprinkled links to other references that you have created around Wikipedia, which you use as proof of your POV. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank

This in IMO is seriously damaging the Wikipedian experience for me and probably for others. I have tried to open a dialogue with you, but you evade my queries as to your motives. We are just trying to maintain the basic principle of Wikipedia - NPOV.

I am sorry but you leave me no choice but to register a complaint about this unfortunate situation Steth 14:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic

I want to warn you that edit summaries such as if ombudsman or steth revert again without discussion I will escalate this disupte- the revert on fees was gratuitous are unacceptable. Please do not call other poeple's edits vandalism when they clearly are not (you are having an editorial dispute). I would stongly recommand you to read and abide by WP:CIVIL.

Also, calling a person a crank without providing reliable sources is not acceptable, violates WP:NPOV and our guideline on no including defamations, unless adequatly sourced. —Ruud 17:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation at Chiropractic

Hi, you violated the three-revert rule on Chiropractic. I have disabled your editing permissions for 24 hours. Please read our guide on dispute resolution during the time you are unable to contribute to Wikipedia. Feel free to return after your block expires, but take your differences to the talk page and please refrain from edit warring. Cheers, —Ruud 18:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of admin privileges

User:R_Koot has abused his admin privileges by blocking me for my edits on the NPOV tagged Chiropractic. It is possible that User:Steth requested this. It appears Koot has failed to review the edits, failed to review the talk page, failed to examine whether my edits were justified and failed to discuss. I would be grateful if an administrator could look into this. Mccready 19:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How exactly would bocking you for a 3RR vio constitute "abuse of admin privileges"? —Ruud 19:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You have obviously taken sides in the dispute on Chiropractic. 3rr states "Except in cases of spam and vandalism, an administrator should not block users for 3RR if they themselves have reverted that user's edits on that page. Instead, administrators in this situation should make a request at the administrators' noticeboard if they believe 3RR has been broken."

Since you decided, without adequate research it appears, to revert my edits you have breached the above rule.

Please unblock me and follow policy. Mccready 19:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And exactly how are steth's edits vandalismand those made by you not? —Ruud 19:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be responding too quickly to have had time to review this adquately. You have not addressed the issue of your violation, instead you begin to ask me questions. I have never been accused of vandalism. Your ostensible reason for blocking me was 3RR. Nonetheless I am happy to explain to you again as I have done in an email which you have already responded to:

Steth and others made wholesale reverts which reverted good edits by other editors. They have also indulged in abuse and demanded answers to questions about my private life.

They failed to discuss their reverts. They simply asserted their view was correct.

"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. " Steth expulsion of science from the article, his failure to understand "crank" etc are good examples of vandalism.

Please take time to review the case in more detail before you respond again. You might like to check my edit on other pages too." I have not indulged in this behaviour and have only tried to construct a better article. May I also remind you of further WP policy since you indulged yourself in reverting my edits: "Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. Generally, caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith."

Now I urge you again to please take time to consider and remove the block Mccready 19:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Another note on vandalism

Further support for my view that Steth and others are vandals

--Leifern 21:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC) wrote on the vandalism discussion page:

The definition of vandalism in the first section states: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." It seems pretty clear to me that anyone who reverts or deletes entire sections of articles based on an objection to a single piece of the whole, is deliberately compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia. This happens in four ways that are similar to all other forms of vandalism:

• Content that is valuable and useful gets deleted outright
• Content that may be wrong is deleted rather than edited for clarity or precision
• Editors get discouraged
• A loophole is created for POV-pushing, as the vandal can simply revert back to his/her version on any minor pretext. "

I agree with Leifern. Mccready 20:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Natural selection

I saw your comment about the opening. I made a recent edit, so you may be commenting on what I did (actually, I did not add anything I ever wrote; I effectively reverted to an earlier version of the first sentence). If your objection is not to what I did, then you are referring to edits made by User:Marcosantezana. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your recent comment to Marcosantezena. I am afraid that, based on the past three months, your comment will have absolutely no effect. M. simply does not respect other editors and does not care what they think. I hope you will continue to help out with Natural Selection, but if you do, you should look at this request for arbitration [1] which spells out a long history of problems. And I can assure you, this request was not made lightly. It was made by an editor who joined us after Marco already antagonized several other editors, who ended up dropping out - made by an editor who really tried to reason with Marco and give him the benefit of the doubt, and who then attempted to request mediation which Marco refused ... Slrubenstein | Talk 11:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Re introductory sentence: "The claims of homeopathy have not been proved to the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine." Seems to me that a) not clear what claims are meant b) scientists would rarely claim that anything is proved c) much conventional medicine does not meet the standards of EBM, and so these are WP "weasel words". d) unfortunate to use prove in different senses in this article.

I think that homeopathy is utterly without foundation, but I think this sentence is POV. Suggest it should be rephrased and moved to section on scientific validity?Gleng 12:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree, happy for you to reword. I think it should be in the top of the article, though. Yes, can't prove a negative. Mccready 02:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

NatSel

I am sorry, but there has been so much change at that page, that I do not know which version you are refering to. KimvdLinde 14:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 18:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Complaint about Koot

Complaints about admins do not belong on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I have removed your complaint. To enable you to reuse the text if you wish, you can find it at User:Mccready/Abuse of admin privileges.

