User talk:Filll/Archive 19

response
I wrote on my talk page why a factually written, neutral plot summary is needed. After that, an analysis of the film can be done (of which I'll let others do most of the work). For theatrical films, the plot section isn't constantly interrupted by commentary about how the scene had bloopers, is stupid or unrealistic. The commentary is always later. Fairchoice (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So the plot section should be short and just include a few known facts like who is being interviewed. I see the butchering of the plot section or not having one as an attack on the film industry, even if not the intention. If you make a film, you should be given the courtesy of a WP plot section if there is an article in WP. '''If you want to know my agenda, it is not pro or anti intelligent design. It is fair treatment of the film and entertainment industry.''' Having a simple plot section is one way to show this. Why I am compared to Profg, I haven't the foggiest clue. It's an insult. Fairchoice (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy article probation notification
You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. &mdash;Whig (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So you are telling me that my edit is disruptive? in what way?--Filll (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am notifying you of the article probation, according to the terms of which editors must be individually notified before its provisions become enforceable. Please draw no inference as to specific edits, but going forward be mindful of the stated policies. &mdash;Whig (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do believe this is uncivil. Please retract it. &mdash;Whig (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I will strike it out, but I believe that is the defnition of WP:AGF. I know what it looks like, but I am going to assume otherwise.--Filll (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what you are talking about it looking like, but thank you for striking it. &mdash;Whig (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On second observation, striking your comment only to repeat it is still uncivil. If you won't retract this we should seek mediation. &mdash;Whig (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What the heck? Ok I will remove it. What???---Filll (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whig, you probably need to explain why you think it incivil. I have noticed that there seems to be a pattern to what and whom you seem to have "civil" problems with.  Rather than continuing it is probably better for all editors that they have clarity with your definition of "civil" rather than them continually falling into error.  Shot info (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. However, I decline to go further thanks.--Filll (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whig, of you and Filll, who do you think is closer to a community ban based on various RfC's and other actions? Just was wondering.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 03:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Note
I responded to the confusion on the Homeopathy page. Anthon01 (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder who is trying to "win"?
It's an interesting list Shot info (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is bad. I am not sure I want to stand there and get shot at.--Filll (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you even bother with the ASPOVpushers. Leave them for our ever loving and caring admins.  Shot info (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a break
You need to back off on the homeopathy stuff, man. Nothing will be served by getting yourself blocked. As always civility matters far more than content; if you can't stand to be obsequious toward the homeopathy types better to leave it alone, as there's an admin or two itching to nail the scalps of science-oriented editors to his or her wall. I've found I'm much calmer since staying out of that cesspit. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with the above assessment. Also note "admins" are quite a diverse and non-coordinated species (per your comment on RFAR) - when I was a user I used to hold them in awe but since becoming an admin I can see for myself that the admin community (presently numbering about 1,500) is at times as divided as the user community it tries to assist, with many acting alone often without awareness of what goes on at AN/I and the like (not helped by the shadow of its former self that venue has become), with others forming different groups or blocs, some of which are centred on particular editors or admins, others which are centred on particular issues or stances. This of course gives the impression of inconsistent rulings.
 * Also with some of the more controversial issue with dozens of pages of discussion across a number of venues with people on both sides hurling accusations and in some cases twisting the facts to suit their own needs (note I have not examined the Homeopathy debate in any great depth, so I'm importing commentary from other disputes) admins who are neutral but somewhat time-poor give up trying to figure out who is right and who is wrong, and don't participate at all. This narrows the field of admins who will actually get involved. I took on an article which keeps going to Arbcom Enforcement a while back and achieved some positive results, but it takes real work. Also, sometimes you can't please anyone - I took on the Coloane topic ban issue, got a resolution and acted upon it, only to be criticised by one side for leniency and the other for use of excessive force. Orderinchaos 12:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would second the above, and add that the (vast) majority of admins are experienced enough and sane enough to understand the role of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT on a topic like homeopathy. The playing field is, in fact, slanted dramatically in favor of the mainstream view. But it's much tougher for an uninvolved admin to enforce NPOV than it is to enforce civility or other behavioral policies. In that respect, as Raymond says, civility does often trump content, especially to the reviewer who's looking into a complex dispute from the outside. That is not an ideal situation, but it's reality. Being visibly angry, or irascible, or whatever obscures the soundness of your WP:NPOV- and WP:WEIGHT-based arguments. Don't take the bait. You have policy on your side on the content issues; don't throw that away by disregarding the primacy that the community (rightly or wrongly) is according to civility in this instance. MastCell Talk 18:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never cursed on WP. I do not attack people personally or otherwise make ad hominem arguments, or at least certainly try to avoid it. I have tried to avoid uncivil comments, although I was told that using the phrase "homeopathy promoter" was uncivil, and even trying to AGF and announce I was doing it was uncivil (above). This just gets to be too much, frankly.

