User talk:Valjean: Difference between revisions

${\displaystyle \star }$  Some principles governing this talk page  ${\displaystyle \star }$ Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette here. This talk page is my territory, and I assume janitorial responsibility for it. I may, without notice, refactor comments to put like with like, correct indents, or retitle sections to reflect their contents more clearly. While I reserve the right to delete comments, I am normally opposed to doing so and use archives instead. If I inadvertently change the meaning, please contact me! When all else fails, check the edit history. -- Fyslee (collaborate)

${\displaystyle \star }$  Regarding posting (or reposting) of my personal info at Wikipedia  ${\displaystyle \star }$ ${\displaystyle \star }$  DON'T DO IT!!  ${\displaystyle \star }$ Lately I have become more sensitive to the posting of personal information about myself here at Wikipedia. I am the target of cyberstalking and hate mail from some pretty unbalanced people and regularly receive threats (including occasional death threats). While I don't normally have any reason to hide my true identity, any past revealings by myself should not be construed by others as license to do it here at Wikipedia, where only my "Fyslee" tag should be used. While such revealings here have often been done innocently, I still reserve the right to delete such personal information posted here at Wikipedia by others. My own and my family's security is at stake here, and I would appreciate support in this matter. Thanks. -- Fyslee (collaborate)

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 23:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I fear your deletion here suffers from a problem that has been chronic of your mentoring of Ilena. You have (possibly properly) deleted inflammatory material, but left the source of the flame -- OhSusanne's post, which is a repetition and even enlargement of Ilena's attacks. Why did you not delete hers on sight right away? I will at least give you credit for also deleting Ilena's reponse, but it was OhSusanne's post that started it, and it hurt. I had to exercise great restraint and heed the advice of several editors and admins, to keep from replying. But it would only have inflamed the situation, so I did what I have done many times during all of this ruccus -- laid low and not replied nearly as often as I have been provoked. I'd like to see some fairness here. --Fyslee 23:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought about removing the whole thing, but I didn't want to get another angry editor involved in this whole affair, and I don't think Susanne would've taken well to it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project )

I am copying this to your talk page so that you may see my response. Please reply on my talk page. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Peter's talk page.

Peter, I do sympathize with the dilemma that such situations present. One cannot please all people all the time. In the current situation with Ilena (and now OhSusanne), I have had ample opportunity to see you at work. I have during the whole mess considered your intention to help Ilena to be an honorable endeavor, but at the same time have felt it missed the mark in fundamental ways. This is just another example, and I'll explain what I mean.

The dilemma I mention above demands that one make a decision to deal differently with both sides in such a way that no one can later say one was unfair. Right now (with OhSusanne) you have done the same thing you have done many times with Ilena. You have chosen (certainly with no ill intent -- I do AGF!) to punish those who have been attacked, while doing little or nothing to (and sometimes even defending) the offender who has done the attacking. This places you in a position where it appears you defend offenders and punish their victims. It can appear that way to others, and to the victims it is a very unpleasant situation. We feel helpless, and even held down, while we watch you defend our tormenters. It has certainly caused me to leave her charges unopposed, which the search engines are now showing, no doubt to her glee. Usenet is now reflecting what is happening here, and I have received condolences from people I have never met! While I have rarely defended myself in this situation, I will do so in the RfA.

I certainly admit that I am not a paragon of tactfulness in all my replies and am attempting to become an adoptee, even though I'm an experienced editor her and elsewhere. So far my requests have been met with wonderment! I do need to learn how to deal with attacks in a better manner. (My openness, honesty, directness, and sense of justice, are sometimes a hindring.) In the current situation, even when the main content of my reply to an attack is perfectly good, there are things that sometimes can be read "between the lines," and some people (especially yourself) have judged me harshly for them, and ignored "all the lines themselves" that Ilena has written. Oh well, I'm learning from all of this. I just hope you will begin to side with the victims more often, and enforce the NPA policy more stringently against those who attack, than against those who defend themselves from those attacks.