To make a complaint about an administrator's behaviour, please use one (and only one) of the following:

• WP:AN/I
• WP:RFC
• WP:RFAR
• WP:RFDA

Regards, Stifle 12:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nortman

Well, I left him a sunny and well-intentioned message warning about bulk reverting and reminding him to assume good faith. I hope that's the last we hear of it, but if it continues, you have my full support should you decide to file an RFC. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. Oh well, after taking a storm for being pro-homeopathy now I'm the anti-homeopathy crusader. You have my support for an RFCGleng 20:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Re Steth

I've left this on Steth's page. This isn't perfect I know but, the intention is to keep EBM in the lead without implicitly suggesting that no EBM means that all chiropractic is rubbish. There does seem to be a wide spectrum in chiropractic as far as I can see, from (what I would think of as)faith-based nonsense to some who are working close to medicine and within a science based/conventional medicine framework. This spectrum isn't really reflected in the article yet. Hi Steth. AS you know I try to keep neutral and think that all editors have a legitimate role to play. I think that both you and Mccready have valid points; the wording below is a suggestion that reflects article content but doesn't seek to imply that chiropractic is without value. I think it would be good if both of you could put a stormy history behind you and accept as I believe that you are both working honestly and conscientiously in trying to be fair, however imperfect our efforts are sometimes. "Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine, but many medical doctors are willing to refer their patients to properly qualified chiropractors." Gleng 15:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gleng,

You write:

"There does seem to be a wide spectrum in chiropractic as far as I can see, from (what I would think of as)faith-based nonsense to some who are working close to medicine and within a science based/conventional medicine framework. This spectrum isn't really reflected in the article yet."

You are quite right. Unfortunately User:Steth, User:Levine2112, User:TheDoctorIsIn, and others (likely sock puppets), have consistently removed the only aspect of chiropractic that is openly scientific, which is the reform wing, represented by the NACM. The reform section was larger, but they keep removing it, and have openly claimed that it didn't even deserve mention. So the 2% of chiropractors in the organization (the ACA only has 15%) wouldn't even be allowed representation, if these editors got their way. That would leave the article to voice the views of the outdated (but still largely held) subluxation-based, biotheological, pseudoscientific, and anti-scientific fringe, represented by the ICA and WCA (about the same number as the NACM). That means that any included criticisms that point out this unscientific position are even more justified. They can't have it both ways. They represent the "faith-based nonsense", while the NACM represents those "who are working close to medicine and within a science based/conventional medicine framework. This spectrum isn't really reflected in the article yet." These editors are the reason why the scientific aspect" (a minority position) "isn't being represented in the article. -- Fyslee 20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was editing as you were writing so this is before reading your message PS Just to say that, although we've had honest disagreenments from time to time, I'm deeply appreciative of your commitment and rigor in trying to maintain high standards of verifiability and authority. I have done a check on PubMed; there is a study in Australia that shows that doctors there are more likely to believe that chiropractic is harmful than believe it is likely to be helpful, and other studies showing that in practice doctors do not often refer patients. However probably most doctors have no strong opinion - haven't seen the full texts. However there are also studies that seem to be reasonably strong that indicate that for some conditions chiropractic manipulation is demonstrably beneficial. This fits with what I've been advised - that for some conditions it's effective, but if there's no acute effect then chronic treatment is unlikely to be and might have risks. There is a strong subset within chiropractic trying hard to build on the objective success and develop the practice and understanding while dropping the dogma. So anyway, I think you may be right on some vs many, but please go gently. It's a marathon not a sprint, and we're just runners in a long relay, so don't burn yourself out in anger- you're too valuable an asset for WP for thatGleng 20:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Mccready, this is to let you know that you violated the three-revert rule at Chiropractic, when you reverted other editors' work at 11:44 April 3, and then 00:19, 08:01, and 10:13 on April 4. The 3RR rules says that we're only allowed to revert, in whole or in part (and that can mean as little as restoring or deleting one word) up to three times in 24 hours, or we may be blocked for up to 24 hours. Even if you make other changes at the same time, and even if the material you delete or change is different each time, the edits may still count toward a 3RR violation. I'm leaving this warning just in case no one has mentioned the rule to you before. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC):

similar to your edits on animal rights 3Apr 21.27, 4Apr 1.33, 7.09, 7.15. We should be careful :-) Mccready 07:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Animal rights

Actually, no, you're the one who has been slow to respond, and you're the only one with any objections, which you still haven't listed clearly. Please list your outstanding objections and stop referring me to your previous posts, which I've already told you I didn't understand (e.g. that the names of the sources aren't given in full, when they are). Stop playing games, because people can see through them. Just list your objections and be done with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The validity of the above author's claims can quickly be found wanting on the talk page. Mccready 07:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Some advice ...

