User talk:Avb/Archive2

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

RC patrol

Hi, I just noticed this revert - I think the user is correctly cleaning up a number of AfD tags after the AfD noms had been withdrawn. AvB ÷ talk 23:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay; thanks for pointing that out. I'll post a message on the user's talk page. Sorry about that. joturner 23:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 03:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, resent then. JoshuaZ 21:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

AVB?

Are you an Anti Vandal Bot by any chance?--205.188.117.11 15:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

<smile> AvB ÷ talk 07:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Spring

I was not experimenting with the Spring page, still thanks for looking after it.

Tim Blokdijk

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.132.92.234 (talk • contribs) .

I've removed the warning. I'm sorry I took your well-intended edit for an experiment. You can revert to your version if you want to, or discuss your change on the TA Spring talk page. AvB ÷ talk 07:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs List of major automobile races in France Merzario The W Rial (racing team) Decaydance Records Pascal Fabre Sonny Moore Somatization disorder François Hesnault Supreme Clientele Mike Beuttler Sakon Yamamoto Andy Townsend Adrián Campos Oscar Larrauri Tarso Marques Ironman (album) Christian Danner Fishscale

Cleanup Alex Rodriguez Scarab (constructor) Ejaculation Merge Maktoum Hasher Maktoum Al Maktoum Autistic community Nigga Add Sources Black people Philippe Alliot Tom DeLonge Wikify Mexican Revolution Paulinho Da Costa East Grand Rapids Public Schools Expand Method & Red Zebra Line-item veto

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Shaken baby syndrome

Thanks for restoring back the article to a properly footnoted system and including the additional edits. I was pretty annoyed after all my hard work fixing the citation/footnotes to have it reverted and the anon user instruct me on my talk page to leave the article alone. I had reverted back once (which was instantly re-reverted), but as I generally try to follow 1RR, I thought it then best to see if other editors might join in the discussion. Hopefully the additional comments by JDW on their talk page plus Alteripse and your involvement will help encourage the anon to accept there there are common approaches taken to citating, and of the need to work in collaboration with other editors rather than trying to "own" articles. David Ruben ^Talk 23:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

David Ruben has accused me of owning the Shaken Baby article. I was upset as to how he was restructuring the footnotes yesterday. I took great pains to keep them in a medical/scientific format and looking profesional. He was color coding and making the page look like a Christmas tree including the references. In addition, to adding extra junk into in the citations. I would not have objected to the change in reference listings, except the format and the information does not need to be changed. I tried to take out one of the color changes and totaly screwed up the references and reverted to an older page to keep the page from being screwed up.

I see that he has removed all of the references for Dr, Viera Scheibner, including a quote from her paper "All examples of what Caffey considered "typical battered baby" fractures and periosteal bleedings in his papers, are in fact typical scurvy fractures and bleedings." Her paper reviewed all of Caffey's papers and additional papers and studies. Caffey even has acknowledged that scurvy was found in his first six cases that had fractures and subdural hemotomas. Apparently he was not educated as to the signs of scurvy and did not attempt to educate himself. His ignorance concerning scurvy and others is no reason to delete this information that has been medically and scientificaly documented for for close to 90 years from this page. All the Shaken Baby Syndrome has been based on in Caffey's own words is a "theory" and "a variety of circumstances."

David also deleted the reference for the Ommaya study (1968)in conjunction with the US Department of Trnsporation. I posted a link to Pub Med and the citation for the journal article, as numerous scientic articles that are posted on line, for validation. He has also delected the "and lactose intolerance" for the 2nd time. Some one else put it back and he deleted again; this needs to be listed.

70.171.229.32 03:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Shaken Baby

Is there any way to ask David for the 2nd time not to change the format of the references? PLEASE I sent him the following note:

May I ask why you are changing the references and moving the years? Apparently you have no idea what the proper format is for medical and scientific refences. Other pages posted on Wikipedia have the correct format and the format that I posted. Why don't you go to the medical library or look at other medical papers available on the internet or the papers that I have posted to see the correct format.

Thank you 70.171.229.32 07:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My original attempt at editing the article was to move the non-associated full citations from the manually mantained reference section, to the coresponding points in the article where inline links occured. As far as I can tell, this did not involve removing any of the citations already present - see edit history. The only External link to move was that of (Oral 2003) which was placed in the Signs and symptoms section at its previous first mention as a Harvard link (anyway Harvard links are supposed to refer to an entry in a Reference section not an External link). On looking at the edit difference, in the Prevention section "lactose intolerance" indeed got accidentally left out of the displayed text, but only because it was placed inside the opening < ref > tag for its reference:

Hence had : <ref>"Lactose Intolerance," Better Health Channel, Victorian Government, Australia [http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/BHCV2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Lactose_intolerance?OpenDocument "Lactose Intolerance"]</ref>

Instead of: Lactose Intolerance<ref>Better Health Channel, Victorian Government, Australia [http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/BHCV2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Lactose_intolerance?OpenDocument "Lactose Intolerance"]</ref>

As for correct location of years within a citation, Template:cite journal is not my creation, and other articles are not "incorrect" for using it. Please also see User talk:70.171.229.32 for some further comments I made. David Ruben ^Talk 00:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User 70.171.229.32 was editing in good faith but responded badly to being reverted and criticized. S/he complained to several (mostly uninvolved) users. I think JFW's response was rather appropriate. AvB ÷ talk 09:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Prostatitis ext links

I notice that you have edited the Prostatitis page previously. I have been engaged in a discussion on the external links with User:Skoppensboer at Talk:Prostatitis#Links removed and replaced. I would just appreciate another pair of eyes looking at the issues. I think I'm ready to back off on this, but I'm not sure if I should. TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 22:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! -- Mwanner | Talk 01:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Concordia Newsletter

NEWSLETTER

Concordia is currently trying to relaunch. I, and all the members of the ex-council, wish to welcome new members to the group. We are a group who aim to promote remaining civil, in an environment where messages can easily be interpretated wrongly.

Help out now!

• Try and help people remain civil! Talk to them, and help them in any way possible. Do not be afraid to use the talk page.
• Give people the Civility Barnstar.
• Make and spread some Wikitokens so people know there are people to help if they want assistance.
• Add banners or logos to your userpage to show your support.
• Suggest some ideas! Add 'em to the talk page.

