User talk:86.10.231.219

Attention:

This IP address, 86.10.231.219, is registered to highly intelligent brain cells dedicated to fighting vandals and is shared by multiple brain cells. Comments left on this page may be received by other brain cells of this IP and appear to be irrelevant. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking.

If you are an unregistered brain cell operating from this address, note that this need not necessarily be the IP address of your ganglion. In many cases, it turns out to be the IP address of your fingers that communicates between your brain cells and the Wikimedia servers. Such fingers are shared among a huge number of bodily usages compared to the number of brain cells using your particular ganglion. If you are frustrated by irrelevant comments appearing here, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and write articles, however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 86.10.231.219). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia.

Please note these points:

• Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
• Please use a neutral point of view to edit the article; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do that.
• Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted texts, advertisement messages, and texts that are not related to that article. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism. A user who repeatedly vandalises articles will be blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, ask me on my Talk page – I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.

from Wikipedian: Kukini 07:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Jwissick^(t)(c) 23:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply in thanks put on Jwissick's talk page - see Diff for message:- [[1]] 86.10.231.219 23:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Time & Tide

Thanks for the note. Will be waiting. The Invisible Anon 16:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please watch Talk:Autism

Finally a little on a talk page, eh? Please see what others might say to the question of diet and Autism there. The diet and autism section is weak in the article. By the way, why not just establish a presence with a logon? You could edit from other locations and when your IP address changes some time in the future you wouldn't lose your ability to track contributions ans such. Also you could elect to get eMail. That feature is nice, and Wikipedia won't reveal your eMail address. Kd4ttc 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

My apology. The note on the User page appears to have been made by someone other than yourself. Kd4ttc 23:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment removed from User page

An anonymous fringe editor publishing rubbish. (unsigned comment by User:Midgley removed from User page) 21:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Votes of Anons Do Count

Votes of anons do count. Need strong evidence of bad faith not to count them. See [Rough Consensus] ".... administrators can disregard opinions and comments if ... strong evidence ... not made in good faith ... "bad faith" opinions include those made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." Check edit history for evidence of good faith and do not presume bad faith. The Invisible Anon 12:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I am presuing to instruct an Englishman on English, but that page as referred to, and the text as quoted above are not easily construed in that fashion.

"..."bad faith" opinions include those ... being made anonymously..." is by far the most obvious way to read that composite sentence. I believe the same applies in the American version.

To test that, you could ask, or you could look for an example - a precedent or a common occurrence, of anonymous votes being counted.

I'm pleased to see this user now has a user page. Midgley 13:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Woolf pack?

It would be much appreciated if you could remove your list of 'Woolf pack' members from your user page. I am not a puppet (sock- or meat-) of User:Jfdwolff, and I do not take direction from that editor or any of the editors on your list. I suspect that the other editors you have listed feel the same way.

It is also inappropriate to describe another good-faith editor as a 'medical graffiti expert', and you would be well-advised to remove that characterization. Making personal attacks on other editors is never an acceptable practice on Wikipedia.

To make communication with you easier and more reliable, I would strongly recommend registering a username. It's free, requires no personally-identifying information, and would allow you to have your own user space, rather than the anonymous space attacked to a random NTL IP address. Your preferred name, 'The Invisible Anon', is even still available. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and I am taking careful note of what you say.

The 'medical graffitti expert' is a joke. It is quite a funny one. Let me explain. The user page was completely blank. Like a blank wall in the street. It had nothing on it. Then, suddenly, someone writes on it - just like a graffitti artist. And he wrote "An anonymous fringe editor publishing rubbish." See for yourself - here is the evidence [[2]].

I know Adrian Midgely enjoys a joke and this one is quite apt in all the circumstances. This is not a personal attack and I find it hard to characterise it as such. However, I will be happy to consider your view further on the point. Perhaps you might also let me have your views on these questions: was it the action of a good faith editor for Adrian to do that? Isn't that an attack on another editor and on his user page no less? Haven't I dealt with it in a light-hearted manner and not taken offence? But, shouldn't I be the injured party?

Regarding the user pages listed on my user page, if there is a Wiki policy I can turn to to see if there is anything and what it might be that is objectionable, if at all, that would be helpful. So it is important to know to what is being objected to. Do you not agree that time and again the same names appear to crop up on the same pages? A number of the users listed on my user page, for example all appear on the RfD page [[3]].

