Talk:The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential/Archive 4

Non-MEDRS being passed as scientific information
I have gone through the various new additions to this article. While the language of some of these sources makes them sound scientific, the reality is that all the cited criticism is mere opinion not based on any scientific studies themselves. All it does is create further negative bias about the institutes. While there may be no controlled studies to support the institutes results, there also are no credible studies to refute them.

In the introduction, the book by Herman Spritz has no scientific basis for this opinion whatsoever. In any case, why has this piece of information been added to the introduction rather than the scientific evaluation section, except in a deliberate attempt to create negative bias?

Its interesting that the book by Horny Cummins criticize the poorly controlled studies that support IAHP results but makes conclusions not based on scientific studies themselves. Just because he uses scientific sounding terms like neuroanatomy and neurophsiology does not make this research based conclusions. The same thing applies to the views of Kathleen Ann Quil, Martha Erikson and Steven Novella - there are no scientific studies to support their views. Whats worse is that there is clear conflict of interest since these people sell their own treatments for neurologically handicapped children. Adding these comments as scientific evaluation is highly misleading since it makes it sound like there are scientific studies behind these views which is just not the case.

The unwillingness of the IAHP to enter scientific studies is not supported by the cited source.

Its absolutely amazing that a section that criticizes the IAHP for not supporting scientific studies quotes a so called Norwegian study of 15 people! How can a sample of 15 be considered scientific? And when did cost effectiveness become a topic of scientific study?

I am very alarmed by the non-MEDRS being passed of as scientific information when they are not based on any scientific study whatsoever.

Dr. Samuel Goldstein (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We could add the MEDRS studies giving unambiguous support to the institute's methods and techniques. Then we would be done with all this. Anybody know where to obtain a copy? ... In light of the potential subjects' needs, I would suspect that most legitimate researchers would consider it unethical to do such studies. Jim1138 (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Response

 * "there also are no credible studies to refute them" This statement is sheer nonsense. Read Kavale and Mostert (2004) they cite numerous studies that refute the theoretical basis and the effectiveness of the IAHP's programs, as do Hornby et al. (2013), Novella (2008) and others. Many of the authors cited provide a review of the research citing many studies that refute the IAHP treatments. A very recent study which does so is von Teztchner et al. (2013). The model of child development underpinning the IAHP treatments has been rejected by science as noted by Gilbert (2006), Payne and Wenger (1998) and Myles et al. (2007). This is mainstream scientific consensus supported by a vast body of research. See WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE and WP:MNA.


 * "Herman Spitz has no scientific basis for this opinion whatsoever" More nonsense, as an expert in the field writing in a book on the subject, published by a reputable publisher his opinion has WP:WEIGHT. As for a scientific basis the only scientific statement he makes is that IAHP's remedies are pseudoscientific. It doesn't take an expert to find a scientific basis for that, it is clear from many of the sources, in particular the American Academy of Pediatrics statement. Regardless, Spitz's opinion stands on its own. (WP:MEDRS ideal source: "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher")


 * "why has this piece of information been added to the introduction rather than the scientific evaluation section, except in a deliberate attempt to create negative bias?" This is a statement about the IAHP by a reliable source, not scientific evaluation. Per WP:Criticism should generally be placed in the body of the article at the points it addresses, not lumped into a separate section. A neutral point of view means statements about a subject from reliable sources that reflect the mainstream scientific view are the most appropriate content for an article. Neutrality in WP is based on verifiable, reliable sources (for example see the NPOV policy's discussion of flat earth).


 * "Its interesting that the book by Horny Cummins criticize the poorly controlled studies that support IAHP results but makes conclusions not based on scientific studies themselves." The book is by Hornby et al. and cites Cummins. Cummins analysis is based on scientific studies. Hornby et al. do make conclusions based on scientific studies, read the source. Hornby et al. is an excellent example of a reliable source they analyze the research carefully. (again MEDRS a professional book in the relevant field by experts with a reliable publisher).


 * "uses scientific sounding terms like neuroanatomy and neurophsiology does not make this research based conclusions." The scientific fields of neuroanatomy and neurophysiology are heavily research based and the authors cited are experts in the field and do indeed cite research in their writing, again read the sources, Cummins and Novella in particular. (Hornby et al. and Cummins are "ideal sources per MEDRS as above, Novella's commentary is within the WP:FRINGE guideline) What treatments do Novella, Quill and Erickson sell? Regardless working professionally in the field does not necessarily create a conflict of interest. If there are reliable sources that state they have a conflict of interest, introduce these sources.