We are a community, so can only work though community contributions and support. It's the helping that counts.

Decision Making

The council expired one month ago, but due to the current position of the group the current council will remain until the position of the group can be assessed, and whether it would be sensible to keep Concordia going. For most decisions, however, it will be decided by all who choose to partake in discussions. I am trying to relaunch because of the vast amounts of new members we have received, demonstrating that the aims are supported.

If you wish to opt of of further talk-page communications, just let us know here.

- Ian¹³/t 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC). Kindly delivered by MiszaBot.

Thanks for the kind welcome.

Hello Avb, thank you for the helpful notes left in my inbox. I'm brand new to the Wiki way, and really only intended to fix a few spelling mistakes. I've now read nearly every article on Wikipedia regarding best practices & rules, including those to which you linked. One funny thing: I've been notified by a bot that my edits are not being approved. It's frustrating (and understandable, if the bot tells truth) but I'd really like to contribute my fixes. What constitutes a "new user," and how is the next level attained? I'll keep reading in the meantime - if you respond then I'm grateful, and if not, c'est la vie. Once again thanks to you, and Happy New Year! DC

True-believer syndrome

Hi Avb! I've added something to your recent comments on crop circles as an indicator of true-believer syndrome. I was wondering what you thought ... Ottershrew 14:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

ID edit

Avb, nice catch on that last edit to the rendering of the broader discussion in the "Intelligent designer" subsection. ... Kenosis 22:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks - my reply is here.Trishm 05:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Smith_Jones

hi i wanted to speak to you about your rrevision of the Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About article. the citation needed tag did not beeed to be removd because acccoding to the guidleins for articles on a real people all mesaages like the 'Convicted felon' addition need to be cited in order to remain int he atirlce. Kevin Trudea's convicted felon status was no cited and we need ctiation for that. could you please come t to the talk page for article? Smith Jones 23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry didnt see a reply Smith Jones 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

See my reply on your talk page. AvB ÷ talk 09:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Avb! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 23:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ampligen

I'm wondering, since you seem to have read the Ampligen article, does it appear to be biased to you? Thedreamdied 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Answered at Thedreamdied. AvB ÷ talk 12:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

email

i sent you and email but id ont know if you received it Smith Jones 18:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I had overlooked it in my in-box. Will write to you tonight. AvB ÷ talk 19:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Auto-reversion

Hi Avb, and thanks for the intro/welcome.

I'm unclear when I get off the auto-revert s**tlist. I made what I thought were cogent neutralizing edits to Royal_Rife, and they were bounced immediately. Can you shine some light on this?

And thanks for the linkage to all the intro resources.

Fredsagirl 04:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and pen a reply at Talk:Royal_Rife. 12:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

CFS

Yeah, I know you deleted your message on my talkpage but I'll chance a reply anyway (not on the Freudian slip though).

I've not worked on the CFS page for a while either, and I am fully aware of the fact that you play a large role in the online CFS commununity. The article presently suffers from some major problems. I'll offer you my views here, and perhaps we can come up with some form of framework to take this major topic to a new level.

• CFS is poorly defined. The systems that are in place (Oxford, Fukuda, Holmes, etc) are perceived as being inadequate.
• There is no gold standard in the diagnosis of CFS. The complete lack of a useful diagnostic modality makes it almost impossible to generate a clinically homogenous population for an intervention (or even "natural history" trial).
• There is a wide gap between what patients feel and what doctors can understand.
• There are various schools of thought as to the pathogenesis. Some favour a psychiatric paradigm, while others find explanations in virology, autoimmune disease, endocrine causes and toxicology. These schools of thought are not well-defined, with members of the "psychiatric school" not excluding an organic cause and vice versa. I personally find myself in agreement with a hybrid approach (mental maladaption to a physical cause), but remain open-minded as to new perspectives.
• There are a lot of people - probably too many - who claim they have found the cause of CFS (think of HHV6 and its incessant hype).

What the article needs is for its principal editors to agree that the above are real problems that need addressing. There is nobody who has the final word, and that includes Simon Wessely as far as I'm concerned. It will become a nice exercise in epistemology, but I'm not afraid of that. We also need to agree that WP:ATTRIB and WP:NPOV need to reign supreme in the CFS article.

I'm sorry to hear I was the one who drove you to despair initially. You didn't go into details, so I can't address this specific point. But it looks like our initiative is needed to turn the CFS article from a pile of unorganised POV junk into a shining light of Wiki quality. JFW | T@lk 17:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Detente bala

A tag has been placed on Detente bala, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

the article doesnt have enough informaiton and wourk best on wiktionary instead of wikipedia.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Editing of historical talk pages

I think you're confused on exactly what the issue is. Those of us who were discussing something on the Talk page of the article were *not* discussing changing the article main page. We were discussing the template added to the historical talk page (in effect). Our comments, which were completely constructive in our own opinion, were wiped during active discussion. And a cadre of editors wants to try to force us not to talk on that page. That is not relevant to Consensus. Consensus did not dictate that no one can talk on a historical talk page, as far as I know. That is the issue. Can a person talk on a historical talk page. That's the sole issue. Wjhonson 23:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Refactored comment on your talk page. AvB ÷ talk 16:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Tainted Evidence?

It is becoming quite disturbing just how much of Levine's "evidence" is, well, just plain incorrect. Shot info 23:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job!

I'm very impressed how you can present your arguments without assumptions of bad faith. Thanks for showing alternatives to the constant harrassment and bickering too common in the Barrett-related articles. --Ronz 03:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112

Hi AvB,

Thank you for your input, and though Levine2112 has not taken your advice well, which can be understandable considering you were also preparing a case against their evidence against Fyslee, I can see that you meant well. I suggest, that like myself, you disengage from trying to "advise" Levine2112, as this is likely to be poor use of time for the both of you.