...which of course you're free to ignore. Although you signed up for an account some months ago, you only recently started to use it. You've already threatened at least two people with an RfC because they disagreed with you; accused people who revert your edits (and who were right to do so) of vandalism; arrived at articles you've never edited before, on subjects you appear to have little knowledge of, and rewritten them without discussion; engaged in slow revert wars to retain your version, leading to page protection; and you've taken to making personal attacks on talk pages, in edit summaries, and in headers. Your editing is sometimes highly POV and unencyclopedic, such as the unsourced intro you initially wrote for Chiropractic and your unsourced claim that animal-rights activists distinguish between different forms of bacteria. If you continue in this way, you're likely to encounter increasing resistance from other editors, and the chances are high that you'll end up before the arbcom. My advice to you therefore is to adopt a softer approach before you're marked down as a problem editor, and to read our policies carefully before continuing. The most important policies are WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. If you're going to edit biographies, you should read WP:BLP, and WP:RS fleshes out the source policy. WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and WP:AGF might also be helpful. Wikipedia is a cooperative project, so I suggest we try to respect each other and respect the policies to make the wheels run smoother. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is gratuitious in the extreme from a POV editor par excellence. My comments on her style are passim in WP. Worst of all she actually edits TALK pages to relfect her POV!! Admins like this should be counselled. Mccready 08:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you calm down, actually. Then you may achieve a proportion of what ideally would be achieved. I see nothing to suggest SlimVirgin is acting other than in good faith. Midgley 13:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Midgely, I'm as calm as can be. I don' know how you formed the opposite conclusion. When you've examined her reversions to the Animal Rights talk page why don't you comment again? Mccready 14:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Acupuncture Article

Hi Kevin, thanks for your patience on the acu article. I left comments on the Talk page. Haven't been able to find what I was looking for on superseding the WHO list, but I've got time again to work on pruning the article to 32k-ish if you'd like to collaborate on that. best, Jim Butler 04:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

John Bartram

Just added some stuff to the talk page. Looks like we may both be wrong. Peter1968 07:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Your venue shopping

I have denied your request to protect Lauren Slater -- for the second time in two days. There's a good consensus on the talk page, looks like to me. You'll have to swallow your pride and accept it. And please stop using venues like WP:RFP and WP:AN/I to try to get one over on someone with whom you're in a disagreement. That I have never collaborated with you on an article and yet know who you are is telling -- your actions are becoming very tiresome. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the talkpage. FloNight has suggested she has no strong opinions either way. Thus she would accept my view without demur. The standard of adminship on WP leaves a lot to be desired.Mccready 07:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There are still two strong opinions to your one, then, which means you are still outnumbered. Beyond other issues, this is a content dispute, a matter for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, not for AN/I or RFP or any other venue that needs administrator action. I'll ignore the rest of your trolling comment. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 13:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Vit C

I'm not arguing that you're not right, only that the link that you provide doesn't address the question of whether the aboriginal children had scurvy or not. I guess it still doesn't; what I'd like to see is some RS that specifically refutes AK's assertion, if it's unfounded. Claims for the health promoting effects of excess vitamin C are flaky and overblown, but deficiency is something else. As it is, I think your link is a non sequitur as it doesn't suport the key logical issue here.???What u think?Gleng 09:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. The link shows Linus Pauling and vit c flaws as far as science community is concerned. By all means put both points of view, but to remove the link would be wrong - ie it refutes AK. Why not have this discussion on the relevant talkpage? Mccready 08:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Lauren Slater

Something odd happened to one of the refs on your last revision, so I've reverted it. Also, I've left a note on the article talk regarding a quote/source you keep including that does not, in my view, reflect a reliable source. The school may be reliable, but who wrote that quote and with what authority? Please explain fully in the talk (I'll look for your answer there, rather than here). Thanks :) agapetos_angel 09:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Lauren Slater talk page.

Hi Flo, I was, but let me rephrase. Do you agree that the crits I inserted have a role in the crits section? Mccready 07:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, your edits keep getting reverted because the content is not stated well. I will be happy to help you rewrite in a manner that will make it acceptable. For example, you put the 10 line quote below in the article. It is much too long for this article. Also you did not give a proper attribution. When I first saw it, I thought you were stating your opinion as an editor instead of quoting Singer.

Mccready, we also need to carefully consider how much negative criticism to put in the article. The article already spends too much time on this particular book. We need to discuss her entire public life and writing career. I hope these specific remarks are helpful. Perhaps we can rewrite this section together to make it work. regards FloNight ^talk 11:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Flo. see you at the talk page. Mccready 08:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

