User talk:Avb/Archive5

White Flag
AvB, I still feel a lot of misplaced hostility toward me coming from you. I know you have tried to stay away from articles where I edit for a while now, and while I didn't think that would be necessary, I respected it and in turn stayed away from articles where you were editing. I welcome your discussion at Hulda Clark, but I feel your tension toward me is uncalled for. You seem frustrated that I didn't agree with your assessment of BLP. That's reasonable, but we were having a civil discussion. Please don't turn your frustrations on me by lashing out on the article talk page. You are more than welcome to post your frustrations on my talk page where I will be glad to work through it with you. I think we can reach an accord and continue with more civil discussions over policy in the future. I think this latest BLP issue helped all parties involved with learning something about BLP and the importance of having a third-party source in conjunction with a primary source. This hearken back to our previous discussions of Stephen Barrett's lack of Board Certification. Remember? We had court documents which supported this claim. We had sources that we used in conjunction to support these primary sources, but many felt that they weren't true third-party sources. For instance, of the many sources we had two chiropractic trade publications reporting on the trial where Barrett confirmed that he was not Board Certified. An argument against these two publications being third-party sources was that they were not neutral because Barrett has had a long history of criticizing chiropractic... Anyhow, do you see how this sounds familiar? It's a direct mirror of what we just worked through at Clark. Whereas, you are defending Quackwatch as a viable third-party source despite Barrett's legal battles with Clark, I was defending the two chiropractic magazines as a viable third-party source despite Barrett's criticism of the very profession which the publications represent. I remember how frustrated I was then that these two sources were being written of as unreliable because of "bias". Well, now the table has turned and I can completely relate to your frustration. I think what is important though, it that in the end, the Clark article at least is better off now with the unarguably third-party newspaper references rather than just relying on primary sourced court documents republished by a adversary of the subject. Anyhow, I hope you can see the correlation and realize that I have taken what I have learned by our conversations of BLP at Barrett (and other places) and merely applied the same rationale at Clark. (Know that I am not a Clark supporter. I don't approve of what she has done. and I basically have the same feelings about her as you do. However, I will give her article the same BLP respect that I would give to Salk or Washington or Gandhi. That's how I know best to maintain NPOV.) I hope we can continue working together as I truly believe that this recent collaboration resulted in a much improved article. Thanks for reading. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Arrrgh, I'm always a sucker for white flags so OK, flagging one right back at you. But I'm not sure you'll keep waving yours once you've read the following comments.


 * You have me all wrong. I have no hostile feelings towards you. I am not frustrated by your somewhat unorthodox application of WP:BLP. I fully accept it when other editors have different views; that's what the consensus process is for. What irked me was the reverse: after all my explanations you were still claiming on the article's talk page that your view was the only correct one. It is also beyond me why you seem to think I was not acutely aware, right from the start, of the analogy you mention. I thought you would see that it doesn't matter for me which side I'm editing on (if any). This was an extra reason for me to play this by the book exactly as I did then and exactly as I have done ever since my understanding of WP:BLP and other policies had fully matured and only needed regular exposure to various editors and policy pages to enable me to sense current developments in the wider community. I challenge you to find any articles I have edited since then where I violate BLP as I have explained it to others (which is exactly the same as Jossi sees it by the way - he and I may not agree on the status of QW as a RS but that's not policy related and certainly subject to consensus).


 * It's funny how you keep seeing me as a Barrett proponent. I'm telling you three times: I couldn't care less. The only real beef I have in the world is with people who prey on/use/hurt/denigrate chronically ill or dying patients. This is related to Barrett; it makes me side with Barrett on some occasions, and against him on others.