Again thank you for your effort and good luck. Cheers Lethaniol 16:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

re:Talk:Stephen Barrett

I think the discussion is getting out of hand. Let's try to keep the discussion about the article to it's talk page, and move discussions about individual editor's behavior to user talk or other venues. It might be helpful for you to remove or edit your comment about I'clast [1]. --Ronz 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You're so right. You wouldn't believe how neutral it looked when I wrote it though. :-D AvB ÷ talk 17:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again

I just wanted to thank you for cleaning up my mistake and so forth on Barrett's talk page. Also, I am a slow learner do to disabilities I have medically. I appreciate your help and patience with me. --Crohnie 22:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I think you're much more patient than I am. I'm disabled too and had to learn to appreciate what I had left in terms of memory, concentration and "up-time". As to learning to edit Wikipedia, I know from experience that it may be tedious at times and think you are doing a good job. AvB ÷ talk 23:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It sure is hard to learn everything here with a disability. I too have my down days and can't remember a thing. I try real hard though. This is one of the reasons I am trying to be an editor here, to help my learning and memory get better. Could be a lost cause, but I am trying! :) --Crohnie 12:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He isn't worth it

Hi AvB, probably time to let things go. Trying to stop these editors is just not worth it. Methinks he is just goading you into allowing you to say something "improper" so he can use it against you in some other imaginary context. Time to let the troll return to his bridge. Shot info 10:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. You're probably right but I think I've created an opportunity for him to show he's not a troll so I'm hedging my bets right now. AvB ÷ talk 11:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Shot info. Don't allow yourself to be baited. People seem to fall for baiting more often then not and it's really not worth the stress or the hassle of it all. I think what has been said proves without a doubt that back then it wasn't common for certifications. So lets see where the chips fall. --Crohnie 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey how about a deal?

When you see any of my bloopers you fix it and tell me about it so I know and hopefully don't repeat and I'll do the same! With both of us being disabled especially with memory issues (my memory problems is mostly do to lots of medications I have to take) and so forth, it never hurts to have someone keep an eye out. :) I personally appreciate any help I get from anyone, that includes spelling errors, links or what ever. Can you believe I actually got published a long time ago with my writings?! It seems like another life time though now. I can't even figure out how to put the little talk boxes on my user page, yet anyways, but I'm still going to work on it. You take care, I have to say I enjoy your writing style. You are very precise and do your homework. I hope we see each other around.  :) --Crohnie 13:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(responding back to your message on my talk page.) Good, I like the idea of people watching out for one an other, keeps us behaving! ;) I'm not feeling too well so I am try to rest as much as I can. I got the flu bug and now antibiotics for secondary infections. Antibiotics and Crohn's don't go well together sometimes. I feel like I should have gotten the name of that truck! :) --Crohnie 20:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryan St. Anne Scott

I noticed your comment on the talk page of this article. The source I used was the Chicago Tribune article that I referenced. I also have seen copies of articles from newspapers in the Twin Cities and in LaCrosse, Wisconsin from the mid-1990s that has similar information. I tried to be darn careful when I wrote that article NOT to put anything in it that wasn't backed up with a citation. If he thinks the newspaper article was libel, one would hope he would be suing the Chicago Tribune, because everything in the Wikipedia article is from the Tribune. --Bookworm857158367 21:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Improving CFS/ME Article

Hi, I've noticed you recently made a contribution or regularly contribute to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I recently nominated it as the Wikipedia:Improvement Drive. I feel that it needs urgent improvement, and if you agree please vote at the Improvement Drive project page. Thanks! Thedreamdied 02:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Barrett - "zealous advocate" again

I like what you did with the paragraph, but I agree with Arthur Rubin that we've got too much about NCAHF and their (stupid) legal stance. However, the current version is now in many ways worse than the original. I was thinking of reverting it back to before you started working on it, but thought I'd bring it up with you first.

Old version: A California court dismissed a lawsuit filed by Barrett's organization NCAHF that accused a homeopathic pharmaceutical company (defendant) of "false advertising" and "unfair business practices."[29] Plaintiffs presented no evidence, apart from the testimony of two expert witnesses, to prove any of the elements of their claims.[30] The court stated that by law, the testimony of both witnesses (Barrett and another member of the board of NCAHF) should be given little weight, because neither witness was qualified to testify as an expert on the issues raised. Plaintiffs mistakenly argued that the burden of proof should be on the defendant to prove that its products were safe. The court further stated that both witnesses were "zealous advocates" rather than "neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts".[30]

Current version: In 2001, Barrett testified before a California court as an expert witness in NCAHF v. King Bio. The court found that "Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications" in the area of "FDA treatment of homeopathic drugs" and indicated that his evidence in this area should be given little weight by law.[29] The court further stated that Barrett and a co-witness were "zealous advocates of the Plaintiff's position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said" they "are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well."[29]

The current version doesn't have the clear context of both expert witnesses being NCAHF board members. Thoughts? --Ronz 16:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected.

I had forgotten exactly what BLP specified regarding talk pages and thought things could be said there even if they shouldn't go into the articles. I stand corrected. -Aleta 01:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever. Keep up the good work! AvB ÷ talk 01:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you check out talk Stephen Barrett?

I made a suggestion for a compromise about the board certification at Stephen Barrett talk page. I would appreciate you input as to whether I am still not following Wikipedia policy to add that he is not board certified. This is the sentence I am suggesting which you can see on the talk page, "Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961, and he was not board certified." I asked Ronz to explain the comment of still talking in circles too but I am trying to understand if my suggestion is incorrect for policy and if so, how? Thanks, off to bed for me! Happy Holidays! --Crohnie 22:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avb, I am still interested in your opinions of the suggestion I make for the article. I know you were gone for the weekend but with what you added to the mediation, would you explain if the sentence "Barrett is a 1957 graduate of the [Columbia University] College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961, and he was not board certified." is not acceptable under verification and weight? Ronz has helped me understand a lot about notability and facts but your comments have me a bit confused. You use the popup for me to go reread the policies but I find a simple explanation helps me understand how to connect all the policies together like you have stated. I hope you are well, --Crohnie 13:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

First I should say that this remains somewhat fluid since Wikipedia is by and large self-governed so different interpretations of rules may actually be valid at the same time depending on the group of editors you're working with. With time you get a feel of what's going on in the community. I'm currently doing some patrol work on WP:BLPN and managed to criticize one admin for being too lenient and another one for being too strict. (Of course they criticized me right back, so I'm now both too strict and too lenient. They're bound to run into one another one of these days...) OK, Barrett. Trying to keep the alphabet soup to a minimum...