I have placed myself first on 0RR for months and now do not edit the mainspace texts of these articles at all, although I have made almost no edits to the mainspace of homeopathy for many weeks (last was first week of December 2007 or so). Now I have decided to retreat even further and not edit the talk pages of these articles either to avoid upsetting anyone and adding to the incredible volumes of repeated and meaningless spam material. I am not sure I will do any voting on AfDs or other pages since this might be viewed negatively. I might at some point continue with my sandbox version of articles related to homeopathy, but only on my own schedule when things have died down and the environment is not so toxic and hostile. Too many people are too upset and too angry, about basically nothing, as far as I am concerned. --Filll (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, just take a break. I've trimmed my watchlist down to two mainspace articles and -- especially -- no Wikispace pages like WP:AN or WP:ANI. Now I'm much happier. If people start fighting over Curing cancer by levitation or Telepathic geomorphology they're welcome to it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean you can't cure cancer by levitation? Raymond, nice sentiment, but who's going to watch the ship?  I've said this until I'm blue in the face (and I didn't go to Duke), but as long as Wiki articles are in the top 3 or 4 on Google for medical articles, then we have an obligation to keep it SPOV.  And there are places where we are doing some good.  I did a lot of cleaning up of Alzheimer's disease from the CAM crap, and there two or three other devoted editors helping out.  The article is beginning to round into shape.  We have to keep the crazy articles out.  And stress is a good thing--great things happen by stress.  If this were easy, then high school dropouts can do write the articles, but it isn't easy, and smart people are needed here to keep the high-school dropouts and diploma mill cretinists from harming the project.  But I do agree, I really try to stay out of the Wiki-legal BS, other than contributing to a couple of ArbComms and RfC's, and I'm thinking that even those are stressful.  I also found not responding to the monthly AN/I's against me usually mean they'll whither away.  Just focusing on the articles.  But we need you and Mast Cell and Filll.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Note 2
Re: Randy Blackamoor: Point taken regarding the taunting. The rest is simply your opinion. Even though you've chosen hyperbole, I will still accept the friendly advice regarding taunting. IMO, the hyperbole is from you constantly have to defend the indefensible, misuse of citations on the homeopathy talk page, whether accidentally or by design. Perhaps, in addition, a message on my talk page would have been more helpful as you provided for Randy in the next section. That certainly would have been a friendly gesture. Anthon01 (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry this is far far too dangerous and I would like to stay out of it. Please take this time to reflect on your behavior here and try to work constructively with others. We are not your enemies, we just want to follow the rules and produce something of value for readers, not some sort of promotional tract. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note: I intent to aggressively defend myself against the charges of stonewalling. BTW, were you in anyway involved in getting me banned? Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with it but I have seen nothing to make me doubt its reasonableness. I have seen months of disruption and editing completely against WP policies, thanks to you, your socks and your friends. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Prove it. Who are my sock(s) and friends. I am going to ask for admin advice on how to get you to stop making these unsubstantiated claims. You are being uncivil and are wikistalking me. There is no finding that I have socks, but 1 sock used on 1 day at the very beginning of December. Anthon01 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me? How have I wikistalked you? I want nothing more to do with you, given such outrageous statements. I gave you some friendly advice to please moderate your tone and behavior. It is up to you to take it or not, but I do not have high hopes given this post.

I apologize if you feel I have been uncivil but I do not want to fight with you. I apologize if this is not to your taste. I will not engage further in such nonsense. You can deal with the administrative structures of WP and I would ask you to stop your harassment if you can. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

'''You've falsely accuse me of having socks(note plural)? But there exist no proof of that.''' How could you characterize this as being helpful or friendly? Other read these posts. The might take your comment as the truth, even though we both know you are wrong in fact and in spirit. If you would provide friendly support without exaggerating by involvement, then we could have a constructive discussion. I have seen months of disruption and editing completely against WP policies, thanks to you, your socks and your friends. This is not about my socks and friends. This about me and only me. Conflating me with others is not helpful if you are intending to be helpful. I have no friends here. And I had 1 sock only that I used on 1 day for 1.5 hours. Anthon01 (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok you claim that you have no socks. Ok fair enough. I will let others judge for themselves. I know the allegations and I have seen some evidence, but I will WP:AGF on the part of everyone and wait and see. However, it is a bit much to first claim you never had a sock, and then admit you had a sock. However, maybe I am not understanding something. I will wait and see.