It is the same people every time. I can see that some of them co-ordinate with each other over these matters and there is evidence to show that. These are not all people acting in isolation but in co-operation and I keep seeing the same names over and over.

As for logging in, I have given that consideration. No other user is using this IP address to edit on Wikipedia. If one does, then I will consider the suggestion further. Until that time, if it were ever to occur and I doubt it very much, I am the one disadvantaged by not having registered on the system. I could ensure my messages are signed with pgp signature.

This is an example above. I have deleted the signature with this edit but the diff will always show the original message and signature.

I am certainly willing to consider modifying the text of the user page to take account of your concerns and any Wikipedia policy that is relevant. Do you object, for example, to just being listed as an editor who edits or comments on pages as I edit or comment on? The Invisible Anon 22:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-vaccinationists, discussions etc

Hmmm - there is a user & talk page as you said - I thought anons did not have - one learns something new every day :-). That said, unless you have a fixed internet link and stable URL number, the question arises is '86.10.231.219' always you ? If it is stable and only usable by you then why not register, if only to show to others that all contributions are from one person and allow people to engage in discussion, rather than perhaps it reflecting many people via an ISP sharing the same URL who might each hold opposing views and so make discussion difficult. I'm happy to accept that many desire or required to be "anonymous", so names without any reference to gender, religion, geographical location or political observation is admirable and indeed most WP usernames are effectively anonymous handles. Anyway, enough digressing and on with the discussion: Thank you for your courteous comments on my talk-page. Don't worry about your entry's length, although I think my talk page is getting overlong and in need of archiving. P.S. this entry seems even longer than yours:-)

I agree several other editors had failed to revert the deleted text, but you'll understand I was quite incensed at seeing the deletion (especially as it had taken me a couple of goes to post my vote, what with my computer crashing a couple of times - not you fault of course !)

The real problem for articles debating epidemiology/risks to complex issues is that the discussion must be held about complex research and data interpretation, which is probably at too deep a level for a general encyclopaedia such as wikipedia. I agree one can't just say "a minority disagree that X is safe for reasons that the majority reject", but getting too deep into a debate makes articles almost unreadable to the general casual reader. Heck, even I find the articles terse and a struggle to get through, but I have no magic solution to offer as to where to draw the line. There should be a role for external references to provide the greater detail, but articles can't be just bland one-line dictionary definitions with a huge numbers of references; they need to include some structure as to the outlines of the issues to give meaning and relevance to the deeper information to be found from a few selected references. Consensus on such articles will come I suspect less from agreeing the merit of specific arguments, but on NPOV summarising (vs. fully defending each POV) with then a few choice references outside and away from wikipedia. This then allows the reader to extend their understanding in either direction, and whilst the article wont be a "complete" discourse, it should be acceptable as an encyclopaedic entry.

You eloquently set out the (dare I say it) acceptable concerns that might be raised about any treatment, namely what is the potential harm if a treatment is not used, how effective is that treatment and what are the adverse effects of so using the treatment. You are quite right that good research (leaving aside what this precisely is, and where anecdotal reports fit into evidence gathering), should in time help quantify the statistics. This should be agreeable by all, although quite how appropriate to put every last detail into wikipedia that is meant to be a general encyclopaedia rather than a research paper is debatable - that is the point of having references (I happy for a risk to be written in WP as 'about half' rather than a technically precise but emotionally empty '48.15%'). However I disagree with you that such agreed statistics would end debate or disagreement (I wish that it could/would):