Confused? You won't be after this episode of... WP:SOAP. My view here is pretty basic and held by many editors with a scientific/skeptical POV. As you have seen, it is opposed by many editors with an alt-med POV. To be sure, there are also cross-overs in both directions, such as Jim Butler, Dematt, or myself at times.

Verification (WP:V, WP:RS): we can verify that this information is not just out there, we can even verify that it's true (which is better than what Wikipedia aims for). However, opinions differ as to its relative importance, and consensus-building has ground to a halt since we cannot verify the information in secondary sources. Such sources are supposed to interview Barrett, interview his opponents, interview involved third parties and bystanders, research and check the facts - you know the drill. All this is supposed to produce neutral articles - our famed secondary sources.

Undue Weight (WP:WEIGHT): We need context provided by secondary sources for many reasons. In this dispute we need it to tell us (or help us decide) how important this specific information is in relation to the rest of the article. I interpret the WP:NOR policy to say that editors are not allowed to make such decisions based on their own views. (This type of original research ends where common sense begins, and that's where Wikipedians soon find out how flexible common sense can be... I stick with the sources although I "know" how eminently sensible and informed my opinions are :-). Without secondary sources to guide us, we can't gage weight, and we will need to keep the info out per WP:BLP (when in doubt, it's out).

No Original Research (WP:NOR): This policy originally intended to keep out theories/research/fringe stuff/pseudoscience etc. so new that no one knew if it would amount to anything in the future because no one else had ever commented on/replicated/peer reviewed it. Originally go/no guidance for the inclusion of information, it is now also developing into a go/no go filter regarding information to help us assess shades of importance/relevance/weight. It already has that function per official policy in biographical material, but I won't be surprised to see it expand to all information in the next year or two. I think the Wikipedia community/project is experiencing increasing difficulties with self-governance due to its processes that are geared to a smaller community full of respect and wiki love. AvB ÷ talk 14:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I get the gist of what you are saying here. --Crohnie 20:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Mediation Cabal case

Good afternoon (GMT time); I have accepted a Mediation Cabal case - requested by Levine2112 - to which you are listed as a party. Mediation has commenced at the case talkpage, where you are invited to participate. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email, IRC or my talk page; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality. Kind regards, anthony[review] 21:21, Tuesday May 21 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the mediation past debating still adding the board certification and failure to pass them? I have been at work, but it looks like it is still being argued? This seems to be getting nowhere. :( --Crohnie 22:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on Anthony's talk page to pop in to the mediation before tempers start to fly again. From a comment of MaxPont, does this really have to got to ARB to get settled? Isn't that the same format the Fylee and Ilena had for the problems there? I really think this is a small issue with only a few that want it in, why is this so difficult? Sorry for all the questions but I am finding the mediation to be unsuccessful in resolving the issue with it still on going in the way it is. Well got to get ready to go to work, catch you later. --Crohnie 13:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If this MedCab mediation fails, formal mediation is indicated before arbitration can be considered (see WP:Mediation Committee). I did not think this was something for the cabal to take on anyway.

Once the rest of WP:DR has been exhausted and one of the parties wants to take it to ArbCom, they can. Arbcom does not handle content disputes though. If they see it as such, they'll say so and reject the case. They might advise more WP:DR, more specifically to see if common ground can be found via a different approach, or agree to disagree, leaving the disputed text out of the article. Personally I tend to agree with MaxPont that this is a dispute on the interpretation of policy, but I think it is obvious that any experienced uninvolved admin could cut the knot here, options being (1) consensus to include --> go; or (2) No consensus or consensus to exclude --> no go. I don't see the ArbCom taking it on for that reason either. I see a slight chance they might take it on as possibly disruptive editing.

It is unusual to see people who want to include disputed information in a BLP going to such lengths. The BLP default is: no consensus, no inclusion. The lack of editor consensus automatically brands the issue at hand as contentious. On the other hand, this tactic sometimes works. Opponents often get tired of protracted debate and either let it go or resort to reverting instead of discussion. I should stress that I have no doubt editors on both sides of the argument believe their approach to be fully compliant with existing policies.

A good thing that may arise from this is that we may be producing a precedent. If this ends in "no consensus, keep it out," it de facto show it's useless to exhaust all WP:DR processes under similar circumstances. This will discourage protracted debates in the future. If not, it may even be seen as disruptive editing, leading to incremental blocks rather quickly. AvB ÷ talk 10:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And to think, I thought we were doing mediation already.  :) It will be interesting, at least to me, to see how this works via email. With going away, I hope I (we) don't miss anything. You have a wonderful trip and I want to hear all about it when you return! :) --Crohnie 11:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing we haven't tried is getting help from related projects, WP:BLPP and the WP:NPR both seem related enough that they might help. --Ronz 14:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out the mediation

It's gone to email, have you ever done it this way? Everything has be deleted. --Crohnie 18:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely new to me. If the parties accept this, it will slow things down considerably. Not too bad actually - if only since we'll be on holiday in Greece for eight days, flying there next Sunday when you're in the Bahamas. AvB ÷ talk 10:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, have lots of fun in Greece. I hope you will share your adventures with me when you return! --Crohnie 10:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I emailed him, (Anthony, I have to get used to his new ID) and I think he has it really planned out and has probably done this emailing thing before so it might work out quickly and have less repeats like we have had. I sure hope so anyways. I will miss being able to go to the page and read what others say. I have been using it to learn how to format and other things. Anthony seems very knowledgable in this area and I think he will do a fair and good job. --Crohnie 11:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good so I'll certainly give it a chance. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk

Off-line

I'll be back around 7 May 2007. AvB ÷ talk 01:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I know you are gone on vacation right now. We just got back, the car (which is brand new) is still at the port with a dead battery. We had a wonderful trip, I hope yours is too. I look forward to hearing all about your adventures. Well it's after midnight and I'm off to bed. --Crohnie 04:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move: Sternberg/Smithsonian Affair

I see you were a recent contributor to the Sternberg peer review controversy article. I have added a section to the talk page proposing that the article be moved to and renamed "Sternberg-Smithsonian Affair". If you would like to see the rationale, please visit Talk:Sternberg_peer_review_controversy#Proposed_move:__Sternberg.2FSmithsonian_Affair, and leave your thoughts there. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 08:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Gere BLP

Thank you for your comments on the Richard Gere BLP dispute BLP Noticeboard. As part of an attempt to bring this to mediation, I am trying to summarize arguments for inclusion/exclusion. [2] Would you mind if I ask for some clarifications on your post? You said...