 * "Adding these comments as scientific evaluation is highly misleading since it makes it sound like there are scientific studies" Not so, evaluation (a systematic determination of a subject's merit, worth and significance, using criteria governed by a set of standards) includes studies but also includes the analysis and opinions of experts. These commenters set out a set of standards and use criteria validated in science in general and the field (see WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI.


 * "The unwillingness of the IAHP to enter scientific studies is not supported by the cited source" Read the source page 6 specifically it is clearly supported. The content in the article is a very close paraphrasing.


 * "a section that criticizes the IAHP for not supporting scientific studies" The section contains a single sentence of such criticism as above supported by a reliable source, that meets MEDRS.


 * "And when did cost effectiveness become a topic of scientific study?" Before asking such a question do some research. Try a PubMed search, or look into the Cochrane databases, peruse the World Health Organization research or that of many national health programs.

Whats nonsense is that you are abusing the MEDRS policy by narrowly interpreting it to suppress comments that don't suit your point of view while continually adding opinions not based on scientific study. The reality is that no large scale studies have been conducted on the institutes treatments, which are comprised of many different techniques, which is the reason for all this controversy. Even when it comes to patterning, the so called studies out there are small scale and contentious in themselves.Dr. Samuel Goldstein (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please provide diffs showing such abuse, narrow interpretation and suppression. Without evidence stop agrandizing. A lack of studies supports that IAHP treatments are WP:FRINGE very little research has been done on the subject since the 1970s because the treatments are pseudoscientific they have no support in the professional community. The opinions added are based on scientific study the authors as experts in the field have studied the subject and reached conclusions and made statements based on their study. Actually read WP:MEDRS the second sentence is quite clear how has this been misinterpreted, when, evidence please. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Just scrolling up on the talk page a bit will provide a good example of suppressed content. An earlier retraction of the AAP warning about the institutes had been added. It provided excellent context for the situation that proper studies have not been conducted to prove the institutes methods but that IAHP has been willing to participate in such studies.It was well cited content written by an important member of the AAP who was involved in issuing the warning and therefore a very relevant source. MrBill3 himself admitted that the comment met MEDRS criteria (see revert on page history). However, it was promptly removed since it would interfere with the consistent negative bias of this article. Instead, a one line opinion by a non-scientific critic was added to state that the IAHP had warned people not to participate in studies, in direct contradiction of the view of a key member of the AAP. Dr. Samuel Goldstein (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The above statement contains outright falsehood (assuming good faith is difficult given the clarity and brevity of the source). Gellis' statement was not a retraction of the AAP warning. The AAP statement has been repeatedly reaffirmed most recently in 2010 (AAP, 2010). Gellis was tempering his individual commentary published in Pediatric Notes 6 p. 189 about the lack of studies. He specifies this giving a citation for his commentary. He does not retract, reduce or qualify the extensive critical analysis of the IAHP treatments in the AAP warning. Nor does he in any way indicate he has withdrawn his support of the AAP policy statement.


 * I stand by my removal of the content. Gellis is acknowledging that the IAHP had offered to take part in scientific studies under the aegis of nationally recognized bodies and continued to "express their sincere desire for involvement in a major controlled trial". Going on to say their interest and desire should be encouraged by attempting to develop with them proper scientifically controlled studies of their treatments and "It is long overdue."


 * While Gellis is a reliable source whose comments carry weight, another source provides direct contradiction of the IAHP's willingness to have their treatments studied (Hornby et al., 2013, p.6).


 * The article is incorrectly quoted as "warning" when the word used is instructed. To wit: "...the IHAP has instructed parents of children in their program not to take part in any independent studies designed to evaluate the program's effectiveness."


 * The characterization of Hornby et al. as unscientific is also false. They analyze and cite multiple studies and provide expert commentary in a current book published by a reputable academic publisher.


 * Gellis' statement is also dated 1984 (making its MEDRS status questionable) and their have been no such studies, this makes the statement largely irrelevant. Common sense would lead any editor to question the sincerity of IAHP's willingness or interest in participating in such studies as they have not done so in 30 (or 49) years, after being called long overdue in 1984.