On Websterschools

Slater makes some errors that made me wonder about her accuracy in areas with which I am not familiar. Some of these are minor slips, like placing Roger Fouts in Oregon, not Washington, and misspelling the names of his chimpanzee friend, Washoe, and of the animal rights activist Alex Pacheco. Others are more troubling. When Linda Santo tells her that the Roman Catholic Church is formally investigating her daughter Audrey for possible sainthood, Slater tells her readers that the last time the Catholic Church considered naming someone a saint was in 1983. She obviously hasn't been paying attention to Pope John Paul II's canonization binge -- he has named more than 400 saints since that year. To link Milgram's research with Nazism, Slater writes of Hannah Arendt's thesis on the banality of evil, the bureaucratic Eichmann blindly taking orders, propelled by forces external to him. This misdescribes Arendt's thesis. In Eichmann in Jerusalem she emphasizes his statement that his obedience was justified by Kant's definition of duty, and that he was able to give a broadly correct account of Kant's categorical imperative. In Arendt's view it was Eichmann's considered decision that he ought to obey orders. He was not propelled to do so by anything external to him.[2]

Reply

Hello Mccready : ) I left a reply to your concerns about my RFA here. There is a reason for each comment being removed. If you have further questions, please let me know. regards, FloNight ^talk 17:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Emails?

I received six emails from you lately concerning FloNight's RfA, mostly brief. They either consisted of a link to the RfA, or a little more:

Date:	 Sun, 30 Apr 2006 03:18:16 GMT
To:	"Tijuana Brass" <xxx@yyy.com>
Subject:	Wikipedia e-mail
From:	"Mccready" <xxx@yyy.au> 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFA#FloNight

re

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFloNight&diff=47722313&oldid=47717830

Were you trying to ask or tell me something, or was this some sort of error? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 09:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Error. The repost with another username doesn't work, I now know. Apologies. Mccready 11:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Second rude edit"?

How is an edit rude? Unless you're claiming that disagreeing with is automatically rude -- you're not that self-centered, are you? --Calton | Talk 13:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave detailed reasons on the talk page; you reverted twice without discussing. That's rude and I notice many other users have asked you not to be rude. Mccready 14:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Venue shopping and tendentious editing

Hi Mccready, this is now the third time I've seen you venue shopping at administrator noticeboards in what I judge to be essentially an attempt at smearing other editors with whom you are involved in content disputes. Administrators are editors also, they edit article content and, yes, get into content disputes with other editors. Just because an administrator disagrees with you on article content -- and even possibly may revert you -- that doesn't mean their actions need reporting on administrator noticeboards (or at WP:RFP, or any other administrative venue) -- the proper thing to do is follow dispute resolution.

I don't mean to insult you, but I must tell you candidly that I feel your editing style at times is not particularly conducive, in general, to building an encyclopedia. You seem to have fomented an extraordinary amount of conflict for your relatively short time being active here, including with long-time, respected editors. I think you should seriously reconsider your purpose here, as well as how you interact with other Wikipedians. I fear that if you don't, you'll be headed down the road to an arbitration case. Thanks for listening. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 21:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Kate, I don't accept your jugdement. SlimVirgin has been criticised by many editor for reverting without discussion. This is the issue. It is not a smear to say so. Indeed on the case in point another user said: "I am inclined to think that Mccready's version is not only syntactically superior to that to which sundry editors are reverting but is also appropriately neutral." And this is in regard to an edit which SlimVirgin refuses even to discuss.

Yes, if you edit altmed pages to place science into them, it generates conflict. Though you will notice that I handle it in a calm and polite way.

I must say that I deplore the personal attacks on me and other users by SlimVirgin - a point you haven't addressed. I would hope that we can concentrate on content. Mccready 04:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the effort. :-) — Instantnood 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your user page and WP:NPA

I have removed the personal attack from your user page. Your user page is not a forum for attacking other Wikipedia editors. If you have a disagreement with another editor, please avail yourself of the dispute resolution process. Attacking other editors on your user page is just nasty, and doesn't do anything to actually resolve the problem. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern Kelly. I've asked you on your page to also remove SlimVirgin's attacks on me and will await your action. Mccready 09:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed her comments there and see no evidence of personal attacks. It appears that you are a tendentious and difficult editor, who does not get along with other editors who disagree with you; it is reasonable of her to report this to the Administrator Noticeboard so that other administrators can be aware of your tendency to ill-behaved conduct. I advise you to refrain from such conduct, as it tends to annoy and will not help your reputation as a Wikipedian. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Kelly you seem to have misunderstood. It was I who took it there. Here is her comment about me. You fail to comment on the content of the dispute and you fail to comment on her behaviour. Here is her personal attack and, as my earlier edit pointed out, it is miscast.