 * However, we will not be able to interact civilly*) if you believe I was lashing out emotionally when I wrote my "pattern" observation. I'm sorry, but as much as I believe that you are genuine, I still see what I see. I'm afraid much more will be needed to make me change my mind on this. Avb 20:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * *) To prevent any misunderstandings: I mean, if you regard my questions to other editors based on my honest opinion as somehow inappropriate - without giving the other editors a chance to respond (and I was clearly ready to change my mind if others disagreed), you will regard quite a bit more from me as incivil in the future (if I decide to stay). And I, in turn, will regard much of your responses as incivility (presumably more removals of my concerns regarding contentious editing, which is more problematic than incivility or stepping on the toes of process wonks any day). Avb 21:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You have me all wrong. And my application of BLP is no more unorthodox than yours. It seems that what I had been stating from the beginning of the thread at Clark (that primary sourced court document alone constitutes BLP violation) was exactly correct. I never claimed that my view was the only correct one (as you claim above), but I did defend my position. And when a new position came along which was satisfactory to me, I did change my mind. But then Jossi brought it back to my original contention - that a primary sourced court document needs a third-party source to report on it (which I learned from you during the Barrett Board Certification discussions). To me the analogy is precise and I am wondering why you were against inclusion of Barrett's lack of Board Certification when we had a court record, his own admission, and several third-party references including two trade publications and a couple of research papers, but now in favor of inclusion of materials on Clark presented only on an affidavit republished on Barrett's site. To me there was an inconsistency there (which may just come down to opinions about the RS status of Quackwatch in terms of Clark versus the RS status of Dynamic Chiropractic in terms of Barret. Fortunately, at Clark we had two clear third-party sources located and the discussion about Quackwatch as an RS for Clark became moot.


 * Has it escaped you that I supported you? You are conflating policy and editor opinion. Although we clearly disagree on the acceptability of QW as a source here, I clearly supported your application of policy at that point (just like I had corrected the incorrect application you had picked up earlier at ANI - which was meant to help you as you gave up where you were right to begin with). As to claiming your view is the only correct one, it would help if you added "in my opinion" where you want to prevent that impression. And it was not during the discussion but in your summary of its outcome that you went off on a tangent and reached a point where I could not fully support your application of several policies. As I'm sure I've explained before.


 * This is sound advice and I will take it to heart. Certainly qualifying my statements would help others recognize that I am the last editor here suffering from knowitallism. I am frequently wrong and have admitted being so even more frequently, it would seem.


 * I can certainly testify to one count of the latter. Avb 12:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you think I see you as a Barrett proponent? I don't. Even if I did, it wouldn't make a difference to me. Why do you think just the opposite of me in terms of Barrett. If you check my edit history, you will note that there are times when I feel Quackwatch serves as an excellent RS and I have gone to great lengths to defend its use as a source. Like you, I have a beef with real quacks.


 * Why do you think I see you as a Barrett proponent?  --> Because you said "I can completely relate to your frustration" (as well as earlier interactions). I was not frustrated at all. Why do you think just the opposite of me  --> because you said you were frustrated back then (as well as earlier interactions).


 * Please know that I not a Barrett-hater or basher nor am I on a rampage to delete as many of his links as possible (as many have falsely described me and my activities). With regards to HRC, I think (in my opinion) that my removal there was entirely justified per BLP until the true third-party sources were discovered. You will note that now I have no issue with the Quackwatch links now that BLP is being properly respected. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you still can't AGF with me. All I try to do is edit and discuss things with civility. If you look back at this discussion we just had at Clark, I challenge to find a diff where I wasn't living up to this.


 * We even seem to disagree on the meaning of AGF. In my understanding I'm assuming good faith with you when I assume you genuinely believe you are helping build this encyclopedia. Which I don't just assume - I actually believe you're genuine, and have said so too. Another example: when I'm saying that HRC believes she's doing good work. Nevertheless, your editing pattern is very clear to me. Yet I am sure you believe you are not doing what I say you're doing. It is my considered opinion that you are not intentionally following or generating this pattern. But you should also AGF with me and assume or believe that I am not talking about this pattern to hurt, bait or insult you. I'm saying these things because I've been seeing deleterious consequences for far too long.


 * Can you please describe the pattern which you are mentioning then, because otherwise I am lost by what you mean here. At this point I am not sure what you are even saying I am doing or what you mean by deleterious consequences.