One must always side with the victim, even while giving the victim constructive criticism about how to respond in a better manner. No one, most of all the attacker, should be in doubt about which side you are on. If the attacker sees you chastising their victim, they take it as a clear signal that you defend their actions, and thus you have (unwittingly) facilitated them in their continued attacks, and in fact become a party to them, even though that was not your intention. This whole mess could have been prevented, instead of actually accelerated, if you had adopted a firm approach towards Ilena right from the beginning. Large numbers of otherwise good editors could have been editing, instead of wasting time on all this mess, and the personal consequences could have been avoided. (They are much greater than you may realize.) We don't need Usenet battles here at Wikipedia.

This whole situation has been made even more ironic, in that you are the leader of the Neutrality Project, and the first point in your "Philosophy" box states "I avoid taking sides in disputes." That is a utopian dream. (You could reword it "I seek to be fair in disputes.") One must take sides in some situations, otherwise one appears to make no difference between the criminal and his victim (to take an everyday example). There is a difference between right and wrong. They are not equal, or things about which one can be "neutral". As far as OhSusanne is concerned, if she doesn't "take well" (your words above) to being dealt with in a manner that enforces Wikipedia policies and common decency, then she too (as with Ilena) has an attitude problem. Wikipedia has enough problems without rewarding such attitudes, or keeping their holders as editors.

Please do not delete this as a personal attack. It's not an attack, but a serious discussion of real issues. We are adults here and should be able to talk openly, as long as we do it in a civil manner. -- Fyslee 08:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to on my talk page. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When someone plays the Nazi Card, you know the Hitler Zombie has started eating their brains.--Emilydcksn 03:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one understands the poor zombie! All he wants to do is eat some brains ... ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC) (Obviously preceeding response is not meant to be taken seriously.[reply]

Thank you for your message. A listing of the parties listing in the format you suggested appears on the main case page, here. I hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 20:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a suggestion....that could save us hopping back and forth between articles. BTW, it was I who added that format there....;-) -- Fyslee 20:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains it ... I didn't recall putting it there myself. The party list usually isn't included on the Evidence page, but you can feel free to copy it into your own Evidence section as you are editing the section and then delete it when you're done. Newyorkbrad 20:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a try. It can be my little scratchpad, if that's allowable. If not, just let me know. (It would be easier if each person's entry just started with that format for their name.) -- Fyslee 21:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked the page with this edit [[1]]. This is considered to be vandalism and is not the way to solve an edit war. When pages are merged and redirected their history, including all previous versions of the page is kept. Nuttah68 13:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who was it that vandalized the redirect? The status there had been stable since August 30, 2006. I only restored it. That is not vandalism. User:Rebroad has clearly misunderstood the long history of this article, and has changed wikilinks to the new article, so if there is any accusation of vandalism to be made...... There was good discussion and agreement back then that the article should be merged and all the good content kept. That was done, and a redirect left in place. -- Fyslee 13:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the edit I have linked above you did not restore the article, you blanked it. Nuttah68 13:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article still exists. I only added the template. Things were happening pretty fast back then and the redirect should have been restored at the same time. No harm intended. I was just trying to restore things to the August 30, 2006 condition, and add the template. I forgot the redirect. An innocent mistake. Please help me restore things to the stable condition which existed before User:Rebroad misunderstood the situation. That user did not discuss anything with the other editors who had been involved back then. I assume good faith and believe it was a misunderstanding by an editor who didn't understand the articles's long history, and that an improved article already existed. (S)he simply started added wikilinks, changing existing wikilinks, and then reactivated a dead article by deleting the redirect. That's a very disturbing thing to do. To top it off that editor has made untrue statements about lack of mention of slipped disc in the Spinal disc herniation article. That is not true at all. -- Fyslee 13:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee, the situation became unstable when you created the redirect back in August. How much time needs to elapse before you consider it to be stable? --Rebroad 16:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense rebroad. What situation became unstable? I don't understand why you are not editing the Spinal disc herniation article rather than forking this content? David D. (Talk) 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that made some sense, but I certainly don't see it. I think you should read what these administrators have to say: [2], [3]. They understand the issues with the article, and Wikipedia's way of dealing with these situations.