:Mccready is a relatively new user who has made around 500 edits to articles. He's been involved in conflict with a number of editors since he began here, regularly issuing threats to people who revert his edits. He has demanded apologies from Xtra, David Cannon, Jayjg, Pecher, Moshe, and me; has threatened to report Sethe and Justen for vandalism; has threatened Seth, Nortman, Ombudsman, and me with separate RfCs (for separate issues); has complained about me, I believe, four times on AN/I; has stalked me to four articles; and has been warned by at least three admins. I have diffs if anyone wants them. Examples of his problematic editing: he changed the intro of Trigger point to: "Trigger points have no basis in science. They are claimed by medical quacks to be hyperirritable spots in skeletal muscle ..." [3] His first sentence of Chiropractic was that it's a "religion and controversial system of health care founded by the crank Daniel David Palmer." [4] And he added to Animal rights that animal-rights activists "draw the line differently" between gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, red bread mold, and the mustard family. [5] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I reviewed that comment. It does not appear to be a "personal attack", merely a dispassionate description of your conduct. It is appropriate for her to report this information to the administrator's noticeboard. Do you dispute the truth of any of these statements? Kelly Martin (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's miscast for the reasons given in the comment you deleted. It is also untruthful that I stalked her. That is an attack on me. The gram-negative statement was an error in a list I copied. SlimVirgin likes to refer to this again and again despite the fact I have acknowledged the error. The edits on chiro were justified and were recast after discussion (check the chiro page to see the result). Trigger point is a pseudoscience. etc etc. It, in my view, her campaign is framed to discredt and attack me. Likewise, was there anything untruthful in the comment of mine which you deleted? Mccready 12:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The proper method of dispute resolution on Wikipedia is not to go posting broadsheets accusing your opponent of heinous crimes hither and yon on Wikipedia. Take it to dispute resolution, or drop it. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Will you help me here please. Why is my comment [removed by you and SlimVirgin] a personal attack (you have not pointed out any untruth in it) and SlimVirgin's comment above, not a personal attack? Mccready 05:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

ie her comments stand and my refutation is deleted. Mccready 08:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

EMB

I see you often refer to EMB. What is it? Do you mean EBM? If so, you need to do a lot of correcting, since it's confusing. -- Fyslee 10:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, yes, typo, thanks. Mccready 10:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

In a recent edit, your summary said "WP:LEAD is policy" [6]. This is just to say that it's a style guideline, and as such is not official Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway 07:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, seems like the template box at the top has changed. I seem to recall it saying it was a policy. When I checked the history it seems that the template box wasn't stored as part of the history. If that's correct it would seem a problem in the archiving. Mccready 07:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Chiro reverts

Please stop using editing of the article itself to settle disputes. The Talk page is to be used for hammering out consensus. You reverted without discussion on the Talk page first. That's the place for discussion, not the edit summary. This situation is rather unfortunate, since chiroskeptics should present a united front, but your manner of editing boldly is too bold. You're trampling on a lot of editors, and that isn't getting you any friends or success here at Wikipedia, and I can't even defend you, which is frustrating. -- Fyslee 11:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, the piece you keep taking out has stood in the article for quite a while. In that case, why should not the onus be on those who want to remove to argue the case on the talkpage. I have argued the case on the talkpage months ago. It is inaccurate to say otherwise. The comments you have made above apply equally to your edits, do they not? YOu twice reverted with an edit summary only pointing to a contentious comment on the talkpage. That you should run the "no friends" line does not enhance the logic of your position and I expected better of you. Mccready 11:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion occuring on talk page. Perhaps something will come of that, although not as much as I would like. (I put in a less severe, but still accurate, sentence in the lead. I think a statement about lack of scientific evidence may appear and be agreed to shortly.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Block for Wikistalking

Mccready, I have warned you before that the next time I saw you Wikistalking I would block you; I have now done so, for 24 hours. No Wikistalking is a Wikipedia policy; please desist from following around people you dislike to various articles in an attempt to intimidate them. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the most bizarre and irrational abuse by an admin I have ever experienced. Please unblock me. You attribute motive, mistakenly. You fail to see it was a sensible edit. You must know this is one of the most important topics in the world right now. The accusation of wikistalking is utterly without foundation and is unproved. Mccready 14:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't attribute motive; rather, I note behavior. You have yet again shown up at an article which SlimVirgin regularly edits and started editing there, within minutes of her last edit. You were warned quite clearly to stop doing this; with any luck, a 24 hour block will help enforce the importance of this. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You allege I attempted to intimidate. That is attributing motive, is it not? Please unblock me. I had not even noticed SV was editing there. Your accusation is baseless and without evidence. I prefer not to bring personal issues into this but just to explain to you, I have a friend working in Palestine. You have certainly overstepped the mark this time Jay with your vendetta and high-handedness and your lack of assuming good faith. Mccready 14:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious, are you claiming that your other edits to Rat Park and Lauren Slater were also not Wikistalking or are you claiming that you had previously wikistalked but that this was not wikistalking? JoshuaZ 16:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking Joshua, I have a major in Psychology and am interested in those subjects. Check my homepage. Wikistalkng involves harrassment according to arbcom. I don't harrass Slim. I'd appreciate it if you could unblock me. If you check my edits and my discussions on the talkpage you will see that I edit in good faith. Mccready 16:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of this block at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked_User:Mccready_for_Wikistalking. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and as I point out there, Wikipedia has over 1 million articles; you have no need to edit the 5 or 6 that SlimVirgin has just recently edited, and your "explanations" of how you keep ending up at exactly the ones she is editing are farfetched, to say the least. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I see, and you just happen to be interested in animal rights, obscure psychology experiments and Middle Eastern politics? JoshuaZ 16:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, I got your email, but the block seems justified and has been reported on the noticeboard for review and comment. I'm not about to start a wheel war here. Just zis Guy you know? 16:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A bit of advice. I'm probably as friendly to your concerns as anyone you're going to find here. I don't feel that there's evidence of stalking, but there's plenty of evidence of past ill behavior on your part. My best advice to you is this: ride out the block, and if you wish to edit more after that time- do not continue doing the same things that got you in trouble in the first place. Friday (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This is bizarre, as is the silly stuff you wrote on WP:ANI. I acknowledged long ago my error in the gram positive stuff - I copied from a list without enough care. To keep throwing this error in my face is unhelpful and only serves in your attempt to paint me in the colors you chose. As to the warnings - I had experienced such warnings from other people and believed it was WP behaviour. You will also not the threats made to me. What you fail to establish is the element of harrassment. My edits are always in good faith. You will no doubt know, as other admins, have commented that SlimVirgin has a habit of reverting without discussion. Again, you attribute motive by accusing me of baiting SV. Nothing could be further from the truth. I seek to edit properly and certainly do not enjoy being on the end of attacks from you or Slim. Please unblock me and copy this post to ANI. And to Joshua, sarcasm doesn't help. Have you checked my other interests. Do you not believe I have a major in Psych and am interested in that, do you not believe I have a friend working in Palestine? Check my background Joshua.