 * The disruption description is only my personal observation which is bolstered by that of the admin who administered this. Maybe I am suffering from computer problems and it is not what it appears. Please provide me with a link to the apology from the relevant admins for mistakenly delivering this remedy against you and a link for the rescinding of this article ban. If you can do so, I will be glad to redact any of my comments about that. I am sure you can provide diffs of an apology and evidence that this remedy has been rescinded, correct?


 * My friendly support and advice would be: Do not be a WP:DICK. Can you do that? Good luck.--Filll (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: I have no friends here

Try to change your mode of operation and you might make some friends here. We try to cooperate and do things by consensus and work productively together.--Filll (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe we can be friends. Perhaps this is all a misunderstanding. Please help. Please point to the diff where I said I never has a sock. Anthon01 (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anthon, please quit bothering Filll. There is no point to this argument. Filll, I hope you don't mind me interjecting. &mdash;Whig (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ecce epulum amoris! &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 00:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Filll, I wanna be your friend too, but before we do that, can you stop breathing :-) ? Shot info (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, sarcasm; and some admin said sarcasm was ineffective. ;)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 07:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This would be the admin where "involvment" is a number of edits that is greater than zero but less than the number another admin is thinking of? :-) Shot info (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, that's him. But, in all fairness, you know those non-trivial numbers can be confusing.  ;)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 08:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify who you are replying to on What the Bleep talk page
Could you please indent your reply or at least indicate which editor you are replying to in your response? The discussions are already hard enough to follow or respond to. Thank you.Awotter (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Macroevolution
Where in the article is (Theobald 2004)? I do not see anything for either "Theobald" or "2004". If we're going to use Harvard citations, let's use 'em right and hyperlink. --Adoniscik (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not write that. It was probably written under previous rules etc. I am sure you can find the correct reference if you want to do some work. Or if you want to do some work, you can find another 50 references that say the same thing. I have a bunch on evolution as theory and fact and TalkOrigins has a bunch more. If you would like to roll up your sleeves and do some work, please do, and feel free. Otherwise, these things will get fixed when they get fixed.--Filll (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not who wrote it, under what rules, or when it will get fixed. Mysteriously there is a Theobold 2004 being cited, but there is no citation. Presumably somebody familiar with the subject knows the reference and can correct it. Having listened to your response, I'm going to revert your reversion since it does not address my concern. --Adoniscik (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok clearly you are unwilling to do any work and just want to fight. Fine. I figured as much.--Filll (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll, let's step aside for a moment and consider the situation as observers. What kind of a encyclopedia, or scholarly article can get away with making unsourced references? Would you do that in a journal? Surely not. Finally, a cursory look at my contribution history should reveal I am not at all lazy. Happy Chinese New Year. --Adoniscik (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not care what your contributions are. Trying to pick a fight with me on this and avoid actually doing any work is not a good idea. But so be it. --Filll (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess my alter ego must have edited half a dozen articles over the course of our debate, since I'm "not doing any work". (I note your entries are mostly Talk page debates...) 'Nuff said. Cya :) --Adoniscik (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well let's see. You have had your account on Wikipedia 18 months longer than I have, but I have 7.93 times as many mainspace edits as you do, and I have 15.47 times as many total edits as you do. You appear to flit aimlessly from article to article doing nothing of any value whatsoever, since you are clearly not building an encyclopedia and have only 1.74 edits per page and I have 9.8 edits per page. Hmmm...You look pretty bad here. Especially since it is trivial to find and about 50 other references. This is not rocket science. Do some work actually building an encyclopedia instead of just being disruptive and getting into fights. You make me laugh you are so pitiful with your abuse. --Filll (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ladies...come on, be nice :-) Shot info (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I get tired of people who just complain but never do any work. I think they should WP:Sofixit.--Filll (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops
Sorry about that Toddst1 (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Like a barnstar, but different