Simple WP:OR/WP:WEIGHT issue - no urgency per WP:BLP since it seems reasonable to expect that our mentioning it will not affect Gere.

Can you explain this in another way? The editor after you agreed with your position and said that was a "content dispute" and did not belong on the BLP noticeboard. Can you give further clarification? Update: I get it now. As long as there are reliable sources then negative information may be included, given that WP:OR, WP:Weight, WP:Note are also satisfied. Sparkzilla 16:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It also seems clear that even the opposing editors have no problem discussing this freely on talk and project pages which in itself indicates it isn't a sensitive BLP issue (WP:BLP also applies to project and talk pages).

Does that mean that we can discuss the urban legend on the talk pages? We have a particular editor who is claiming that because the urban legend violates BLP that even discussing it on the talk pages should not be allowed. [3]

I appreciate your help. Sparkzilla 11:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if you have any comment on this new discussion [4]. I am getting frustrated by FNMF's narrow interpretation of BLP and would welcome your comments. Sparkzilla 16:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Just popping in to say hello and glad you are back. Thanks for reverting back my incorrect change of Wikipedans. I was using spell check from my computer and it had it with a 's. It also said that Wikipedian is the plural of Wikipedia. Anyways, how was Greece? I would love to hear about it if you feel like talking about it. Well have a good day, I am off to get ready to go to work, great Mother's Day to start but I will have fun later today. --Crohnie 14:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Ryan St. Anne Scott/Statement

Hello Avb! I notice you had a role in the editing of this statement, and someone just cited it over at WP:BLP/N. Since you were part of the process on that former occasion, do you think that it should be permitted in this new case? Reply either here, or at the entry on the Noticeboard. Thanks, EdJohnston 22:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avb, our comments

I have been lurking on the Stephen Barrett talk pages and watching things unfold. I don't want to get involved in the way things are over there myself either. I just wanted to tell you that your last postings about where things stand seems to be right from what I have learned so far on Wikipedia. (Just in case you want to know, read #4 for spelling, ;) assist!) It definitely seems out of control there and I don't go into stressful things on purpose. :) I let the mediator know that there are discussions ongoing over there so that he is aware of everything. I haven't talked to him so I don't know what is going on. My last talk was whether I was going to miss the mediation being on vacation and letting him know when I would return. I hope the mediation gets started again. I don't want any ARB thingy to deal with. I saw the hard work you did on the Barrett vs. Rosenthal and it is too much time, thought and work to do. But if I can help, let me know. I haven't been too active here, been busy with real life, other than vandalism and spelling, that kind of stuff. Well, take care and enjoy the weekend. --Crohnie 12:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want you to know that the last 24 hours of posting there helped me understand clearly why OR is not permitted. At least something has come from the dialog going on there, I learned something! ;) --Crohnie 13:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I could use your imput please. I posted to the Stephan Barrett talk page under the title of number of books. First, am I wrong with what I wrote? Also, should the list of books on the article be removed immediately since it was found through original research and could be wrong. I am starting to understand things here much better but this kind of thing is going to confuse me if I don't understand why it is allowed. Also there is a bunch of talking going on about BvR and some claims made about an editor Shot-info having COI problems. Shouldn't this also be immediately delete and taken to the appropriate talk pages? Thanks for you help (PS an editor gave me a new signature as a gift! :) isn't that nice?)----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 14:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(See also my responses on the article's talk page.) OR on talk pages is allowed (if it doesn't violate other rules; MaxPont's original list was interspersed with comments that were way out of line per WP:BLP and a blockable offense if repeated). Good OR can be helpful, e.g. to inform common sense decisions that ignore the rules to some extent or in toto. (Immediate) removal of OR from anywhere in Wikipedia is required if it violates WP:BLP. I agree about moving off-topic discussion to the relevant (user) talk pages. AvB ÷ talk 14:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett article yet again

Early in the discussion about his board certification you wrote ""(unindent) Mainly in response to Arthur Rubin: I think the salient point here is that Jimbo has shown (or at least seems convinced) that good, experienced editors have not fully understood WP:NOR as it relates to such situations. Other editors would perhaps want to use notability guidelines instead of WP:NOR to judge the use of a primary source without any secondary sources, but I think Jimbo is correct. His recent intervention was no novelty or precedent; it simply reascertained something that had been flying under the radar of many editors for a while. Here is my interpretation (but note that I'm waiting for Jimbo to respond to my question regarding this line of thinking): Jimbo's intervention follows both the spirit of our rules and the longstanding WP:NOR policy language, which specifically indicates that "making evaluative claims" based on a primary source is Original Research. Evaluative claims include attempts to determine, from a primary source, how important or relevant the information is in relation to the subject and the remainder of the article. As such, it was OR in the Langan article to include a description of a court case without citing any secondary sources that could be used to determine the relative importance of the information. Information that was completely supported by the primary source, but has not been published in any reliable secondary sources. (Jimbo also explained how WP:BLP was another reason to delete such information but his OR verdict stands alone.)