 * Without adequate studies or acceptance by the professional community IAHP treatments remain fringe. Editing and content has been apropriate on that basis (IMO). Can an editor provide any other instances (with diffs please) of the "abuse", "narrow interpretation" or "suppression" alleged?


 * Since it was mentioned in the 21 Feb. comment, is there a reliable source for what the IAHP treatments and their many different techniques are? A lack of publication in a MEDRS source of these treatments reinforces their status as fringe. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

 * The article has been tagged with POV. The policy states, "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias." This article fulfills that and the tag should be removed. A variety of reliable sources are included and the information they contain is presented fairly, proportionately and without bias. What content is not presented fairly and proportionately? Where is the bias in the presentation of the information contained? Just because an editor does not agree with the information does not mean its presentation is biased. The opinions of the sources are clearly attributed to the sources. None of the material presented is "seriously contested". If an editor thinks it is present the reliable sources which contest it. The policy also states, "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that 'According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis' would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." The article clearly presents the supermajority view and is well supported by numerous high quality sources. See the explanations in the policy given at WP:DUE, WP:VALID and WP:BALANCE. The statement in the policy, "Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view." allows editors to present other opinions from reliable sources with WP:DUE weight. If an editor feels the current content of the article reflects the biased opinion of the current sources, they may include other opinions from other sources. I haven't seen any reliable sources and the sources currently in the article carry substantial weight. As above statements are attributed and comply with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The objections to the use of neuroanatomy and neurophysiology are clearly outweighed by scientific consensus and making necessary assumptions. This also covers the scientific rejection of the theoretical basis of IAHP treatment to a large extent. The IAHP have been called pseudoscience by a (MEDRS) reliable source and many of the high quality sources support this making this article compliant to WP:PSCI. The subject clearly falls under WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. This is supported by multiple WP:MEDRS sources to wit, "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." which are "Ideal sources". Without policy based support the POV tag will be removed promptly.

This article is an example of one of the most blatant misinterpretations and misuse of Wikipedia policies that I have seen. The article is clearly driven by a negative agenda about the institutes. All attempts to add an alternate point of view, even those that were well cited with MEDRS, have been systematically removed. There is no neutrality whatsoever here. The POV tag here is most certainly needed - even if we need to go to Arbitration to confirm this.Dr. Samuel Goldstein (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please provide diffs showing an alternate point of view well cited with MEDRS that was removed. For that matter please provide an alternate point of view supported by MEDRS. I don't think there are any. I would be willing to include (and have asked for) a current published explanation/description of the IAHP techniques. Has any independent expert in the field published such a description. I think even a primary source might be acceptable so long as it was providing a description of treatments not asserting claims for how such treatments work or that they do. Neutrality on WP means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Please support your claim by showing where views published by reliable sources on this topic are not represented proportionately, fairly and without bias. You are welcome to take this issue to arbitration. I would suggest first presenting some evidence of your claims here. The content of the article represents the highest quality sources proportionately. For neutrality what published source do you suggest and how would you weight it? Are any of the current sources not represented fairly? How so? Evidence, sources and concrete suggestions please. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to even any minor support for the IAHP, you have gone through a lot of trouble to immediately discredit it by citing a source of criticism. However, all the critiques from various authors that you have included have been severely criticized themselves by experts in the field. You can use a narrow interpretation of MEDRS by claiming that they are sourced from “academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field.” However, by not providing facts that these authors have themselves been criticized for their commentary can only be intended to create negative bias, contrary to neutrality. Some specific examples:

The Raising of Intelligence by Herman H. Spitz. Firstly, this book was published in 1986 not 2013. By stating 2013 (possibly a reprint date but not sure where this date comes from), you are making this look like recent material. Robert J. Sternberg, a well-known psychologist and commentator for the American Journal of Psychology, criticized the book as follows:

“…..This book,…., is not a new contribution to theory or research, but rather a painstaking and often highly critical documentary of a body of research. When Spitz criticizes, he cuts with a keenly sharpened axe, never resorting to a dull blade. ….it is written by someone with an axe to grind.” The rest of the review goes into more specifics of the flaws of his conclusions.