It's always a good idea to contact the editors who were involved before doing such a radical things as undoing a redirect. That's a big no-no here. Many articles depend on redirects, and undoing one single redirect can orphan some articles, or at least cripple them. Articles and redirects have longs histories, with many editors involved who have worked hard and produced a lot through collaborative editing. It is an act of very poor judgment, an exercise of bad faith, and simply a slap in all their faces, when you single-handedly come along and undo their work.

If you really think there are other meanings to the term, then let's discuss them. If they can't fit into the Spinal disc herniation article, then let's make a true disambiguation page. (I love doing that!) But the old article should not be awakened to life. It has gone through a sort of metamorphosis and is now a much better article. -- Fyslee 19:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have had the archives altered to remove evidence that could be damaging to your Arbitration case. I note these diffs reveal this. [4] Since part of the vast amount of "attacks" you claim I made against you was your claim that it was I was revealing your personal identity, seeing to it that your own revelations of your personal identity were removed on January 26, 2007, seems relevant to be brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee. Thank you. Ilena 14:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me to that. I didn't know it had actually been done. I am concerned for my security, and am trying to not be quite as open as I have earlier been. I made a request to have the "edit history on my user page be deleted up to this diff from April 12, 2006? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fyslee&diff=prev&oldid=48182114 "

It looks like he did it! Don't worry about the arbitration. I'll back you up on that point. I have never addressed your accusation on that point, since it was true. It was just a statement of fact. Now I no longer wish anyone to use my real name at Wikipedia, for obvious reasons. When one gets threats, including death threats, from chiropractors and promoters of alternative medicine, there is no reason to make it too easy for them. I'll alert JzG to this message and he can comment if he wishes.

BTW, where have I made the claim you describe above as "that it was I was revealing your personal identity,..."? Please provide the diff. -- Fyslee 15:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death threats since December 2, 2006??? OMG!!! Really???? Do you make a police report? Please let us help protect you by posting evidence of these threats. Since you KNOW they are chiropractors and promoters of alternative medicine, they gave you their real names apparently??? This is a very serious accusation and one which I feel certain no one with integrity would make without clear evidence. Extremely serious. We await the evidence of these threats. Ilena 16:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he specifically accuses you of making or facilitating the threats, they don't need proof, nor does Fyslee or any other editor need a reason to decide to become more cautious about his identity. If he accuses you of deliberately revealing his identity after he decided to become more cautious, it might be an arbitration issue, but otherwise its irrelevant. Thatcher131 17:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be extremely cautious in presenting any evidence relating to any real-life threats of death or physical harm on-wiki. Information of that nature should be e-mailed to the Arbitration Committee mailing list, and refer to the matter in your respective Evidence presentations on-wiki in general terms with the comment that specific evidence has been e-mailed privately. Newyorkbrad 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the email address of the Arbitration Committee, please? Thank you. Ilena 16:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can e-mail your message to any active arbitrator, using the "Wikipedia e-mail" feature, with the request that he or she forward it to the entire list. Of course this goes for all participants in the case. Newyorkbrad 16:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Since December 2, 2006"...? Ilena, what are you talking about? Your mocking tone is not helpful..... -- Fyslee 17:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On December 2, 2006, you posted this diff with your real world name and your Wiki name. Very, very recently. [5] Obviously, if in fact, you had received death threats from chiropractors and promoters of alternative medicine before that date as you claim, you would not have done so. Claiming death threats is a very, very, very serious accusation ... especially since you also claim that you know who made these threats. If these accusations are indeed factual and substantiated, I want to help you. Ilena 17:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that would be wise. Stick to your knitting and let Fyslee stick to his. Thatcher131 17:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of foolishly rising to this b**t**g, I'll leave her to her speculations, and I'll also pass on accepting her offer of so-called "help". Enough for now. Next step is to see if JzG can restore things until after the RfA is over. -- Fyslee 17:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed personal data, as requested. All the arbs are admins, I think, so nothing will be concealed from them. There is nothing more to add, I think. Drama over, back to the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for your response. If it could be restored, I would appreciate it, but since it can't, that's the way it goes. Whatever the case may be, I have never denied that I have previously revealed by true identity. Now I want people to use my Fyslee identity here, no matter what I do myself, although I will try to also stick to it. The box at the top of this page explains my position on the matter. -- Fyslee 18:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making potentially false claims that chiropractors have issued death threats to you with no substantiating evidence, is, in my experienced opinion, another one of your underhanded attacks at the profession and an attempt to make yourself appear like a victim, worthy of sympathy. I worked for years with women who were indeed stalked and received real death threats, people whose privacy was in real need of protecting. These women did not post their own names on the internet and on Wikipedia as recently as last month. To compare yourself with true victims claiming privacy issues when a one second google shows your advertisements of yourself throughout the internet with your real name advertised for years and years, makes your death threat claims with no corroborating evidence fall short of any veracity. I am frustrated indeed, with going through my notes and realizing that you are tampering with evidence close to this Arbitration Case, forcing more work on me and on others. Ilena 19:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee is under no obligation to prove anything to you. He is under no obligation to give any reason at all for wanting personal information removed. He is allowed to ask to have his user page deleted to remove personal information from the history (and since it's his user page not talk that is even less controversial). If you feel there is or was information in Fyslee's user page which is of relevance to an arbitration case and you want to cite it, then the Arbs can see it. If Fyslee asks for his user page history to be restored then he can, knowing that the personal information will become visible again. All clear? Good. Now click "Random article" and find something else to work on, eh? Guy (Help!) 20:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As requested by myself, [6] [7] User:JzG has kindly restored the history of my user page.