• Risk-benefit analysis is not only quantitative but also qualitative; being subjective in as much that each risk/benefit percentage must then be weighed by an importance-factor. Hence the effort in having to look both ways before crossing the road affects 100% of people, against being hit which is a smaller percentage. Yet the "statistics" do not result in us all crossing the road without taking care - clearly the cost of the 'effort' in checking is minimal although affecting everyone, yet the cost of being hit is huge. This makes discussion of a treatment's 'worth' harder than just a balance of percentages, there is scope here for genuine disagreement, for there is no intrinsic absolute truth in value judgements - I give below an example:
  • A young child (say 7 who is old enough to have some discussion with but too young to take absolute responsibility for their decisions) might refuse having a blood test due to needle phobia, irrespective of the possible benefit in their overall care (despite best efforts of doctors & parents to try to explain at their level of understanding) . A parent then 'forcing' their child to have a blood test, is certainly going to immediately feel some guilt for upsetting that child.
  • The statistical likelihood of the blood test helping to make a difference to the diagnosis, disease assessment, treatment options and eventual outcome can be debated - some of this may be hard statistical evidence, some is open to discussion or even great uncertainty (a blood test for an infection may allow correct treatment and life-saving cure, a test that confirms a cancer that after assessment proves incurable will, in retrospect, not have helped that child). Perhaps a more useful discriminator would have been some additional fact from the patient's history rather than resorting to a blood test.
  • So it is difficult to absolutely quantify the possible benefit of getting the test done against the blatantly obvious existence of emotional trauma involved in getting any blood taken.
  • Indeed in this respect medicine might be seen as partly an art in the application of science - I'm sure most doctors sometimes defer non-immediately-critical investigations/treatments they know from experience are likely to be for the best, for just such reasons (until perhaps circumstances change and greater weight applies to a particular course of action/inaction).

• Next is the issue of data presentation and weight. I've seen media articles about some life-threatening adverse effect of a treatment stating that doctors claim it is safe yet (shock horror) that they admit to a third of patients experiencing side effects. Of course this sort of statement is (deliberately) misleading, as side-effects will include not only the exceptionally rare life-threatening events mentioned, but also the many time more common side-effects that are mild, transitory and with no long-term consequences. Whilst not dismissing the potential for serious reactions and the need to spot early, this type of statement tries to imply that a third of patients will have the life-threatening consequences. In case you were wondering I've seen such articles relating to antibiotics (perhaps 33% experiencing mild stomach or bowel upset \ anaphylactic allergic reactions a tiny risk \ in appropriate circumstances treatment life-saving) and some anti-malarials (many cause taste disturbance or poor sleeping \ psychiatric disturbance is rare \ getting malaria can kill).

So, with good reason, the idea that the 'facts will out' and everyone will come to a consensus is both probably impossible and will be argued over with bias.

I think in part the problem with contentious articles is that the aim of wikipedia is somewhat vague; in that it can try to be all things:

1. At a very basic level is simple dictionary definition of terms e.g. "Flat-earth: the belief the world is flat and not a sphere" or "Vaccines: analogues of an illness that by injection into a person stimulate the immune system with the aim of conferring protection against the full infection". I hope both are NPOV even though flat-earth is rejected by most, vaccines accepted by most.
2. The next level up is a definition at the level of a young teenager's encyclopaedia. This might describe slightly more fully: perhaps difference of virus and bacteria, of using just a part of the micro-organism in a vaccine, of having some soreness at site of injection, and then a hint of the issues that whilst recommended by most, some question how useful they are.
3. However by the time one reaches a school leavers text book one should be discussing: levels of vaccine effectiveness, herd immunity and benefit this gives to those not yet vaccinated or failing to respond to a vaccine themselves vs. reduced likelihood of personal benefit.
4. WP is though usually above this and generally seems to have articles that expand in their latter sections to under-graduate levels.
5. The level of "ferocity" in some of WP's controversial articles seems more like that of the esoteric debates at post-graduate/research levels.

Now aside form the merits of any aspect within a debate about a topic, it is clear that the amount of information and thus presentation of mankind’s understanding (and thus shade of Points of View) builds up with the increasing target-level of the article. I think everyone could agree to NPOV at level 1 above, and within each side of the debate there is likely to be some POV disagreements at the stage of level 5. The question is the approach at the level of 3-4 of both maintaining overall article NPOV and the style of discussing each POV. I'm sure its just about possible, but 'about' is unlikely to be perfectly so.

As the complexity increases with each audience target level, so the amount and care with qualifying language needs to increase. Indeed at the deepest level of considering any facet of a topic is nearly always "this is the level of current understanding". Reaching this stage is likely to be inappropriate within wikipedia, or fall foul of original research rules.