 * See below Avb 12:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I still think garnering opinions about my editing at the Clark talk page is ill-placed. You would be better to bring it to my talk page per WP:TALK or even to a WP:RFC/U as Ronz has suggested. I know you want to keep the discussion contained to that which was discussed only at the Clark article. I appreciate that. Again, I challenge you to go back through the entire discussion there and show me any diffs where I was acting with incivility or in an otherwise disruptive manner. I also wouldn't mind getting feedback from completely uninvolved editors. When all I here is the same complaints from the same editors who I view as uncivil (not you), I tend to just view their remarks as harassment. I respect your opinion though, I would love to see what you find in terms of diffs coupled with an explanation of why you feel I was being uncivil or disruptive.


 * The reason I came back was that you were editing civilly. My mini-RfC/U is clearly not about incivility.


 * Then what is it about? My understanding of BLP? -- Levine2112 discuss 00:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * About my perception of your editing pattern. Avb 01:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And is that perception that my edits are anti-Barrett and pro-Quackery? I hope not. That is certainly not true, but rather a mischaracterization which some editors are trying hard to peddle around here. I am pro-Wikipedia and if that means that I deem it fit to replace a partisan/unreliable source with a more neutral and reliable one, so be it. If that means that I see it fit to remove possible BLP violations and then participate in civil discussions to find out if it is indeed a violation, so be it. Really read the HRC discussion from the beginning of the BLP inquiry. I think you will see that I am very consistent in my position and it has nothing to do with anti-Barrett or Pro-Quackery but rather has everything to do with BLP and making a better article. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I read the HRC discussion before commenting on the incorrect advice you had received at ANI. I've been following the rest (talk, boards, user talk) in real-time. I don't generally butt in to support a deletion without being fully aware of what's (been) going on. Anyway - I can see that I and other editors have been unsuccessful in conveying to you the "pattern" problem I'm talking about here. I'll try to do a better job shortly; watch this space. I won't bow out without tying loose ends. Avb 12:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do hope we can get past this, and I really don't want you to leave over this. I think it is an idle threat to show how serious you feel this is... at least I hope that's what it is. Stick around and we may continue to find more common ground between us than either of us ever imagined. Respectfully, -- Levine2112 discuss 23:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(Indent) Comment; I think this paragraph above is a good example of what Avb has been trying to say to you about how your comments are antagonistic and at time personal opinions without thought of what was actually said. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  16:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Response - Really? How? Please show me your analysis to help me understand because I am unable to see anything antagonistic about it. But I would love to understand your perspective on it. -- Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 17:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Response Well to me this comment is rude and uncivil to me and I think that these kind of postings are what people are talking about. "I do hope we can get past this, and I really don't want you to leave over this. I think it is an idle threat to show how serious you feel this is... at least I hope that's what it is." Italics are mine to show what part I am talking about. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  22:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Response What is rude and uncivil to you? That I asked you what you mean. I am really trying to understand where you are coming from . I have read and re-read the statement over and over again and I cannot detect any incivility. Please do more than cite where you feel I am being uncivil but also explain to me why you deem it so (maybe what you think I mean). I am confounded. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss  01:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(indent)Responding and clarifying Sorry for the unclear wording of "Well to me this comment is rude and uncivil to me"; but you should have be able to see what I meant by the insert of the quote of what you said to Avb. You weren't rude and uncivil to me, you were to Avb thus the reasoning of putting in quotes, I think it is an idle threat to show how serious you feel this is.... To me this is still another example of you not reading and understanding what other editors are saying to you. I hope you now understand that it's not me that I was talking about above, it was Avb. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  10:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Response. I humbly disagree. I was not being rude nor uncivil. In fact I was being quite the opposite if you read it all in context. I was encouraging AvB to stay and hoping that we can find common ground. How you are find incivility in this message of respect and hope is beyond my understanding. I think you should re-read it while assuming some good faith on my part. I feel that a number of editors in your group, Crohnie, have failed to ever assume good faith on my part and perhaps this is why you keep turning sour on me with little reason. As with AvB, I hope you and I can find common ground and work together more fruitfully in the future. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is not an idle threat. It isn't even a threat. I'm gone. But note that this isn't about something you did. And - like JzG - I'll probably be unable to stay away for very long. And I'm sure this would all look easier when we could see eye to eye and have a nice glass of absinth together. HRC would like that - it contains wormwood. Avb 00:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you are not gone. And if you are, I hope you will be back. I tried absinthe once. I got a wicked headache for about 5 minutes and then found myself laughing at the absurdity Fellini's "8 1/2", which apparently was not actually playing at the time. ;-) -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 00:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't actually tried it yet, but having visited the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam twice in recent weeks it seems the right thing to do. Perhaps it will make me see Miquel Blay's extraordinary Los primeros fríos (the second one he did) in 3D. :-D Avb 01:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe try the Escher Museum in The Hague. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 03:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion
Expect very little from others and you won't be disappointed, especially when it comes to AGF and CIVIL. Too often, I see AGF and CIVIL just brought up as an excuse to attack others. Best to just chill and not feed the trolls. I've also found it helpful to just suggest they take their AFG and CIVIL complaints to WP:WQA. --Ronz 23:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I share your original disappointment regarding these rules. Perhaps I'm too optimistic (and I'm sometimes told I am too tolerant) but I believe that most people can learn to assume good faith - after all, most people are acting in good faith most of the time, so it is not as if they don't have an example to study. It's mainly a matter of correspondence bias I guess.