• "I really do want to have the deletion undone. Ilena should not be able to use my good faith attempts to protect my privacy as another excuse to exercise bad faith and accuse me of wrongdoing. -- Fyslee 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)" [8][reply]

Ilena, are you satisfied now? -- Fyslee 20:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused. You claimed you it wasn't your idea to change the archives, and Guy claimed he did it on request, so who requested the archives be changed if not you? Curious in the Jungles Ilena 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are very confused:

• "You claimed you it wasn't your idea to change the archives...." (Your words above)

I made no such claim. On the contrary. This is typical of your charges against me. You often claim I have said something, but you misquote my words, making your charges nonsensical and false. Now start presenting your case in the RfA. -- Fyslee 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies. I read the first part of the diff. that read: "I didn't know it had actually been done." I just counted 381 instances of your real name and fyslee on the WWW, so I believe those will forgive me for having doubts that privacy is such an enormous issue with you as you claim. Since you were posting them together as recently as last month on Wikipedia, that also makes one doubt your veracity. That your alleged claims of death threats include chiropractors, who you regularly attack and label with pejorative, demeaning terms, and promoters of alternative medicine, another of your targets, it feels to me that those are subtle attacks on these people, with not a shred of evidence to back your claims. I have worked with women whose lives were in danger and had true privacy issues, and your "privacy concern" rings hollow to me, sorry. That you did your virtual shredding smack in the middle of this Arbitration, where evidence was going to be presented ... well, we'll let the Arbitrators decide. Ilena 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really wasting your time counting the times I've used my real name? Why? I have never denied it. It is only an issue because you refused to heed the warnings by others to not do so. That will be part of my documentation job. -- Fyslee 21:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Arbitration is thisaways: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is exaclty what I mean, Ilena. What possible reason do you have for demanding that Fyslee produce 'evidence' of his claimed harassment/threats?

What would you do with the evidence, were he to produce it (which he has no need to do).