WLU (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Request for your input
Aargh, so sorry Filll, but I am completely swamped right now for at least the next month, probably more.--Margareta (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No rush.--Filll (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I am pretty sure a couple of your unreferenced falsifiability tests can be found in The Blind Watchmaker.--Margareta (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh interesting. Well that sounds good. --Filll (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/pro
Came across this copy of the article while looking for articles to link to Caroline Crocker. You're listed as its creator. Do you have any further use for it? If not, you should probably speedy it, as it's attracting petty vandalism]. HrafnTalkStalk 09:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, gotta rush and do other things myself, but note that the texax baptist source also mentions that Dembski appearing in the film, albeit not as a "persecutee". Don't remember that being mentioned previously.... dave souza, talk 19:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Scent of a Woman
The first link to the script is fine. The second one is spam, however, which I reverted. Ward3001 (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt your good faith in the edit. I just wanted to avoid the spam. I think it's OK to indicate without a link that the script comes from Drew's Script-O-Rama, but the second link you added doesn't go directly to the script, and it does go to a page loaded with adverts. I think this way would be OK: Scent Of A Woman Script - Dialogue Transcript from Drew's Script-O-Rama. Ward3001 (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

SPA new section
I moved some of our comments back up to the other section. See this edit. I hope this works (feel free to revert)  for you to try and avoid contamination of your new section. David D. (Talk) 19:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Contamination is an interesting word choice. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In what sense? Oh, I get it I'm being unkind to someone. I thought the mandate you are after is to judge first? David D. (Talk) 03:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fairchoice
Did you notice the latest drama? Archtransit desysopped Turns out one of his socks was fairchoice. David D. (Talk) 17:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strange. So he blocked and unblocked his own socks and got into fights with them and lectured them and so on? Weird.--Filll (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just bizarre. I suppose for some the whole thing is more a performance than an encyclopedia. At least they closed the door on the guy. David D. (Talk) 23:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel sort of stupid since I was in an editing dispute with Fairchoice. Archtransit stepped in to block him for me, but Fairchoice was very uspet about it. I went to Archtransit to plead with him to give Fairchoice another chance, since he seemed willing to try to reform and I thought Archtransit had been a bit excessive in blocking him so fast and for so long. Now it turns out they are the same person?? I feel weird about it.--Filll (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Who could have known? Certainly you have to wonder about the sanity of some people we are editing side by side with here, let alone their agenda. David D. (Talk) 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sources
The real worry for me is the "illustrate a point of view" argument. In articles like the one on the holocaust, I do not want editors to be able to quote Nazis to illustrate the point of view that the holocaust did not happen. That's fine in the article about holocaust denial, but not in mainstream articles. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem arises I think when it is a clearly a WP:FRINGE POV, maybe held by 0.1% or less of relevant organizations or individuals, and we dedicate 30% or 60% of the article and the sources to this 0.1% position, when the article is not about the 0.1% position, but the mainstream topic.