All this I guess is a long way of considering how much info we want on vaccination, the arguments either for or against (either on specific issues, or conventional acceptance vs. alternative outright rejection) and the movements that hold these views. I don't know quite where I would place my own cut-off point, but would discussion about the "process of encyclopaedia compiling complex articles", rather than purely focusing on the details of the contents of an individual article, allow an acceptable article to be formed (vs. each side viewing an article as imperfect). I would suggest that abortion forms a good analogue - current article contains a dictionary definition of what it is & its history section (NPOV even if one disagrees with abortion), followed by the debate of the arguments against & the counter-arguments (the opposing POVs). The article neither suggest that abortion is a good thing (even pro-choicers would much prefer that a women never finds herself in a situation with an unwanted pregnancy), nor that all accept it is morally acceptable or unacceptable. Both pro-choice and pro-life viewpoints probably see the article as biased against their POV, but I think the article is a good encyclopaedic entry.

I do think that the anti-vacinationists article is in need of POV/NPOV consensus, but even more importantly consensus on what level to pitch debated medical topics, but I don't think that warrants Afd. I'll look forward to catching up with discussions after my wikibreak with a real-life week's holiday. David Ruben ^Talk 05:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see comments on my talk page

Please see comments at User_talk:Kd4ttc#Rfd_Anti-Vaccinationists Kd4ttc 17:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC

RFC found here not originating with me. - JustinWick 22:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

a block paragraph is done with hard line breaks
and a single space before each line
otherwise they run and run and run and run and run off the side of the page and it's really annoying to read...  your comments on RfC have this error, please amend (preview is your friend).
- JustinWick 23:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ubernosy question

Just out of curiousity, why edit anonymously if you feel strongly about your edits? It has been my experience that editors often take anon edits less seriously... also login names do not appear to be easy to trace back to real world individuals (except in my case, where I just used my name, time will tell if that was a good decision). Cheers, - JustinWick 02:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Allopath

The problem with using the term allopath to describe a practitioner of conventional medicine is that it carries some ugly baggage. Allopath is defined simply as 'on who practices allopathy', a term for which you have already provided a definition. It was invented by Hahnemann as a deliberate caricature of his preferred homeopathy, and it was (and is) used as a pejorative term.

To an extent, the term has been co-opted or subverted (if you will) by mainstream medicine, and some organizations now consider 'allopathic medicine' a synonym of 'conventional' or 'Western' medicine. Note that the preferred formulation–if you must use it–is 'practitioner of allopathic medicine', and not 'allopath'. An allopath is one who follows Hahnemann's caricature, a practitioner of allopathic medicine is actually practicing conventional medicine.

In the context of vaccination debates, describing vaccination as 'allopathy' has a particular potential to confuse—vaccination is based on exposing patients to compounds and organisms very similar to those which cause disease.

From the standpoint of writing an encyclopedia article, the meanings of 'conventional' or 'Western' are understood by a much larger audience than 'allopathic'. There's no need to use a more obscure term when it is no more precise and when it is seen as loaded. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. You are kind to take the trouble to explain this. I have also been looking at the definition of the term following the comments of others. The Invisible Anon 15:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Midgley

Please stop using the page User:86.10.231.219 as a platform to attack User:Midgley or to impugn the motives and good faith of other editors. If you would like to discuss the appropriateness of edits–addition or removal of material, name and location of articles–do so on the article talk pages. If you feel that more eyes are needed in an article dispute, the Request for Comment process is thataway.

Further testing the bounds and enforcement of our civility and personal attack policies is Not Done, all right? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Conduct

Two other editors have seconded my concerns regarding your conduct at the RfC for Talk:Anecdotal evidence. Having read your recent user history, my concerns have broadened. I am not a contributor to the pages or subjects where you are active so please take this as the advice of a neutral observer. We all feel strongly about some issues. This does not necessarily mean that those who disagree have violated any policy. And if some do, there are many ways to resolve the matter constructively. I say this because it looks like your own user conduct may merit an RfC. I'd rather not see that happen. Durova 22:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment left at Durova's talk page 00:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC):-

Thank you Durova for your comments here [[4]].

How can I help? What do you consider of concern about Talk:Anecdotal evidence. It seems to me the content points you raised at Talk:Anecdotal evidence were answered in an appropriate manner. What did you find gave you concerns at Talk:Anecdotal evidence." Some specifics would be helpful.

Kd4ttc has personal involvement on a number of levels. What did the two editors who second your views think? I assume he is not one?

Your personal involvement includes a differing opinion of and defence of the behaviour noted here [[5]] of the anon editor using 4 different IP addresses to make comments worthy of a raised eyebrow.