He has asked that you back off. Why don't you? Why are you insisting on making this an issue, when it should not be an issue at all? He asked you to respect his privacy here. The very simple way to handle that would be to respect his privacy here. Period. End of discussion. Jance 07:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that CBP was looking for Alan Botnick to serve him with a lawsuit. Apparently he wrote a paper for Quackwatch and Barrett published it and CBP is suing both of them, but Botnick cannot be found. They have put an article in Clinical Chiropractic for anybody to help find him. Jim Turner is representing CBP. Let me know if you hear anything. --Dematt 21:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! I haven't been at Chirotallk for some time now, so I don't know if he's posting there. It should be easy enough to do. Try to see what you can find. -- Fyslee 22:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were at Chirotalk at 6:06 this morning and took off your status as Administrator and changed your name to fys god. [9] I would never have known about that site had you not linked there yesterday. I took copies last nite before your changes. Here you were telling people to sign up for Wikipedia Re: Life University Wikipedia entry« Reply #12 on Jun 5, 2006, 5:45am » [10]. Thanks for the links to Allen Botnick, who apparently is a co-defendant with Barrett and Quackwatch and the moderator of this board you administered until 6:06 a.m. today. Have a lovely day. Ilena 15:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your cyberstalking is noted. Now please leave me alone. -- Fyslee 15:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really??? I was following YOUR LINKS. Fun game for you to always play victim. You have filled my talk page with your giant notices and false claims of victimhood. You dare to demand that I leave you alone after filling my talk page with your rants. I would never have known about your 3 years as Administrator with Allen Botnick on Chirotalk had you not given the link. That you removed yourself as Administrator there at 6:06 this morning is very notable ...especially after your cyber-shredding of evidence in the middle of this Arbitration was revealed yesterday. You're no victim, fyslee. Please stay off my talk page ... please keep your giant notices off it ... please leave my user page alone where you insist on meddling, and please stop whining and ordering me around. Thank you very much.Ilena 16:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have followed my link, but the subject of the whole thread was about the founder of Chirotalk, and a link to it had already been posted by Levine2112 about 1½ hours before mine. As far as posting on your talk page, as you have done on mine, I have tried (before your indignant post above) to limit my last posts there to noting that I have answered your double postings (to both talk pages) on my own talk page,[11] [12] rather than answering on your talk page, so your complaint above rings rather hollow. Now please leave me alone and respect my privacy. -- Fyslee 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the link, because it is very close to original research, and not a reliable source. For the parts of WP:EL that relate to that subject, see the section 'links normally to be avoided', points 1 & 2. Furthermore, there are many external links on Thiomersal controversy, and for that, wikipedia is not a linkfarm (also under WP:EL). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take this point by point:

1. I don't know your POV, but I do know the POV of the one who first deleted the link, and you have then backed up that deletion by reverting twice. What I say below may apply to you or him or others. Wherever the shoe fits....

2. The OR policy does not refer to external links or sources, but to an improper methodology sometimes used by Wikipedia editors when they write Wikipedia articles. OR in non-wikipedia sources is often perfectly acceptable here, as long as it is found in a V & RS.

3. External links do not have the same RS standard as references within articles. Links to Quackwatch are nearly always suitable as External links, while their use as internal references must be judged on a case by case basis, as the thousands of pages and myriad articles at Quackwatch are written by many different people, in many different styles, for many different purposes. Therefore one article there might be fine as an internal reference here, while another would be totally unsuited for Wikipedia in any capacity. Unfortunately opposers of Quackwatch (who are usually supporters of the methods or ideas criticized) are trigger happy to delete anything from it, and rarely make that evaluation. (Levine2112 sometimes goes on a rampage to delete them, but he has recently actually made that evaluation a couple times and both kept the link and improved it. Good for him. He has also found a couple instances where I think his judgment was correct, and I have allowed the deletions without reverting it.) Instead they delete on sight, which is POV suppression, a practice forbidden here, since Wikipedia is all about presenting all significant POV from all sides of the question. Suppression of an opposing POV is therefore counterproductive and an exercise of bad faith against other editors. Instead of just deleting their work, one should seek to get them to improve their case by using better arguments or sources. That's called "collaboration" and "writing for the enemy". Such collaboration between editors with opposing POV produces the best articles. My collaboration with User:Dematt (a chiropractor) has resulted in a great chiropractic article, a profession for which I hold quite a bit of skepticism, yet we work fine together because he is an inclusionist, and understands that NPOV requires inclusion, and writing for the enemy.

4. The two points ("points 1 & 2") that you mention above are subject to great interpretation, and with controversial articles it's a very POV judgment. Those who delete Quackwatch links are normally (always?) believers in pseudoscience and will interpret anything against their pet idea as pseudoskepticism. The other side will do the opposite. Since both POV must be presented in articles, including external links for both POV (as is done in the article), then this POV use of those to points as an excuse for deleting the link can be construed as POV suppression of the opposing POV. Better to err on the inclusionist side, than on exclusionism bordering on policy violation (designed to minimize or eliminate opposing POV).