 * So in the case of homeopathy, I do not mind if 70% of the sources are homeopathic sources and 30% are mainstream sources although homeopathy might be a 1% or less position. What is troubling is in articles like Charles Darwin to find a big section promoting homeopathy, when Darwin himself wrote extensively that homeopathy is nonsense, and the best scholars are not even sure how much contact with homeopathy Darwin had, in spite of our narrow extreme homeopathy sources claiming otherwise. --Filll (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's more a NPOV issue. This change would impact when a point of view is clearly notable (such as holocaust denial, creationism etc), but unsupported by reliable sources. If we allow entirely unreliable sources to be used to illustrate these notable points of view in mainstream articles, it blows a hole through the whole of the verifiability policy. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well NPOV is tied up in this, I am afraid. I like the ability to use fruitcake sources to illustrate fruitcake positions, in some circumstances, as long as things do not get out of hand.--Filll (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok maybe if we stated something like: "On a general topic, mainstream views and marginal views should be presented in proportion to their prominence, in both amount of text and number of sources, but in a FRINGE topic, about the marginal view itself, there can be more sources and more text devoted to the FRINGE position, but only to a reasonable extent"(whatever that is determined to be). I think having firm guidelines as to what exactly should be the proportions, with examples, would be very helpful. Clearly in articles like creationist articles, and alternative medicine, and holocaust articles, and "race" articles, and so on, we need clearer guidelines. The problem is the current FRINGE advocates are running wild and we cannot reign them in without clearer guidelines, particularly when we say WP:AGF but that does not work too well in many of these circumstances.--Filll (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's already covered by the NPOV policy "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Tim Vickers (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but can we create rules similar to NPOV to apply to sources? For example, suppose we are working on an article about African Americans. Assorted Black Supremacist groups like the Nation of Islam, or the Nation of Israel or the Black Panthers are clearly fringe groups. In an article about the Nation of Islam, we could use a few Nation of Islam sources about themselves. But suppose we determine that the Nation of Islam constitutes a position that is held by abot 10% of all African Americans. And we have 100 mainstream sources about African Americans; could we not have a few (not necessarily as many as 10, but a few ) sources from the Nation of Islam in the African American article? Or is that giving undue weight to the Nation of Islam's views about African Americans?--Filll (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a common misconception that prominence applies to how common a view is, but it doesn't, it applies to the prominence of views in reliable sources. In the NPOV policy it says "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." It is how prominent a view is in reliable sources that determines the weight we give it in articles, not how prominent this view is in the population. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a reasonable position, however by that measure we would have a lot of problems finding sources for some FRINGE topics. For example, how many pro-homeopathy reliable sources are there? Very few I would claim. By that measure, we would have a very hard time describing some topics. There are reliable sources about creationist beliefs, but there is nothing like using the creationist source itself because a mainstream description about creationism is often somewhat filtered. I like being able to dip right into the really extreme views and highlight them, which I think is valuable for the readers and makes the articles far more interesting than some bland description.--Filll (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That depends on how you define the subject, it is a sliding scale. You don't mention homeopathy at all in the article on medicine, outline it in alternative medicine, and discuss it in detail in homeopathy. Fringe, unreliable sources are OK in an article on the views of particular homeopaths, to show what these views are, but can't under the current NPOV and V policies be used to add these views to the article on medicine. The policies interlink to support each other. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That I would agree with. For example, in the case of an article on Charles Darwin, it is definitely not notable to discuss how wonderful homeopathy is, and how it cured him (when it is not clear how much homeopathic treatment he had, and Darwin himself wrote bitterly about how stupid homeopathy is) based on a homeopathy promoting source. Nevertheless, that is what we are facing, and some admins are even supporting this.--Filll (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder about this requirement/guideline from WP:EL: That is, that we should avoid any source such as: Frankly, that leaves out almost all sources for WP:FRINGE material.--Filll (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
 * I saw that, too. Almost pointed it out...then I just shook my head & tried to make reasonable headway over there. I fully agree with your point that there should be a "good measure of sources on all sides". &mdash; Scientizzle 01:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and minority topics
I have added a discussion here. Since you know a lot about it I thought I'd let you know. Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Evolution as theory and fact/rewrite3
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JASpencer (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Evolution as theory and fact/rewrite3
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Evolution as theory and fact/rewrite3, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Evolution as theory and fact/rewrite3. JASpencer (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Or
The alternative is, just more assertion but still just as civil as ever until such time a content-pusher snaps....and get's blocked. Then the assertion can become the fact. Tis the way of Civility.... Shot info (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is extremely dangerous. And frankly I think doomed to failure. At least at the moment, I think the only option is for Wikipedia to fail spectacularly and be a huge embarassment so that maybe some policies are changed a bit.--Filll (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That may well happen; in most large, bureaucratic organizations (and let's face it, Wikipedia is one) it takes a train wreck to spur meaningful change. In the meantime we're only hurting ourselves by not playing the civility game. Handing a weapon to your opponent doesn't make sense. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I find not playing the game and letting the other more civil side enjoy their game on their own to be the better policy. Then when the supervisiors see their television ratings slipping - because the audience is not interested - then some policy changes will be effected.  Until content becomes the reason for an Encyclopedia, there is no reason to edit.  WikiMyspace indeed :-)  Shot info (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear friend, you are too forthright and free of guile. You need to experience the sheer joy that comes from beating a dysfunctional system using its own rules. Go read Catch 22 and year's worth of Dilbert strips. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * O I know that joy :-/ Shot info (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