The relevance of Kd4ttc's comment being "ganged up on by physicians with a narrow POV" defeats me I have to confess as I do not see anyone at Talk:Anecdotal evidence suggesting anyone is being "ganged up on". Is that what you think?

The Invisible Anon 00:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You also posted to my user page and I replied there yesterday. Your reaction at Talk:Anecdotal evidence was not encouraging. RfC is a tool to help resolve a specific disagreement. If you really think the article deserves praise for excellence, then the place to seek feedback is Wikipedia:Peer review. I don't think this article is ready for peer review, but you have the right to try it. Durova 17:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Still no response regarding alleged concerns re Talk:Anecdotal evidence. The only one so far is "[filibuster]ing" [[6]] which is clearly inapplicable as can be seen from what is necessarily a clear direct and plain reply to ensure there is no confusion [[7]] The Invisible Anon 19:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up

In the spirit of Wikipedia:Assume good faith I'd like to repeat my suggestion that you join the mentorship program. You seem like an intelligent and active person. You also seem like someone who hasn't yet gained a solid foundation in Wikipedia's formats, guidelines, and policies. This is leading to problems. Wikipedia is a flexible place, but it requires some flexibility in return. Durova 01:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.

What are the problems to which you refer? I asked that question twice before and it was not answered then.

In the light of the following, you may want to consider who is in greater need of mentoring.

I also agree, Wikipedia is a flexible place - so flexible that "formats, guidelines, and policies" are clearly unimportant as:-

• a user page was deleted on a demonstrably false complaint [[8]]
• the Admin deleted when it did not qualify for deletion according to any policies
• he just zapped it - no formalities - no policy or guideline followed
• and notwithstanding no aspect of page protection policies apply, the page is now also protected.

So, on whose part should good faith be assumed? From the above example, it seems "good faith" is in shorter supply than people would have us believe.

Also, the comment you prefix your remarks with "in the spirit of Wikipedia:Assume good faith" implies you do not think I am acting in good faith because if you thought I was acting in good faith you would not even think of mentioning it.

Please also see a selection of a few of the examples of abuse and harrassment I have been getting from this user (who crops up with the same editors all the time):-

• "You idiot" [[9]]
• "An anonymous fringe editor publishing rubbish." [[10]]
• Here I am accused of dishonesty [[11]] ("... spread your own untrue version of events").
• "Bollux" appears in an edit summary about my edits. [[12]]
• It is also said in the text "I think teh good faith of this anonymous editor .... is not something one should assume" same edit as above [[13]]
• Another editor is attacked - "hissy fit" & lengthy ad hominem [[14]]
• Another editor attacked "THis is quite clearly his usual behaviour, and is disruptive and dishonest." [[15]]
• Another editor is attacked - "Paranoid ranting isn't it? (in an entirely lay/general sense of the meaning)" [[16]]
• Here he calls author of peer reviewed medical paper a "conspiracy theorist and psychotic" [[17]]

That is untrue, although it is repeated from a talk page. To suggest that giving a reference means that the author of the referred paper has personally the quality their paper discusses is so bizarre that it is hard to believe anyone who inhabits WP and sees references given in support of statements actually believes it themselves. Midgley 00:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Here he discloses the private identity of another editor who asked not to be identified [[18]]

Regarding the "ganged up" remark made first by Steve Kd4ttc here [[19]] and which you repeated, here is a comment by a completely independent editor [[20]] which is in very strong but civil terms. Do you not seem able to share that perspective?

You seem to have no problem accepting Steve [[Kd4ttc]]'s good faith. I have reasons to be cautious on that score. Here is a gratuitous and unnecessary remark in circumstances where it might be seen to be inflammatory [[21]] :and here is Steve ridiculing me another time [[22]] although perhaps he has not quite recovered from coming off worst as a result of his own provocative remarks.

Here is another encounter with Steve [[23]]

Here is a further encounter with Steve [[24]]

Now User:Tearlach's good faith - after my patience was tried to extremes on talk:anecdotal evidence here he is on the Admin's Noticeboard cherry-picking [[25]] and the filibustering allegation I had previously demonstrated more than once was unfounded but it appears on the Admin's Notice board? Hmmm.

Here is a good example [[26]] of my sticking to the issues and being polite but getting repeatedly personal remarks in return from Admin JFW | T@lk

I look forward to hearing from you.