Similarly, there is widespread criticism about Steven Novella. The article mentions his sweeping statement about the institutes that is not based on any scientific research by him but fails to mention that he is a highly controversial, “showbiz professor” with a podcasts that comment on everything from religion to near death experience to autism. He is in the business of profiting from skeptical views. On all topics, he makes sweeping conclusions, most of which are rejected by the subjects of his criticism and mainstream academics. I’m sure you can justify his view by quoting the MEDRS policy and saying that since he is a Professor, he qualifies as an expert. But not revealing his controversial background that cab bring a balanced perspective to his views, is designed to instill negative bias.

I can go on about other authors that you have cited. The bottom line is that you are providing opinions out of context using a convenient interpretation of MEDRS by justifying them as expert opinion. The bottom line about the institutes is as follows: They claim that their programs have outstanding results on brain injured children and have published the results in their own medical journal for 40 years (quite a lengthy time to perpetrate a hoax). They have not conducted large scale studies that can confirm their results but neither have the people who claim to reject their methods.

An honest representation that was neutral would state the lack of studies as a basis for the controversy. It would also provide proper context about the authors, particularly if there was controversy about their view. It would not indulge in sensationalism by quoting baseless opinions that are made in the absence of any scientific research and simply based on so called expert opinion, in this case defined as anyone who takes a critical view of the institutes because they believe in other methods (in most cases also not proven). WP policies are not meant to be the gospel – they are not absolute and subject to common sense. In this case, these policies are being used to promote non-scientific opinions as facts.

Clearly, you have institutional access to a lot of medical research. Perhaps you can use it to provide a more balanced view? Dr. Samuel Goldstein (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

refs


 * Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your research on the Spitz book. The book review you cite does not impeach the source as a reliable MEDRS compliant source. In fact it supports it. "A painstaking and often highly critical documentation of a body of research" is precisely the type of source that should be used. Where in the review does Sternberg state Spitz's conclusions about IAHP are flawed? Please provide a quote. I will correct the date.


 * That the author of a published reliable source has an opinion or point of view does not mean it is not an acceptable source. Per WP:NPOV "Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view." (emphasis mine). Please present reliable sources you feel will provide balance and they can be included according to their due weight.


 * WP does not discuss the author of a source when not relevant to the article. However if there is a reliable source which criticizes Novella's specific article on the techniques employed by IAHP that should be included in this article. If you are aware of such criticism please provide it. A WP editors characterization of an author as controversial is irrelevant. If there are substantial or significant reliable sources which provide criticism that indicates cited authors are not qualified or competent to comment on the subject please provide them. This would be a reason to question the reliability of a source. If you find mainstream academics which criticize the evaluations of IAHP techniques or support these techniques or their theoretical basis please provide them.


 * A lack of studies is not just the basis for controversy regarding IAHP techniques. Medical treatments not supported by studies are not merely controversial, they are unproven and generally not accepted in medicine. Read MEDRS with an eye to understand its meaning and intent (common sense) also WP:FRINGE applies. You state, "They claim that their programs have outstanding results on brain injured children" such a claim requires substantial MEDRS without such support it does not belong in WP.


 * Your contention that the sources used are unscientific is unfounded, the sources cite and analyze multiple studies and provide theoretical analysis. Novella put it quite well, "Medical treatments are evaluated on two criteria, their theoretical basis and their empirical value." The cited sources do such evaluation. Novella goes on to state, "The scientific community has rejected patterning on both counts." If you have MEDRS sources that support the theoretical basis, efficacy or acceptance by the scientific mainstream please provide them. Without such evidence IAHP treatments are WP:FRINGE and pseudoscience and those policies and guidelines apply regarding sources and content.


 * BTW if you want the access I have to medical research, get a library card. If you can provide pointers to research or other sources you feel should be included in the article (say via PubMed or GoogleScholar searches) I will try to access such sources and include them. You may also find citations of such sources in the references already in the article. I think MEDRS is flexible enough to allow inclusion of some of the older studies, however most of them have been criticized and such criticism would also be included or would make them unusable.