AN/I
Don't take this the wrong way, but maybe could you back off a little? You've made your point; others are now seeing the concerns and taking it up. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Nothing succeeds like excess.--Filll (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and H
You've made the same exact comments over and over again and effectively had the discussion diverted and moved from the NPOV page. I will pursue admin assistance if you persists. Anthon01 (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me? How dare you make such threats! I tried to explain NPOV to you. You rejected my explanations over and over and over. So I acquiesced and surrendered and invited you to go ahead and rewrite the policy (which is what that talk page is for), or make whatever changes to the article that suited your fancy (which I believe is what you were after). I told you repeatedly, over and over and over that you had won and I did not want to fight. And for surrendering and telling you that you have won, you have decided that I have violated the rules of Wikipedia? In what way? How dare you make such insinuations and such threats! What on earth?--Filll (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The repetition ends up diverting the conversation and is disruptive. If you go back to the NPOV and try to divert the discussion again I will seek admin assistance. Now I've said it twice. I will not say it again. I will also address you conflict of interest issue later. I will also address an apparent conflict of interest issue later. Anthon01 (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I do repeat things in different ways when people are not able or are unwilling to absorb the information, for a variety of reasons. And now you are in a bad faith way accusing me of violating WP:COI? How? After accusing me repeatedly of violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? I think I have had enough.--Filll (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not revert my edit. That NPOV page displays all the text. I hid parts that were off-topic. Anthon01 (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, please WP:AGF. You did it incorrectly.--Filll (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What text did I lose. Please provide a diff or quote. Thank you. Anthon01 (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Leave it as it is now and it is fine. Your last "hide" did not work properly and you lost all the text you supposedly were hiding. When you make a drastic change, test all your "hide" buttons to make sure they are operating. And please WP:AGF. --Filll (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I will not leave it as is. I intend to hide the off topic parts. I've asked for help in identifying where the problem is. You have refused, so I will do it myself. Anthon01 (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I suggested methods you could try to fix the problem. Please proceed with those. I am not an expert in this kind of formatting. If you need help, please seek out technical assistance from a more experienced editor.--Filll (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thakns for your help. Anthon01 (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Any time. Glad to be of service.--Filll (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It turns out that Levine's signiture is the problem. I will be looking for a way around it. Also I have no intention at this time of rewording NPOV. I was looking for input on interpretation from non-involved editors. For future reference, repeating the same thing 10 times is unnecesary in my case. Twice maybe. I got you the very first time. Anthon01 (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, past experience has demonstrated that this is a false statement. I ask you to please WP:AGF and not make such uncivil comments again or I will ask an admin to block you for violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I am outraged that you would behave in such a manner.--Filll (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please show me where I have been uncivil? Anthon01 (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thakns for your help. is sarcastic and uncivil


 * There are numerous examples of refusing to WP:AGF above and in the reversions and edit summaries


 * Also I have no intention at this time of rewording NPOV is sarcastic and ludicrous since you went to a page that is intended for rewriting NPOV and now claim you do not want to, after arguing about it for months on end and thousands of edits. Frankly, this is not believable, with all due respect and I view your wording as a violation of WP:CIVIL.


 * I was looking for input on interpretation from non-involved editors. I find this highly uncivil since you invited me to participate and now are complaining that I am involved. You have wasted my time and engaged in tendentious argumentation and violation of WP:TE, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL by this comportment, which I take umbrage at and I take as a severe personal affront.


 * For future reference, repeating the same thing 10 times is unnecesary in my case. I find this a highly uncivil comment and a violation of WP:AGF. When you ask the same question again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again over and over and over and over and over and over and argue and argue and argue and argue about the answer you get if it is not the one you want, and then complain that someone has answered you repeatedly in the same way, this is a bit disingenuous and is a severe violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and WP:TE and is highly disruptive. I am highly offended by this.


 * Twice maybe. I got you the very first time. I find this a highly snide, sarcastic, derogatory, insulting, vulgar, snippy, disrespectful, brusque and offensive. This tone is unwelcome in my presence and I find your comportment and egregious flippancy to be beyond the pale. Please reign yourself in and do NOT engage in such further obnoxious combative discourse.--Filll (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is highly unacceptable. You are NOT allowed to edit someone else's comments and intersperse your comments in between. This is a gross violation of decency and respect. It is grounds for immediate administrative sanction. I demand you make amends immediately and revert your damage to my talk page and apologize copiously for this egregious affront. Absolutely sickening...--Filll (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anthon01, Filll has a point. The way you've responded makes it hard to distinguish who's saying what. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My apolgies, I will rewrite it. Anthon01 (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for messing up your page. Actually I have seen other editors do this to make it easy to respond to a list or long paragraphs. And Talk page policy says Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) ... I do agree with RA that it makes it hard to read. I don't agree that it is ''This is a gross violation of decency and respect. It is grounds for immediate admiminstrative sanction. I demand you make amends immediately and revert your damage to my talk page and apologize copiously for this egregious affront ... I don't see any reason to apologize  copiously .'' I would not suggest admin action over this as it would be IMO, a waste of their time. But if you decide to do that, I will be looking forward to their POV on what you call an egregious affront. Anthon01 (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Thank was a sincere thanks, since you did mention using the sandbox.

Also I have no intention at this time of rewording NPOV It certainly wasn't my intention. You've asked repeatedly to change NPOV. You said I did not say anything except invite you to rewrite NPOV as you see fit. I went to page where NPOV is often discussed. If you look carefully through the sections, you will see many examples of discussions on the correct interpretation of NPOV. Most of those are not intended to change NPOV but to clarify disagreements on interpretations.