By J’s logic I am now prevented, on pain of blocking, from editing any article on wchih slim regularly edits. You have, again, failed to show harassment. Even kate says my edits are good. And you attribute motive erroneously. Mccready 16:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent what I have said. I said whether or not your edits are bad or good (which I have not judged, because I haven't looked at all your edits) is irrelevant to the subject at hand. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 17:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It might help if you tried to avoid such articles for a week or two, good faith edits elsewhere might make people less inclined to something bad happening when you edit the same articles as her. JoshuaZ 17:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies to Kate. Her actual words were "The issue isn't that he's making bad edits " by which I took it to mean she had checked my edits. But no. She goes on to surmise, against assuming good faith, that my edits might be bad. She also attributes motive. Please unblock me and assume good faith. No one has demonstrated otherwise, as Friday has pointed out on ANI, thanks Friday. Mccready 17:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I argued these points as best I could- the simple fact is, you've annoyed too many people with past behavior, so you're being scrutinized. I'm not going to unblock you- nobody at AN/I agrees with me. As I said above, my best advice is to ride the block out, and change your behavior. Be extra nice. If you're a good-faith editor, this will become obvious over time, and you'll have no problems. Friday (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF only goes so far. You have a history of tendentious editing, and it has to be said that we see examples all the time of POV pushers selectively quoting policy in order to justify being allowed to go on editing against other policy. The smart thing is to recognise those elements of your behaviour which people consider problematic, and minimise them. Read WP:TIGERS for another take on this. Just zis Guy you know? 17:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious behaviour not wikistalking

Let’s be clear about this JzG. Are you accusing me of being a “POV pusher”? Of course my edits are tendentious if I edit on altmed pages and those who defend them don't like me introducing well sourced scientific knowledge. While we're at it you may also like to look at SlimVirgin's refusal to discuss the top of Animal Rights. Seems there's one rule for some and another for others. I'm shocked at the way decisions can be made on appearances rather than on fact. What we are now talking about is tendentious behaviour, but the block was for allegedly wikistalking. Therefore please unblock me . Mccready 17:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Your email request is troubling

Mccready, I received an email from you that I find troubling. After multiple readings, I continue to interpret it as you asking me to swallow hard and start “mending fences” with you by objectively reviewing your block and intervening. Our contact has been very limited and I can not think of any action on my part that would require fence mending. I am willing to WP:AGF about the email, thinking perhaps it was poorly worded in haste. (You did send out quite a few :- ) Could you please confirm that here so that we can put this incident behind us. Regards, FloNight ^talk 20:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You have no fence mending to do with me. I was speaking on behalf of myself. That you neglect to look at the issue I find troubling. I request that you look at this objectively, particularly in the light of this comment and unblock me:

:Maybe this is what happened: Mccready saw something about Hamas on the news, and decided to read the article. He thought the word "out" was out of place, so he went to edit it. I have done this exact same thing many times. Whenever I see something interesting in the news, I immediately go to Firefox and type in "wp [whatever]" to see if that news is in the article, and often I read it and I see something strange, I copyedit it. I don't go into the history to make sure that certain editors haven't edited it. That is simply unreasonable. Is that what you expected him to do there? Whether or not he meant it in bad faith, I don't know, but this isn't "zero tolerance", this is "negative tolerance". You folks were just looking for the perfect excuse to jump on him. Jayjg says that his edit occurred "within minutes" of SlimVirgin's edit; SlimVirgin's previous edit was a full 3 hours earlier than Mccready's. That's certainly not "within minutes", unless you are referring to the alternate definition of "minutes" - and I doubt you were making an issue out of Mccready's relative geographical location. – ugen64 23:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Mccready 01:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, how are you attempting to mend fences with me? You are asking me, a brand new admin, to reverse a block made by an experienced and well respected admin. Not to mention that the block was made for the very same action that caused your problems with me. Sorry, I don't see any fence mending. I see you trying to cause me trouble.