5. As far as link farms, I have no idea who originally added the link, but I fear you are making (or backing up) a POV suppressive judgment when deleting that particular link, instead of deleting some other one, if that is really your concern.

6. You also use another excuse in your edit summary here, for your first revert -- that it isn't peer reviewed. That one is way out in left field. Peer review is not a requirement for External links.

7. Please don't use popups to make such reverts. You can get your popup privileges removed for such misuse.

8. There may be some other legitimate Wikipedia policies that apply, but you haven't presented them yet. I'd like to see them. If I am wrong in my analysis above, I'm sure you can correct me, and I will welcome it. -- Fyslee 08:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. See my contributions

2. OR does apply, the next thing could be that someone is incorporating the data (thinking it is a reliable source) into wikipedia?

3. WP:EL does say that it should be reliable sources, and that links should be kept to a minimum, I am sorry, I saw this link added (just only the link) so I reverted. EL do not fit in a thought of POV suppression, sorry. Write the article, and expand it, write paragraphs, and use references to back you up. A sentence 'a newspaper reported blah blah.[ref to site]' is very acceptible, just in the EL, no. There it is just another link.

4. Point 2 clearly applies, it is not a reliable source.

5. I said I saw this addition, it is not a POV, it is not having the time at this moment to go through all the links. That one link is there does not mean that others should come as well. EL should be kept to a minimum, why not expand the article and add some references, why did you only add this link?

6: Peer-reviewed is a bit too far, indeed. Verifyability is (sorry, I used a wrong term).

7: This is not misuse, otherwise I would have used the undo-button, or used edit button on the previous version, and saved.

8: What? Do I have to defend my link-removal, I have given already 4 policies/guidelines under which this link is questionable. I have not seen any reason why that link should be in WP, as probably with many of the others in that external link section. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think it is time that we delete Prescientific system. I haven't found anything on this other than sites that have copied WP or definitions of prescientific that have nothing to do with this article. I am afraid we have created OR. Do you want to do a speedy delete or regular delete? --Dematt 19:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the points at the end of this [13].(You're welcome to read the whole thing...;-) It would be too bad to just delete that article. It should be developed better with references. -- Fyslee 20:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to that, too, and believe me, I have looked all the way to the end of all the google searches that I can think of. There are no references for prescientific system that uses it in the sense that we do. I agree with you. I think it would be great to develop an idea such as this, but there is nothing, nada, zero. Maybe you are on to something - perhaps you should write this up!!! Then we can reference you! But as it is, it seems to be OR. Can you find anything? --Dematt 20:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you. If you couldn't find anything used in this way, then there probably isn't anything worth using. I've copied it for my private use, since it's a good article with a lot of good ideas. I don't know who started it or the history behind it, and I only contributed one section, so I have no great feelings for it. -- Fyslee 20:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll just suggest one of those quiet deletes - nothing that needs a AfD or anything. Hughgr and Mcreedy were the last few to edit it and I don't think they will care. We can still use prescientific in its adjective form, just have to be careful when we use it as a noun. Meanwhile - write a paper on it, I'll cite it! --Dematt 21:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You bugger, you beat me to it! --Dematt 21:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't you! This place is bugged! --Dematt 21:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we're being watched. Take it as a compliment. -- Fyslee 21:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I better go get dressed. --Dematt 21:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Fyslee/Sig. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. It works now. -- Fyslee (First law) 14:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but mine is better;) ---- Dēmatt (chat) 14:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Very nice looking. It's nice to learn a bit more about HTML and such like. I'm an amateur at it. I usually try to copy what others do and modify it. Sometimes it works and other times it doesn't, which reveals that my knowledge of HTML is rather rudimentary. -- Fyslee (First law) 15:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied yours and changed a few things several times before I finally got it to work. I did exactly the same thing you did last night - got the same error (for three hours!) until I finally realized I left out a / :) Sure wish they would make the color thing easier, I must have tried 100 combinations and saw absolutely no rhyme or reason for any of them! I got lucky with this one. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 15:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a great HTML color chart. There are lots of them on the internet, but it suits me fine. -- Fyslee (First law) 15:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding me... This is why it takes me twice as long as everyone else to do anything. I'm always reinventing the wheel. I think I even made up a few colors of my own;) ---- Dēmatt (chat) 15:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it here. Actually, I had seen it earlier and didn't think much about it until Simoes brought it up. Suddenly it all made sense why on that date several controversial items started being moved to List of Fringe science. Interesting. (I like the green, too:)-- Dēmatt (chat) 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! Yes, I have read that at some time in the past. Very interesting, with some important rulings made at the time. -- Fyslee (First law) 18:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if this revert war that you were involved in was SA trying to clean it out without anybody knowing that he was moving to the fringe science list. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do it now, but you can compare SA's editing pattern right then with this block. Maybe that's his/her IP. Right now I just discovered something going on over at Life University, and you're going to see me do something that will likely give Levine2112 a heart attack! -- Fyslee (First law) 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will be making one, won't you? It's been a while. Durova^Charge! 00:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments on my user page. The sandbox will come in handy. I was reading the tutorial yesterday some more but couldn't figure out how to do the sandbox for myself. I do understand how to make the indents now from see what you did on my page. I am new at this kind of thing, never have tried to do anything with websites, so it's slow going for me. With my medications, I take a while to understand some things so I hope to get better at this. I have been lurking and reading for awhile now to see what others are doing.