The Langan situation is clearly linked with the current problems regarding the adoption of WP:ATT and relegation of WP:NOR to a place in Wikipedia history. I don't believe anyone else has flagged the following up (but I might be missing something here, since I have missed the entire WP:ATT discussion and implementation even though all original policies were (and are) on my watchlist): the WP:NOR language regarding "evaluative claims" seems to have been deleted in WP:ATT). Imagine Jimbo, having just heard the complaint from Langan, removing the section, checking the current text of the policy for minor changes, only to discover WP:ATT for the first time, with its Bible interpretation example that seems to miss the entire point of his Langan deletion per WP:NOR. Just guessing here of course, but it would explain a thing or two. AvB ÷ talk 11:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)"

I am trying to get organized to make a comment on the talk page about this since when I originally stated the addition of board certification I was pretty new and didn't know a lot about the policies. Since then I have learned quite a bit from other editors and continued reading. Anyways, did Jimbo Wales ever get back to you about this? You commented above that you were waiting to hear from him. Thanks, ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 12:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he did, see this mailing list post and its context, the Radical redefinition of OR thread. It's a bit vague but he seems to agree with what I'm saying, with the caveat that it doesn't apply to similar situations regarding scientific information.

Jimbo came under heavy fire for calling this OR but he never budged and I still support his view. The general sense I got was that most people saw the Langan OR precedent as a misnomer, often viewing it as a WP:WEIGHT/WP:N issue in a living person's bio. The basic consideration also seemed supported by many (but it was opposed by quite a few others): that (at least in BLPs) we can't assess weight from e.g. court records, and therefore should, in general, not use information from such primary sources that has not been published in reliable secondary sources. More recently I learned that many veteran Wikipedians do not accept the Notability guideline at all, which puts calling this "OR" in perspective I guess. In fact I'm much taken with many arguments against the use of the notability guideline. AvB ÷ talk 13:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have this copied to my notes to put together why I feel that this is not notable and just a POV push. I still believe now that the link I provided early on about board certification during the time Barrett was in practice still applies to it not being notable. When I suggested the change, as you are aware, I was trying to compromise and stop the debating that was getting quite heated. Are you willing to post this information on the Stephen Barrett talk page (of course redacting it to have you ID you use here if you prefer)? Levine posted his opinions about this and referred to our mediator not being able to continue the case. They are voting again to admit the info. Should I continue with putting together my ideas about the use of certification or should I just vote. This has all become so silly in my opinion. Arguing about the board certification and the number of books Barrett has written. I tried to research the books he has written but Ronz brought to my attention that the links I provided are also part of Barrett's groups. Oops! Thanks, ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 14:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think it might help, feel free to post material from here (or perhaps a link) on the Barrett talk page. I've already commented on the mediator's untimely departure and our next steps there. AvB ÷ talk 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I won't have the time to put things together. The editors that want it added are still voting for it to be added in to my dismay. It's going to take me a day or two to get my thoughts and info together, but I fear I may not be given the time. Can another request for Cabal mediation be made about this? I don't know how to. But the way it's going now is wrong in my opinion because the last thing the mediator said was that the suggestion to put the info in did not pass, so why are they voting again on the talk page? My new sig was a gift from another editor, kind of cool huh? I have posted to Ronz and to Levine asking for more time, esp. Levine who is the one who posted and got the voting going again. I have to tell you, with mediation being my first one, I am not impressed at all unfortunately. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 21:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie, I reiterate, please take you time in formulating your thoughts on this issue. The voting will continue, but nothing will happen until we hear from all of the involved parties. Again, this is an attempt to settle this amicably amongst ourselves. If need be, we can move onto other methods of WP:DR as suggested by AvB, Ronz, and myself. I was hoping by offering the compromise, we could all agree on this and move on. Again, please take your time. If it takes you two days, that's fine by me. The compromise isn't going anywhere without you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Levine, I appreciate what you are saying to me. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ping, you've got mail! :) ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 10:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the forward. Perfectly appropriate. Very nice sig, by the way. As a gift it's almost equivalent to a Wikipedia:Barnstar I think. AvB ÷ talk 10:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good because I didn't want to upset you. The sig I got is cool, I am enjoying 'wearing' it. :) ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 13:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want to thank you for understanding why I didn't know how Levine found out where I was posting to. I find the whole thing at the Barrett article exhausting at this time and I feel like I am a ping pong ball with my decisions swaying different directions like they have. So, I am taking a time out for awhile and just doing edits and maybe work with some of them over at the Crohn's article so that I can think calmly and not emotionally. I have only edited an article with information twice since I've been here, not to bold huh? I am learning things but terribly slowly I'm sorry to say. I am not ready to give up yet but I have to say I do get frustrated with myself at times. Anyways, thanks for the support. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 21:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for posting my comments are not irrevelent. I gave my personal opinion about things because of my vast amount of dr's I have to see but I also posted that I agree with you, Ronz and the others about why board certification isn't notable or needed. I am about to give up on all of this if this is the kind of behavior that can go on and on like the Energizer Bunny. When is enough really enough? I thought things in Wikipedia would be different than the normal net behavior but so far article after article shows it isn't. Sorry but I am angry since I haven't posted there for awhile just to be told my opinion doesn't count. Something has to be done to stop this already. It's totally out of control. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 17:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To be frank, I too am about to give up. Or perhaps I'll go work on articles where I am on the side of the partisans and use Levine2112's tactics there. (Just kidding.) The problem with doing something is twofold. (1) it will take an immense amount of time and effort (2) it will be hard to accomplish without some admins who have had enough. A related problem is that admins tend to propose compromises in order to end overlong discussions. This leaves the door wide open to compromises that bend or break the rules. And Levine2112 intends to create a precedent for exactly that. AvB ÷ talk 15:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I just read your recent postings

I just want to let you know your paragraph on Talk:Stephen Barrett made OR and some other policies crystal clear to me. You really have a way with words. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 17:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

At least 2 RfCs for Barrett

There's the current one and Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_8#Request_for_comment:_Board_certification. -- Ronz  17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent comment on BLP

You made a comment about Tim Bolin getting off on his opinion piece about Barrett. I think this is in error but please check it out. According to what I have read, Bolin along with Clark and so forth are do in court for I believe it is slander/libel because of his opinion piece (among other things). I believe I read this in at least the link that Levine left on the bottom of the talk:Stephen Barrett page. Just trying to help, ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 14:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right in that this belongs in the same series of cases. And you're right that it has something that at least looks like the court might overturn the lower courts' ruling. But for now all we have is the latter, and that's the one I'm quoting... AvB ÷ talk 14:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