Mccready, your block was preventative not punitive. Jayjg is trying to get your attention so that you will change your behavior. In actuality, your continued complaints about SV will be more to your detriment than hers. IMO, you need to voluntarily say that you will steer clear of SV for a month or two.

You have the potential to be an excellent editor. Unfortunately two of your strengths, boldness and enthusiasm, are now seen as weaknesses because you lack an understanding of basic Wikipedia etiquette and rules. You need to pull back from discussions that involve policy until you are better acclimated to Wikipedia culture. You involved yourself in discussions before you understood Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and community expectations.

Please consider finding a mentor to discuss the comments that you leave on various policy, article, and user talk pages. If you show a good faith effort to settle in and learn to get along with other users, you will be welcome here despite these questionable actions. regards, --FloNight ^talk 01:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Flo, you make the error of attributing motive without evidence. This is an opportunity for you to be bold and look at the evidence as other admins have done. I am attempting to mend fences with you by giving you an opportunity to be generous, to be logical, to forgive (you appear to think I have wronged you)and forget. And I will do likewise. Are you seriously saying I have no rights to edit pages that Slim edits? This is an amazing point of view. You again fail to see there is NO element of harassment in my edits. They are good edits. I am a good editor and I thank you for your view that I can become an excellent editor. If that is the case shouldn't the community be even keener to see justice done, rather than sit and watch the powerful attack the weak? Mccready 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, in my comment below I asked you to clarify your comment to me.

I am willing to WP:AGF about the email, thinking perhaps it was poorly worded in haste. (You did send out quite a few :- ) Could you please confirm that here so that we can put this incident behind us. Regards, FloNight talk 20:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You've replied. Now let's leave it alone. I see nothing productive coming from further discussion of this matter with you. regards, FloNight ^talk 04:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request denied

I have reviewed your edits, and the discussions here and at AN/I. I believe that the block was correctly placed. Therefore I'm denying your request to be unblocked. -Will Beback 22:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

An admin, me, has reviewed your unblock request and denied it. -Will Beback 05:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Signatures

Hope this helps :P Mopper ^Speak! 00:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Alleged wikistalking - let's get this straight

Wikistalking MUST involve HARASSMENT. It is simply foolish to say that editing on the same page as someone who edited there previously, or edits there regularly, constitutes wikistalking. Those who use the term inaccurately should be considered to be indulging in personal attack and censured. Mccready 01:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I happen to agree that stalking involves harassment. However, your continuing combative approach is not helping your case! Your past ill behavior is making people see harassment in edits that would be considered harmless if done by an editor in good standing. If you wish to be an editor, I strongly urge you to drop this issue, and start editing. It's a done deal- your block is over. If you're a good faith contributor, start demonstrating this. If you're not, I predict you'll be blocked again soon enough. Friday (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

And in some cases the following alone may be considered harrassment by the person being followed. The solution is simple: stop it. Now. Just zis Guy you know? 20:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Undermining wikipedia foundations - new definition of wikistalking

This block undermines wikipedia foundations. Read on and you’ll see the claim is not overblown.

Jayjg’s accusation lacks substance and makes incorrect assumptions, particularly in regard to Gene Naagard. That a senior admin can jump to conclusions, accuse me of “baiting” and making “frivolous complaints” (they still haven’t been dealt with), and believe I should not edit articles which Slim has edited staggers me. Once again there is no demonstration of harassment here despite requests to provide it. And this is where the foundations are being undermined. Jayjg and others want to stop me editing pages another person has edited. There is no examination of the quality of my edits, no examination of whether I have harassed. No. Only “you shall not edit pages which Slim regularly edits – if you do we define that as wikistalking”. This is a serious attack on the principles of wikipedia.

SlimVirgin’s version of history (above) needs commentary. My comments are interspersed:

::::I'd have preferred not to comment here, but it's a bit much of a couple of editors to look at one or two diffs and then comment. I know it's dull to have to comb through someone's contribs, so here are a few more diffs, showing that Mccready makes a habit of threatening users just because they disagree with them: + ::::*he demands an apology from Xtra and David Cannon, accusing Xtra of a personal attack [7];

Xtra said to me “You may see Joyce as an extremist, however, from the way you are talking, he appears far more to the centre than you….Or is free speech only reserved for left wing people? I am sick of this hypocracy (sic)…. I am sick of defending articles about normal people against morons ” Tell me Slim,is that a personal attack or is that a personal attack? Should Xtra apologise?

+ ::::*threatens Seth with an RfC for violating WP:LEAD [8] (Mccready's been told numerous times over the last few weeks that WP:LEAD isn't policy but he keeps insisting it is [9]);

Steth (not Seth) had begun an unsuccessful and, I discovered, secret RfC against me. Correct me if I’m wrong, but when I joined wikipedia there was a box at the top of WP:LEAD which said it was policy. That box no longer appears in the history because the history doesn’t store deleted templates. Like I say, I could be wrong. [10]. Also Slim’s link to me being told “numerous” times is one link on 9 May. Are there others Slim?