The article we spoke of does need a lot of balance added into it. I was hitting links to see where I went and what they said. I have to admit I was surprised, since all the reading I have done has said that links to sales sites, personal sites and attack sites are not allowed. I'm going to do some more learning and hopefully I will be able to get involved to help make the article a great one. I still need to learn some of the basics but I haven't even gotten to how to do links and so on. If I make mistakes of any kind, and I mean this for anyone, just make the correction and explain it if it needs explaining. I do not get my feeling hurt easily and I know my limitations here right now. I also don't have a strong view on most things except maybe when it comes to my own information of crohn's disease but I still am very calm about things. I look forward to working with you and everyone else. I have lots to learn! :) --Crohnie 12:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)PS: is there a spell check? :)[reply]

Thanks, now I see how to get the little green box! :) --Crohnie 22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fyslee, just to clarify, I am very neutral in this issue. But we must observe utmost adherence to WP's strict sourcing rules and NOR policy, and specifically 'no synthesis' when it comes to contentious issues. Direct quotes and summary of neutral verifiable sources would be best. Thanks for understanding. Crum375 20:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my synthesis, but only very slightly adapted wording and links from the article where Clayton's status is listed. -- Fyslee's (First law) 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When following the source provided I did not see them specifically saying what WP was saying. In contentious cases, we need to either quote verbatim, or to summarize faithfully and accurately, and present in a neutral tone the existing reliable sources. The PDF you provided only uses 'bogus' and other claims generically - to use it here would be 'synthesis' (of the "putting 2 and 2 together in contentious cases" type). Thanks, Crum375 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You claim to be "neutral", but I'm going to let your actions determine that question, and I want you to take a hard look at your latest edit through my eyes. It wasn't just an edit, but a mass revert, including some real improvements to the article, it's formats, necessary and legitimate categories, etc.. Not only that, the edit summary is misleading. Place yourself in my shoes and look at your own edit (mass revert) and your edit summary. Should I exercise good faith towards you in this situation? I would like to do so (especially since your argumentation here is proper), but would you blame me if I were suspicious after watching your actions? Please be more careful. We both know that the included information was correct. Clayton is considered a diploma mill and its graduates are automatically double checked for other dubious behaviors. Instead of deleting and essentially tearing down Wikipedia (we're trying to build it up), I suggest you help to find the sources (I am in the process of making refs of several) and building up, instead of tearing down. Exercise a bit of good faith towards the hard work of other editors. I'm going to add some good references and restore some of what you have deleted. That will help me to determine if you are really "neutral." -- Fyslee's (First law) 21:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually came here to let you know your latest version was much better, and found myself under attack ;^). Hopefully you can recognize that all I want is a well sourced neutrally presented encycolpedia, not an expose piece or conversely a promo. So the trick is to identify when contentious issues are involved (as is obviously the case here), and then tread carefully. I reverted for one thing because you removed the cite templates, but also because I could find no specific mention of 'bogus' in relation to this institution, and no specific mention of the institution at all. In your latest version we have the institution named, which removes the OR burden from us. Thanks for your effort on this. Hopefully I still have your trust? ;^) Crum375 21:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. I understand the situation well. I'm a bit gun shy, since I often edit opposite editors who have vested interests in deleting anything negative, even when well sourced, but who don't hesitate to use self-serving and poor references when it benefits their cause. Actually it's quite natural, and anyone can fall into that trap if they aren't very careful. The wikilink was wrong, and is now corrected. (I had looked at two and