 * Please keep up the good work. Avb 01:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read what's been going on and I am going to be honest with you Avb. You take a time out to reset yourself and then you get yourself back here.  We need editors like you here at Wikipedia.  I need editors like you here too!  Remember we made a deal to help each other when needed and you can't keep up the deal if you are not here.  Things get tense and this you know.  Leave the articles that are upsetting you so much, I did, and go work on something you enjoy.  I am getting set up with some other editors to some work on the Crohn's disease article and some other articles related to CD.  You are more than welcome to come join us when we get pictures and some other things approved through the process.  Email me and I'll fill you in on this.  You might enjoy it, I know I am excited about something here for the first time since starting Wikipedia.  Oh, ping, you have mail! :)  Seriously, please stay, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring
Hi, I just checked in and saw how you refactored the talk-page at SSB. Thanks very much for that, it is clearly a violation of my personal information and, along with other indiscretions, has been duly reported but I'll just have to wait until that admin gets online to deal with it.

In any case, I'm not sure if dispute resolution is even necessary because for me there is no dispute, it seems to be only one-way. You may already have guessed that I've been away from Wikipedia for several months because of all this "politics" behind the articles and I'm stunned to come back just a few days ago and find myself the victim of all these personal attacks again. But anyhow I'd really rather not get into all of these processes again and am just here to write articles and contribute to the encyclopaedia. There's no use in me bringing up COI issues because if I am to be transparent, it is plainly apparent that I could be accused of COI too. I guess people will just have to judge me by the quality of my edits to see if they improve the article or not.

Anyhow, I hope you will stay with the article and help to write it. This article has been troublesome precisely because the main writers had agendas to pursue. It would be very much helpful if several impartial editors like yourself were on board, who can impartially judge the quality of sources. I think it will be a pleasure working with you. - Ekantik talk 23:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, I demand that other comments by Ekantik are also refractored. I mean those where he refers to the site in question as "slanderous" and uses other similar terms in reference to it. It is of particular importance as the owner, author & webmaster of this site is a Wikipedian - user:SSS108. Best regards, Kkrystian 20:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Saw your recent edit on you user page
If you need to talk or whatever, don't hesitate to email me. As you know, sometime venting outside the site helps get calmness back. Anyways, what I am saying, terribly too, is if you need to 'chat' don't hesitate to contact me. :) -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)