 * In summary, I think the article is fair and balanced (and honest) in its treatment of the subject as IAHP treatments are based on rejected theories and are unproven treatments not accepted by the mainstream scientific community. This is not bias but verifiable fact. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No policy based rationale or RS with other viewpoints has been provided. Other than the sources cited not agreeing with an editor's opinion no evidence of lacking NPOV has been provided. If RS which would provide "balance" are found they can be included in the article. If specific criticism of the sources is found it can be included or impugned sources (and related content) can be removed. The article reflects with due weight the content of published reliable sources. The tag has been removed. If an editor finds this a problem the issue can be taken through the process of WP:Dispute resolution. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." Please provide some evidence of this article not reflecting, "the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources" before replacing the POV tag "not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." Please "discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." Please provide some verifiable perspective not given due weight or specific examples of perspectives in the article currently given UNDUE weight. Without reliable sources presenting a point of view not represented your contention is solely the opinion of an editor, this is not the basis of a WP:NPOV dispute. Take it to the WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard if you feel you have a valid argument that is not being heard here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOVD, "The tag is intended to signify that there is an active good-faith effort, grounded in policy, to resolve the perceived neutrality concern." Where is the policy grounded good faith effort? There has been no policy based dispute of any existing content with any sources whatsoever. What content is disputed? What content from reliable sources is not included? What policy based rationale has been provided? Per WP:NPOVD, "The NPOV-dispute tag is not a consolation prize for editors whose position has been rejected by a consensus of other editors, nor is it a substitute for pursuing appropriate dispute resolution." An invitation to take the discussion to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard has been made. This is the appropriate action, not repeatedly replacing the POV tag. WP:NPOVD, "If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article." Where is the clear and exact explanation? Per WP:NPOV "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Where has there been any specific contention that significant views published in reliable sources are not represented fairly and proportionately? What view is not represented? What view is not represented fairly and proportionately? Bias in sources is not presentation of those sources in a biased manner. Per WP:NPOV, "Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view." What source is not presented with WP:DUE weight? What source is excluded or not presented with due weight? There is no active good faith policy grounded dispute. Again take it to WP:POVN don't drive by tag. Pending reply the tag will be removed again. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No "active good-faith effort, grounded in policy, to resolve the perceived neutrality concern." Tag removed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag

 * The Scientific evaluation section has been tagged as having unreliable sources. What sources are unreliable and why? Without specific support based on policy this tag will also be promptly removed.

This entire section is misleading. It presents opinions in a way that suggest that extensive studies have been conducted to refute the institutes treatments. The reality is that the criticism about the institutes is not scientific in itself. Therefore, these cannot be considered reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Samuel Goldstein (talk • contribs)


 * What opinion is presented in what way to suggest extensive studies? Please provide a quote from the article and explain how you feel it is misleading. The evaluations of the IAHP are scientific, "position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.", "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher" this is per the second sentence of WP:MEDRS. Read WP policy on reliable sources your contention that "the criticism about the institutes is not scientific in itself" needs to specifically address what sources and what content. "Therefore, these cannot be considered reliable." does not reflect WP policy, each source must be considered in terms of its support for specific content. You have presented no challenge to any specific content and no identification of any source as not reliable for that content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No evidence or policy has been presented to support the allegation that any of the sources in the section are not reliable. Tag removed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please provide policy based (WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:SOURCE) support for challenging specific sources. If you feel a source is not reliable and you are not being heard here take the issue to the reliable sources noticiboard. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with removal of the tag. Yobol (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Summary

 * In summary the criticisms of the article by User:Dr. Samuel Goldstein lack support in policy and reflect that editors opinions on the subject of the article not the mainstream scientific consensus. If an editor has a sincere desire to provide some balance to the article they should provide reliably sourced content. Tags without policy support will be removed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliably sourced content has been added on several occasions and systematically suppressed by the same editors many times. For some reason, there is a clear agenda here to not allow anyone to say anything which may be counter to these editors' views. The self-righteous comments about Wikipedia policies on the talk page are nothing more than narrow and misleading interpretations of these policies to suit the editors POV. Dr. Samuel Goldstein (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC) — Dr. Samuel Goldstein (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please add wp:diffs to support your assertions. Jim1138 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As User:Jim1138 said provide evidence. I am interested to see some reliably sourced content that has been "systematically suppressed". WP policies are the basis of what we do here. What policy is being interpreted in a misleading manner (specifics please). An interested editor will find policies and their interpretation have been extensively discussed. Do you have any support for your assertion that the interpretation offered is narrow and misleading? Why have you not presented another interpretation and the support for it? Finally, I will not tolerate personal attacks constrain your commentary to the content and editing of articles. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)