I was looking for input on interpretation from non-involved editors. I said it on that page as a general comment. I said I posed this here in order to get POVs that are not from pro or anti-homeopathic editors and not from the pseudoscience group. in response to MastCell's post. Please note he didn't take it personally. I said that there because I had already gotten your interpretation and was looking for more input. I specifically started that section with '' ... What does appropriate reference mean? Is it a link to the majority POV or an exhaustive treatise.'' My mistake for not being clear. I wanted you to comment on what other editors might comment and not to repeat what you had already siad to me on the homeopathy talk page. I meant it to be a spirited discussion where greater clarity could be achieved on NPOV in regards to minority articles. For future reference, repeating the same thing 10 times is unnecesary in my case. I'm sorry, but I find you repeating it 10 times beyond belief. Please consider how you might react if I kept repeating the same thing to you over and over again. Anthon01 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

''Twice maybe. I got you the very first time.'' Sorry. I mean that sincerely. And I didn't mean it as an insult or as disrespect. I meant by that comment that, you can say something to me once maybe twice, but there is no need to repeat past that. If I don't get it the first time, I'll get it the second time. If it appears I didn't hear, it likely means I don't agree. Anthon01 (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to Anthon01
''Sorry for messing up your page. Actually I have seen other editors do this to make it easy to respond to a list or long paragraphs. And Talk page policy says "Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) ..." I do agree with RA that it makes it hard to read.''

So why do it? Just to be difficult?--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is "This is a gross violation of decency and respect."

It is up to me to decide what is uncivil to me and is not uncivil to me, not you. And since WP:CIVIL is paramount, this should be obvious to all and sundry.--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is grounds for immediate admiminstrative sanction.

I have seen it happen.--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

''"I demand you make amends immediately and revert your damage to my talk page and apologize copiously for this egregious affront ..." I don't see any reason to apologize "copiously ."''

That is not up to you to decide. Since you feel and your fellows of a similar POV can demand copious apologies, so can I. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Remember, WP:CIVIL is paramount. And you have contributed to this situation. So do not complain. Just apologize. Perhaps a thread at AN/I would be appropriate?--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would not suggest admin action over this as it would be IMO, a waste of their time.

That is not for you to decide. Remember, WP:CIVIL is paramount. --Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

''But if you decide to do that, I will be looking forward to their POV on what you call an "egregious affront." Anthon01 (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)''

''"Thanks for your help." Thank was a sincere thanks, since you did mention using the sandbox.''

I take it as surly and sarcastic and you do not get to judge how your messages are received since WP:CIVIL is paramount.--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also I have no intention at this time of rewording NPOV ''It certainly wasn't my intention. You've asked repeatedly to change NPOV.''

Absolutely not. That is a gross falsehood and misprepresentation and I demand that you apologize immediately and copiously and publicly. I never wanted to change NPOV except possibly to make it clearer. That is vile and offensive to suggest.--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

''You said "I did not say anything except invite you to rewrite NPOV as you see fit." I went to page where NPOV is often discussed. If you look carefully through the sections, you will see many examples of discussions on the correct interpretation of NPOV. Most of those are not intended to change NPOV but to clarify disagreements on interpretations.''

You have been given several dozen interpretations on that page and other pages which all basically agree with each other. Yet you persist. Why? Strikes me as tendentious disruptive editing, forum shopping, and uncivil behavior --Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"I was looking for input on interpretation from non-involved editors." ''I said it on that page as a general comment. I said "I posed this here in order to get POVs that are not from pro or anti-homeopathic editors and not from the pseudoscience group." in response to MastCell's post. Please note he didn't take it personally.''

How do you know he did not take it personally? That is an uncivil comment and assumption.--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

''I said that there because I had already gotten your interpretation and was looking for more input. I specifically started that section with " ... What does appropriate reference mean? Is it a link to the majority POV or an exhaustive treatise."''

You were given responses which you disagreed with, and then continued to pose the same query over and over, in an example of continual tendentious editing.--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

''My mistake for not being clear. I wanted you to comment on what other editors might comment and not to repeat what you had already siad to me on the homeopathy talk page. I meant it to be a spirited discussion where greater clarity could be achieved on NPOV in regards to minority articles.''

