User talk:Alice1818

In response to your feedback
Sorry, but I am on User:AndyTheGrumps side here; I can see no bias at all, and I read the sources as he does. Pray continue discusion on the talk-page, though.

Lectonar (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

&#160;


 * Do you mean that the authors by stating that

"The results of our meta-analysis are NOT compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. "

they mean that the clinical effects of homeopathy ARE completely due to placebo ?--Alice1818 (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Re your behaviour at Talk:Homeopathy‎
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on talk:homeopathy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Warning
A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I did not see you objecting to the abusive comments like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=prev&oldid=502820191 someone screaming GO AWAY even if I asked for help. Could you be specific ? Which part of my contributions you find problematic?--Alice1818 (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing for tendentious and battleground editing, continuing after warning, on Homeopathic topics on the page Talk:Homeopathy. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
 * I have blocked you indefinitely rather than for a limited time because, to date, you have shown no interest in editing topics other than homeopathy/pseudoscience ones, in which you clearly have trouble working constructively. Time alone, especially a short time, is unlikely to change that. If you wish to be unblocked, I suggest you appeal this block (to me or to Arbcom) in a manner that demonstrates that you can edit calmly and impartially, preferably in an area other than Homeopathy/Pseudoscience, and that you can and will accept community consensus in the future. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Poor treatment on Talk:Homeopathy
Alice1818, you wrote the following on Talk:Homeopathy:
 * Steve Baker you must be feeling very confident that adopting an abusive style will have no consequences for you in this talkpage ; most likely you assume that the admins, you refer to , concur with your views and they will forgive abusive comments like your last one as long as you hold a strong anti-homeopathy bias. And most likely you are right : I did not see anyone to give you any advice to be polite, non abusive, let alone to comment on your inappropriate editing style…

I found many of the remarks addressed to you on Talk:Homeopathy appallingly uncivil and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Regardless of whether you're right or wrong about what the sources say regarding whether homeopathy is more effective than placebos, and regardless of whether you're engaging in tendentious editing, that's no way for people to behave here. I did not speak up on the talk page because I think doing so would only make things worse, and because article talk pages are for discussion of the article, not discussion of editors' conduct.

I'd like to offer a couple suggestions for how to handle this. First, would you be willing to take a break for a while? Rightly or wrongly, the consensus is against you, and tempers are running hot. Right now, I don't think anything you say will receive a fair hearing, no matter how wise, logical, policy-based, or well-sourced it is. It's unfortunate and wrong, but that is the situation right now. You can't have much influence when people aren't listening to you. Only time will change that. Second, when and if you try again, would you try starting with the body of the article rather than the lead? WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY explains why this usually works better than starting with the lead. The body of the article covers homeopathy research pretty extensively right now, but it could use some improvements, such as more-concrete descriptions of the studies. Small improvements to the level of detail will clearly add to the informativeness of the article without upsetting the relative weights given to the main, overall findings. Collaboration on some small facts might help restore the cooperative attitude that enables people to genuinely listen to each other. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message but -- Are you in touch with the reality? Steve Baker and andythegrab abused me with comments like (GO AWAY - the end - you lost ) people deleted my contributions  more than once and no one said anything including you and you are telling me that I was uncivil  for pointing out that no admin did nothing besides ...blocking me? Are you serious?
 * The facts are that I offered only reliable sources and the people who answered me offered threats.and deleted consistelny  my contributions.while the discussion was not over.   One -at least- group of  mainstream scientists holds a different view and that had to be included- per NPOV policy.
 * Do these people have a conscience? --Alice1818 (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that you were uncivil, I said that other editors were. Oh well, I see that you were blocked while I was writing the above. I'm sure you have many valuable contributions to make to Wikipedia. I hope you can find a way to make those contributions even within our ever contentious, ever imperfect community. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)