+ ::::*issues a "last warning" to Nortman and threatens him with an RfC [11];

David Nortman had reverted in bulk numerous times. Other editors had also asked him not to.

+ ::::*issues a "2nd warning" to Ombudsman [12]; + ::::*issues a "second warning" to me [13]; + ::::*issues a "3rd warning" to Ombudsman [14]; + ::::*issues a "3rd warning" to me [15];

Ombudsman , like Slim, had reverted more than once and not used the talkpage despite repeated requests to do so

+ ::::*threatens to "report" Justen [16];

What I said was “Justen you have reverted in bulk and will be reported if you do so again without properly considering all opinions calmly on the talk page”

+ ::::*threatens to report Seth as a vandal [17];

What I said was “"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." This user has failed to discuss his reasons for reverting, engaged in personal attacks, and seems convinced he has the right to question other editors about their private lives. When they fail to respond he draws conclusions without evidence then indulges in further personal attack and accusations of conspiracy.” Steth had waged a campaign to delete scientific findings from the article.

+ ::::*Complains about me on AN/I on April 5, April 23, and May 5. [18] [19] [20]

Guilty as charged

+ ::::On top of which, out of over a million articles, he keeps arriving at articles I edit a lot but he has never edited.

Do you seriously argue that I should not edit articles you edit?

Combined with the above, it's stretching AFG to continue to see that as a cooincidence. His behavior at FloNight's adminship nom, where he tried to mount a campaign of opposition against her either because I was the nominator or because she had once (very politely and reasonably) disagreed with him on Talk:Lauren Slater, was particularly disappointing,

disappointing? What I said was (and it took a while to track down the correct link, Slim), “I think there are too many admins and I would like to see a code of conduct in place and enforced before new ones are created. Some admins are rude, revert legitimate comments by other editors, block pages they have edited and violate WP policies. My specific reasons for opposing include

• She deleted comments and when asked on her talk page why, did not respond. [22] • She deleted legitimate comments from her talkpage without explanation[23] • Deleted more comments from her talkpage.[24]Mccready 05:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)” Flo responded and some of her response satisfied me, though not all

and his tiny little edit to Hamas, made after Jayjg warned him to stop following me around, now allows him to insist "but it was only a tiny little edit!" and play the victim. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I’ll let this one through to the keeper

• Thank you Slim for finally removing from your list of my faults the gram-positive error I made and acknowledged as soon as it was discovered. I am still not happy that my legitimate criticisms of Slim have been removed from my user page and user talk, but hey ...

• Blnguyen, you misquote me. You don’t mediate against someone. Tell me which of my six points on Animal Rights doesn’t belong. Yes it may appear trivial which is why I couldn’t understand SlimVirgin’s constant reverts and refusal to discuss. Your sarcasm does you no credit.

• Yes I emailed admins; the blocking template suggests I do. Now I’m attacked for doing so. Come on people. Yes I emailed people who appear to bear a grudge, appealing them to look objectively at the facts. I am attacked again for doing that. It takes all types.

• Thanks to those admins who supported me and stood up against groupthink, including those who did so via email. To the others may I ask you to consider that the definition of wikistalking MUST involve harassment; it is simply absurd to ban someone from editing a page when they have had disputes with a person who also edits that page – no matter how you ASSUME they arrived at the page (check SlimVirgin’s actions on chiropractic[21] – perhaps she didn’t know I was a regular editor there, and it was much more than a “tweak” – it sided against me in an ongoing controversy AND without her discussion on the talkpage). Jayjg’s comments on this would be particularly welcome. And to those who find my broad range of interests sarcastically “interesting”, yes the world still has polymaths, or as my father used to say “Jack of all trades, master of none,” and some of them, usually, enjoy editing free encyclopedias.

• Given the good job done by AnnH ♫ 13:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC) on Timothy Usher’s block by Sean Black, I’m a bit disappointed she didn’t spend the same time on my case, though I understand how complex and boring it may be.

• Thanks Friday for your comments. I am no troll. I had come to the same conclusion as you long before your post, as a look at my posts will show.

• Finally, if I may be allowed a small rhetorical flourish, and in the light of those who continue to rely on assumption, this will go down in the annals of wikipedia: the day a user was blocked for removing, correctly, one redundant word from an article which had been edited three hours before (not minutes before as first hastily alleged) by the blocker’s friend who had refused discussion with that user.

• AND May I or may I not make sensible edits, as I do, to pages Slim edits?

Mccready 14:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Your piling-on appearance at SV's RFAr shows very poor judgement on your part considering you've been wikistalking SV. Were I not a named party in the RFAr I'd have blocked you for ignoring all the previous warnings given you against doing that. FeloniousMonk 15:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you FM. Is that the old (with harassment) or the new (without harassment) definition of wikistalking you are employing? Mccready 02:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)