unwittingly chose the wrong one the first time.) Clayton is just one of many such institutions listed here at Wikipedia. So my bad wikilink was part of what caused you confusion. My bad! Sorry about that. -- Fyslee's (First law) 22:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - understood. Thanks, Crum375 23:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it is neither possible nor usual to require the subjects of a story to consent to its publication in most cases. In the first place, my reports are usually based only on matters of public record (that is, descriptions of the parties' statements). In the second, the byline (and the history tab of the page) makes it quite clear that my reports, while subject to editorial control from Ral315, it principally represents my view, not an official opinion of the Signpost. And in the third, if people request corrections, I am usually happy to include them, unless they cause a bias, in which case I can in nearly all cases find a compromise. David Mestel^(Talk) 21:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just rather surprised and taken aback when I discovered we had been mentioned in the Signpost. Maybe I should start reading it! When dealing with serious accusations and/or potentially libelous matters, it's important to be extra careful. I found myself in the situation of seeing false accusations against me being aired in a very public place. Not a very pleasant experience. -- Fyslee's (First law) 22:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment to you earlier about your First Law; I thought it was on your talk page but it might have been somewhere else. I said basically that I thought your First Law was cool, but that in the explanation of it it sounds as if you thing NPOV is about balancing the opposing views of Wikipedian editors. Actually, NPOV is about balancing the opposing views of the reliable sources. I made the same mistake earlier in my Wikipedian life.

From a very recent minor edit of yours re Health Freedom, plus your first law: I wonder whether you're intereted in various aspects of Freedom. I like that. --Coppertwig 02:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your post on my talk page. I just wanted to say thank you directly to you. --Crohnie 18:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make sure you knew I saw that you fixed my mistakes and that I really appreciate it. I responded to you on my talk page. Thanks so much, --Crohnie 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• About the Signpost
• From the editor
• Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed
• Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
• In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google
• WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
• News and notes: Brief outage, milestones
• Wikipedia in the News
• Features and admins
• Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Fyslee, thanks for the memories. I do hope you find what you are looking for. From the bottom of my heart I wish all the best for you and your family. I still think you would make a really great chiropractor;) You do have a heart of gold. You have much more to offer than Barrett. I don't want you to go through life and end up an angry old man. There is a little good in everything, sometimes you just have to look a little harder for it. And as far as I know, they still have not proven there is no God, so keep your faith. Sometimes it is all you have to hold on to. Love Ya! -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! What are you doing? I see that you've blanked your user spaces. Please, please, don't guit this project. If anyone deserves to be here it's you. Don't leave here because of what's happening to me. I'm not worth it. Wikipedia may not be worth it either, at least it doesn't deserve you. You're too good for this often poisonous atmosphere. You understand NPOV more than any editor I've encountered, and that includes a number of admins. Lots of anti-quackery people probably hate me for it, but our collaboration has ended up allowing you to expand the chiropractic article in ways that were unimaginable before you came here. Wikipedia needs people like you. I may disappear, simply for personal security reasons that have been acutely exacerbated by all this, but you don't need to do that as far as I know. I'll let you know where I end up. I wonder if all RFARBs have such high personal price tags attached to them for so many people? Please reconsider!!! Contact me. Fortunately emails don't get messed up by tears, like paper does. This is all so f..king far out and unjust! Your friend, Paul. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 11:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]