The Invisible Anon 04:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

---

What I intended above when I mentioned Wikipedia:Assume good faith is that I'm assuming good faith in posting to your user talk page. You've got some things to contribute to Wikipedia but you've been on a path that leads to conflict. I'd like to see more good things and less conflict. I'm flattered that you posted such a detailed response. It would be a good list to show to a mentor. I don't have time to assume that role.

You asked for specific examples of what problems caught my eye. These are a few:

• It would help if you removed the warnings you posted to Wikipedia's RfC page and to the RfC discussion at Anecdotal evidence.
• The formatting of the anecdotal evidence article doesn't conform to Wikipedia standards. Lengthy quotes should be indented, not boxed. Add Wikilinks to relevant articles in the body of the text. Move external links to the end of the page and place them in single set brackets.
• Other editors commented on the content of that article. The most important points, to me, are WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. If you think there's a lack of consensus about the meaning of the term "anecdotal evidence," then locate a reputable source that states so and quote that source.

I hope this points at the right direction. This is about as much follow-up as I have time for. Best wishes, Durova 07:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I took time responding to your invitation [[27]] to see what the reply is. "... you've been on a path that leads to conflict."

I provide a raft of evidence, showing editors at work hard at ensuring the balance and factual information I present is prevented, even down to making plainly false complaints as I have shown [[28]]. But your response is to ignore all of that and the other evidence above. And when eventually you set out what you say you feel are "problems" (after three times of my asking you to say what they are) they turn out to be pretty trivial compared to the serious problems I have documented by evidence above, including evidence of a "POV war" from an independent editor [[29]].

Presuming or assuming good faith holds good until the evidence exists to show that such an assumption is misplaced. You have chosen to intervene in unusual circumstances. When I present just a small amount of overwhelming evidence, you choose to ignore it. Anyone so concerned for another's benefit to intervene would comment and offer advice, but you fail to comment on that evidence or offer any advice. Instead, you choose to criticise in one direction, and that criticism, when put is mild, but it ignores seriously bad behaviour in another. That is evidence to test faith.

And you should know that NPOV is a way of presenting both POVs in a manner in which the reader can see both and make their own minds up. Consensus was achieved in anecdotal evidence with a different editor who was neutral independent and who responded to the RfC [[30]]. But even if there were a POV in anecdotal evidence all User:Tearlach needed to do was assist in coming to a consensus, but User:Tearlach did not. When I had produced references and met finally all the points User:Tearlach had to put[[31]], User:Tearlach turned the RfC into a dispute over fact not POV or references [[32]]. He then took one cherry-picked one remark when the patience of saint would be tested and put it as a complaint on the admins noticeboard as part of the false complaint [[33]]. That is plainly bad faith.

In view of

• your close correspondence and dialogue with those who have positively set out to cause mischief, as I have documented (and can document further), and
• your involvement in anecdotal evidence and
• because of the other circumstances of your intervention

I hope you can forgive my commenting that anyone who did not treat such an approach with caution would be reckless. There is too much trickery going on as I have shown [[34]].

The Invisible Anon 10:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

More Deletion of Fully Referenced Information

Following comments from Midgley moved from User Page - my reply below:-

"And here is the actual content of that page, demonstrating the references offered do not actually say what was asserted":-

"In particular, I'd question the references":-

"In London, England uptake of the MMR vaccine is approximately 50% 54

"this is a link to the Mail article, in a news summary on the BMJ site. Quoting it as BMJ rather than Mail could be seen as an effort to raise its status from newspaper to learned journal, whjich, it has been asserted, is a common behaviour in anti-vaccinationist publication. Reading it, what it actually says about uptake is "The report reveals that in seven London boroughs, uptake of MMR remains below 50 per cent. " Not in London therefore, since there are more boroughs than that. One could easily think that was a deliberate misrepresentation in direct speech. You know, a lie."

"and in some areas uptake is a low as 10% 55".

"Figures from the Department of Health for 2004-05 showed that in Westminster, London, just 11.7 per cent of children were immunised by their fifth birthday."