PS I've added "so far" per your comment. Thanks again. :-) AvB ÷ talk 15:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice I have finally gotten bold and I posted to the BLP site and actually had someone agree with what I had to say. Needless to say, it made my day.  :)----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just read the posts. Nice going! AvB ÷ talk 20:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, not bad for someone terrible ill! I will probably check in here if I am up to it but I plan to rest until I see my docs. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 22:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please except this for your hard work

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 13:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please correct if there is an error the way I did this, it was my first try at this. :)----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 13:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

<blush> Thank you so much Crohnie. I feel honored. I'm actually speechless... :-) AvB ÷ talk 14:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it, did I do it correctly? You definitely deserve this. You work and research to help Wikipedia be a better place. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 16:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's perfect, this is the way to do it. When I archive this talk page I'll copy it to my user page. AvB ÷ talk 16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I sure was hoping I did it correctly. You deserve it! ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 17:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett again

Why is there a debate on the Chiropratic article about adding the certification about Barrett? I find this disconcerning that this is being discussed (argued) off the Barrett site. I went there to read the article for info for my son and then saw the talk page. What a disaster that is. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 18:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Avb, I'm sorry, I sound angry with you above which was not my intentions at all. I am trying real hard today to stay out of the ER do to major pain and a partical blockage and I guess I took it out on you. Please accept my apology! I shouldn't be here when I am ill like I am now. I hope you will forgive my behavior above, I have the so much respect for you and your knowledge and would really hate to have you mad at me. I know you have problems too so I hope you understand my 'bad' behavior. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 20:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, not to worry. Apology unnecessary but accepted anyway. You're good people and I can take just about anything from people I trust.

Also, I like direct communications - I would never misread this. And you're right, it's not nice to discuss things where involved editors may miss it. And it's not really allowed to discuss one article on the talk page of another article. That's why I copied the relevant posts to the Barrett talk page.

I'm very sorry to hear you're not doing so good. Is it a flare-up of Crohn's? I don't know much about it, but someone I know well (good friend of a good friend) struggled with Colitis Ulcerosa for many years until he had his entire colon removed (when he was still in his 30's). I understand Crohn's symptoms are similar so I have some idea what it's doing to you. I just sent up a small prayer on your behalf (hope you don't mind me telling you this).

When your health is at stake, Wikipedia is simply not important. AvB ÷ talk 23:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, your trust and confidence in me almost made me cry. If you look at the Crohn's article it gives very good information about Crohn's disease. Yes, my problem is Crohn's related. I see my doc on Wednesday. Things have been getting really bad for me but I am not in the hospital which is a good thing. I am off to bed now. Thank you very much. I feel about you like you feel about me, you are a good person and very sincere with what you do. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 00:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made a decision, what do you think?

I would appreciate your opinion on my working on the article Crohn's disease. I haven't worked on it because of my own personal opinions about this disease and having it but I think I can keep my own WP:POV out of it and work the article to make it more laymen friendly. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 11:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please restore your question

at WP:N immediately! I undertand your irritation with Levine2112 butting in, but I have now added more and your initial question is needed. -- Fyslee/talk 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick search and found this:

[5] To sign up

[6] info about the organization with address, phone # and email address. (HISTORY OF THE NACM)

National Association For Chiropractic Medicine - Members Access To gain access to the Members area you must obtain a correct username and password from the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine. You may request a username and password from ... o [www.chiromed.org/memberpass.htm] o • 6/10/2007 o • Cached page [7]/ Explains what the NACM does and how it gets members and monies.

[8] My search.

Please note the date of the last one for registration, I bolded it for easier location. I hope this helps. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 12:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's certainly enough for me, but the opposition will probably file them under what they see as lies of what they see as their main detractor. In short, chiromed is one of Barrett's sites.

You've confirmed the continuing existence of the NACM for me (they actually had me doubting it! I'm too trusting I guess). Being convinced, I did Google searches on its full name and on its address to find more links. I found almost a thousand links, of various dates, the latest dated May 2007, together proving that it still exists. One of the sources estimates membershp at around one hundred. Some of the links are chiropractors listing the NACM on their links page.

With the possible exception of your links or one of the chiro sources below, I'm not so sure they can be used as sources in the article though. I simply see them as confirmation for the position I was defending: the NACM was notable years ago, and it is still notable today, and still for the same reasons. It was small then, it's probably small now.

http://www.acatoday.com/content_css.cfm?CID=250

http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/2007/may/b.htm

http://www.chiropractic.org/index.php?p=news/advisory_committee

AvB ÷ talk 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, they were mentioned as recently as 2007. [9]. I stand corrected, even though they are just mentioned in the article, I still wonder if they have "produced" anything themselves in a long time. Hence my position. Thanks.--Hughgr 17:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You will note that they are mentioned in context to the year 2000. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm convinced. Here's an additional sampling of my reasons: (1) I don't agree we need sources for this (2) If I would agree to that, I would not agree with your 5-year cut-off (3) If I would agree with that cut-off, two of the sources refer to August 2002 (4) One of these three sources, published in May 2007, reports events from 2000. It then proceeds to indicate the same issues are still alive, and it does not say "Fortunately the NACM no longer exists". The fact that no chiro source (or any other source) has said that means something. Hughgr, their existence has certainly produced responses in mainstream chiro sources. But that's not the issue here. AvB ÷ talk 18:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ampligen

Just something to think about, I notice that more single-purpose accounts are adding material that was deleted a few months back, and I can't be bothered to sort it out. Hope you can help! Thedreamdied 15:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My subpage

Please don't remove the content on my subpage. It is a work-in-progess. And none of the information creates a BLP violation as it is all well-sourced. Per WP:UP, the main thing to look out for are libelous statements (i.e. polemical attacks). While not expressly prohibited, this is generally considered not a good idea. Regarless, there is nothing polemical there. And there is of course nothing libellous there. If you would like to discuss this more, please feel free. Thanks! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Tony's opinion, see my response on your subpage's talk here. Tony's concerns are specifically about the lack of reliable secondary sources making it OR and undue weight, so the content is allowed on talk pages. AvB ÷ talk 10:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Carl Hewitt