"One area. Not actually, quite, if one were trying for accuracy, as low as 10%. In fact a completely truthful description might be more like "no area was as low as 10%" "

"In other parts of the UK the uptake is similarly low. 56 Was that referring to this quote: "Craven and Harrogate areas featuring among the country's 10 poorest performers at 52.8 per cent,"

"52.8% similar to 10% which is not the level which Westminster fails to achieve by age 5 (note that the Torygraph picks up that single jabs mean the course is completed later - if it is - so if you look at later ages you'll find a slow pickup from that.)"

"after that short intermission we return to something that might be science"

"The Cochrane review has been undermined by subquent further reports of harm caused by the MMR vaccine raised by the former senior UK government scientific advisor on vaccine safety. 57 "

"I think he might be a former senior ... rather than the singular definite article. Otherwise it would be creeping up his status, don't you think?"

"GOing to that article we see":-

"after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents' lawyers," ... "He called the sudden termination of legal aid to parents of allegedly vaccine-damaged children in late 2003 "a monstrous injustice"."

"Oh did he oh was he oh what a pity about the funding for his appearance going away. Gosh. Midgley 15:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)"

In Reply

The main assertion is "the references offered do not actually say what was asserted" and there is lying and deliberate misrepresentation:-

• "approximately 50%" is neither lying or nor misrepresentation of "54%".
• a round figure of "10%" is neither lying nor misrepresentation of 11.7%
• it is not lying or misrepresentation that other parts of the country have "similarly low uptake" to London (ie. 50%) when they do
• the Daily Mail is not lying or deliberate misrepresenting London MMR uptake as below 50% when they did not say that and neither did my text
• the former senior government scientist on vaccine safety who speaks out cannot have a financial conflict of interest when he is no longer a paid expert witness in litigation

others who spoke out are investigated by the GMC, so he is taking a brave position

• it cannot be lying or misrepresenting a report being from the BMJ when the news story states clearly at the beginning it is from the Daily Mail

It is also interesting to note the censorship on Wikipedia - all of the links to the [Abolish The GMC Campaign] on a mere talk page have been deleted [[35]]. Oh, and Fletcher was the senior government adviser.

The Invisible Anon 11:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why Claudius?? Which is where the first "full reference" perhaps coincidentally numbered "54" points. It should and did point to where it does on the Talk:Anti-vaccinationist page which is where discussion of that should and does take place if you have any wish to inform rather than spread your own untrue version of events. Midgley 12:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that although the phrase "similar levels" followed a mention of "10%" you assert it referred to the preceding 50% which meant 54%. Perhaps it should have been re-written? I do not recall Fletcher being the Chief Medical Officer - who is the senior medical adviser, in any case there ahve been since then several, if not many of them. And he is quoted immediately after ceasing to have held out to him payment for appearing in a legal case, and not before. Midgley 19:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This means nothing to me. The Invisible Anon 20:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Your user page

As I said on my edit to your user page, if you wish to have a user page, get an account and follow WP:USER. In general, publishing your disputes with other users on your user page is considered to be unconstructive: you might like to have a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for other ideas as to how to pursue your grievances. Physchim62 (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply. Please note:-

• I have a full copy of my user page as at 17:35, 10 February 2006.
• there is no message on it from you at that time
• the User page was deleted by you less than 24 hours later at 14:08, 11 February 2006 ([[36]]
• the place for messages is not user pages but talk pages
• it is less likely someone will see a message left on a deleted user page as

- that is not strictly "left" is it?

- Wikipedia only generates a "new messages" notice for messages on talk pages

• my user page was not publishing disputes with other users, but it was serving a very useful purpose
• I cannot find the Wikipedia policy on summary deletion of user pages without notice. Can you help with that one?

Look forward to hearing from you. The Invisible Anon 11:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to resolve your problems with other editors. That's what it's there for. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, and if you continue to use it for such purposes, I will have to block you for disruption. Physchim62 (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The remarks which Midgley posted to the Admins Noticeboard [[37]] to persuade you to delete my User page

• were not on my User page
• and they are not even by me
• I have just seen the Admins Noticeboard [[38]]
• a wholly independent editor just posted this regarding Midgley

"Added NPOV Template - this is the most biased entry on wikipedia I have ever seen" [[39]]

• you were tricked into deleting my User page.
• Please therefore do not block me. I am not doing any disrupting.

I am obliged to try and engage you in dialogue before instituting formal procedure regarding the deletion and Midgley's behaviour

The Invisible Anon 21:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)