Please check on this article [[10]] for WP:BLP and other policy major violations. Professor Hewitt has seem to pretty much taken oven at least the talk page. There is apparently students of his there too and I find this statement pretty disturbing too; "My removal of material was carried out in response to the opinions expressed during the recent AfD debate regarding this article. As I made clear on my edit summary, I'm happy to discuss the material in question on this page (perhaps we could invite some of the other editors from the AfD debate to participate). But, given the opinions expressed during the AfD debate, I don't think it's appropriate to simply add back the material that I removed without discussing it here. I am afraid that many in the scientific community will consider you responsible for your actions and will hold you accountable.--Prof. Hewitt 08:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)" With your knowledge of these WP:BLP I thought you would know what to do if anything. It just really looks wrong from what I have learned. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RfM Stephen Barrett

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Interested parties

Hi Avb. I really don't mean you any offense by my recent line of questioning. I thought it might help to let you know this because it seems my poor judgement on the manner of raising this issue has caused somewhat of a stir. Thanks. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's only fair your counter-question me. This is my statement and I have no intention of entering a debate over this:

I have no affilliations with any editor on wikipedia and I to my knowledge I have never accepted an invitation to any article or article talk page. When I returned to wikipedia some months ago I naturally reread the archives of articles I had previously contributed to. I was appauled at the state of discussion on the Stephen Barrett article and felt a barnstar was long overdue for User:Levine2112 whom I did not know at all and who seemed to have become a punching bag (and still managed to behave civilly). When I got to his user page I found he already had a handful of barnstars for exactly the same reason I came.

Interestingly I found the article not too far removed from NPOV with the exception of the appalling amount of space taken up by the Criticism/litigation section. So I floated that on the talk page, but got little response so I did not take the lead there. FWIW, if there had not been a WP:BLP policy, I would not have removed the BC text without a consensus to remove. It would still violate OR/WEIGHT/etc to some extent, but I am usually inclined to be an eventualist editor, trusting that the problem will be corrected in the long run. Not so in BLPs. Note that WP:BLP is wat it is; it was not generated by the community; its principles were dictated by Jimbo and written up by David Gerard (according to David).

Nonetheless, when I came to the Barrett talk page as an uninvolved editor in your dispute I was sincere. I am completely willing to sit on the fence about the issue you are debating and I had never participated in the dispute. I started a survey that was obviously and widely considered neutral and -- astonishingly -- I immediately got abused by the same editors who had been abusing Levine. I didn't have an opinion on the piece of information you were debating and I'm pretty sure I still don't care either way. However, I do care if there are users who are deliberately dragging out the wikiprocess on trivial issues in order to prevent information they perceive as critical entering the article.

Fair enough re not being invited. I hope you did not feel abused by me before you asked about my affiliations. I took you at face value when you had genuine contributions but this action of yours sure inspired grave doubts about both your intentions and you insight into the situation.

I hope you slept well and we can move on. I do somewhat doubt your motives because I believe many of your statements appear to be from conflicting perspectives. I hope time will prove me wrong. I mean no offense in letting you know, but also know that my opinion is purely based upon your contributions at wikipedia, nothing personal. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I slept very well. FWIW, although I believe Wikipedia may be/become an important force for the good (in terms of knowledge for everyone) and my only reason for editing here is to work towards that ideal, I view it as just another website in terms of individuals and especially in terms of how I let it influence my real life.

Looking at my edits is the way to go. In general, affiliations are only a problem if they lead to policy violations etc. Your take on my edits is very perceptive. All you had to do was ask. I'll treat your observations as a question and answer them: My edits do not only seem to come from different perspectives (as far as POV goes); they are from different perspectives. If I had found the same situation in the Mercola article, I would have done the same there (no doubt finding Levine et al. my allies there. There is a common denominator to my editing: NPOV (I'm aware of my biases, and I would never betray the ideal of making and keeping Wikipedia neutral merely to satisfy them. I generally avoid articles where my biases might get the better of me. If I ever write an article on the website/email forum you quoted (after a reliable source has written on it), you will see me advertizing my previous involvement, not hiding it. That was, indeed, the main function of the info you found. By the way, your type of suspicion is not new to me (although the specific tack of labeling CFS advocacy as inducing a COI re Barrett is a new one). I have been identified by opponents by many mutually exclusive labels, such as "atheist" by "creationists" and vice versa (I am neither, but depending on the situation my edits may seem inspired by either POV).

Now I'm going back to the Barrett talk page to see if my current somewhat mellower position on your behavior will hold. AvB ÷ talk 11:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Re conflicting perspectives: No, I wasn't refering to your involvement in other articles. I was refering to my sense that you could be filibustering on the Barrett article. Like I said. I hope I'm wrong. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to my edits on the Barrett talk page. Regardless, as pointed out by others, it's the parties who keep trying to include the disputed BLP material that are responsible for the endless discussion where a consensus to include is simply not likely to occur as everything has already been said and done ten times over. You are welcome to your suspicions, but POV warriors follow very distinctive patterns and any experienced admin will recognize I'm not one of them. AvB ÷ talk 00:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're POV warrioring. I agree, that wouldn't be a reasonable interpretation of your role. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered to User talk:AvB: 08:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

Moved to archive on 3 January 2008.

Reverting Talk:Stephen Barrett

I think it's far past the time to stop. Perhaps it should be brought up somewhere else? --Ronz 01:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being the voice of reason. You're right, and I've stopped. But I'm going to bed now. AvB ÷ talk 01:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Abortion article

There's some discussion here about the accuracy of the first paragraph of the abortion article, and you're invited to participate.Ferrylodge 19:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

Confused now am I. I just deleted it and got your message and saw that it had already been taken care of. Do you want me to restore the final version? JoshuaZ 14:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it looks like it got taken care of. JoshuaZ 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's back already. Thanks a lot. Lectonar beat you to deleting it - never saw something gone so fast! You guys rock. :-) AvB ÷ talk 14:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a general solution to this sort of thing so you don't need to ask people. `JoshuaZ

I was in a hurry and thought the general solution might take hours. Thanks much again. AvB ÷ talk 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to pop into your archived page. You're welcome indeed, and it only went so fast because I was following the problems on ANI...anyway, did you get the e-mail I sent you? Cheers. Lectonar 09:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)