Spirited discussions are forbidden and uncivil since WP:CIVIL is paramount. --Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"For future reference, repeating the same thing 10 times is unnecesary in my case." ''I'm sorry, but I find you repeating it 10 times beyond belief. Please consider how you might react if I kept repeating the same thing to you over and over again. Anthon01 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)''

Actually you have repeated the same thing to me and others over and over and over again for 6 months or more. So how do you think we feel? Get the picture?--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Twice maybe. I got you the very first time." ''Sorry. I mean that sincerely. And I didn't mean it as an insult or as disrespect. I meant by that comment that, you can say something to me once maybe twice, but there is no need to repeat past that. If I don't get it the first time, I'll get it the second time. If it appears I didn't hear, it likely means I don't agree. Anthon01 (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)''

It is not up to you to decide what is an insult or disrespect. If you want to play this game, we can all play. Since WP:CIVIL is paramount, I can charge anything you say with being uncivil and a lack of WP:AGF. And since you want to do this, we will all do it. And it will be fun. See how much fun?--Filll (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Good luck. I'm not your problem. Note that one editor says your behavior can be seen as being stonewalling and a little melodramatic. Anthon01 (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am disengaging here. I will continue on the AN/I in full view of other editors. Anthon01 (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, as I said repeatedly, you are not at fault. So why do you not just edit accordingly as I have invited you to do dozens of times now? And if NPOV does not suit you, please feel free to make it clearer and more in line with what you think is suitable.--Filll (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:TE & WP:DE, not WP:COI
I sympathize with your dispute with these disruptive editors. I've been trying to deal with these very same editors, and others like them for a good year and a half. I'm still having regular difficulties with them and have found that few will even offer suggestions on how to deal with them, much less get involved themselves.

While they have conflicts of interest, it is not obvious enough to take any action against them through WP:COIN. The real problem is that they WP:DISRUPT Wikipedia and edit tendentiously. They are trolls. They have recently learned how to very effectively whine about how others treat them and about how others act. They've been especially successful in getting admins and others to respond to their complaints of incivility. Unfortunately, there is little recourse to take against them, and the options are ineffective. ANI, Arbcom, and RFC/U are the only real venues available. It's extremely frustrating. --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User: WAS 4.250 at User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal suggested that WP:COI might be easier to pin on them. Certainly it should be easier on User: DanaUllman who I gather is Dana Ullman. Several others have identified themselves as practicing homeopaths, like User: Anthon01. Others are more obscure, or just might be fans of homeopathy rather than real practitioners. User: Peter morrell is a real homeopath as well, but Peter is not a problem since Peter is willing to work within WP rules and principles. Peter obviously is not a SPA either since he has a wide range of extensive contributions here. I do not mind WP:COI as long as they are not disruptive. I do not mind WP:CIVIL either really as long as the editor is productive and not difficult to work with. --Filll (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:COIN is for obvious conflicts of interest: Editors adding information about themselves or their specific interests.  Specific interests include employers, friends, family members, etc.  It does not apply to professions, areas of expertise, personal beliefs, etc.  If DanaUllman has edited Dana Ullman, that would be an obvious coi.  Homeopaths editing Homeopathy without editing about themselves or their specific interests is expected and welcome. --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You're wasting your time with Levine2112, unless you're just trying to point out that he will not engage in productive discussions on the subject. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we have to give them enough rope to hang themselves. And then change this culture and try a different approach to QPOV and other assorted pseudoscience nonsense.--Filll (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Salutations
Filll, I feel like we've gotten off on the wrong foot and that there is confusion and hostility between us. I would like quell that and reach some kind of accord by promoting some understanding. First, I want you to know that I am a scientific skeptic; I demand quality experimental evidence before I believe - and the more ludicrous a claim seems to me, the more evidence I need to convince me of otherwise. That said, it should come as no surprise to you that I do not believe in the effectiveness of homeopathy. Like you, I consider it to be nonsense. However, I don't believe that my own point-of-view should play into the outcome of how I treat the subject at Wikipedia. I respect the fact that though it may be based in hokum, there is a lot of homeopathic knowledge out there, both historical and scientific. I believe that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia; an attempt to collect and organize as much of human knowledge as it can and to make this knowledge accessible to the planet. I don't think that Wikipedia is a scientific encyclopedia; it is not a collection of information only coming from the scientific point-of-view. With respect to general knowledge, I believe that even pseudoscientific knowledge should be presented in article, provided that it is properly attributed and labeled as such. After all, pseudoscience or not, it is still knowledge. Often times I imagine myself in school and needing to write an essay or report or term paper on some subject and needing to find references for the assignment. Now back in my day, all we had were the year old encyclopedia's at the school library and piles of microfiche. I am so jealous of the students today with resources such as Wikipedia. Now then, suppose my high school biology teach gave us an assignment to choose a plant and write a paper about the medicinal uses of it, both historically and scientifically. I would think that my paper would be missing something interesting if I was unable to find any information about debunked medicinal uses of the plant. It is in this hypothetical that I find myself compelled to defend the inclusion of the homeopathic usage of plants in the plant articles (because chances are, if I am doing a paper on a specific plant, I am only going to go to the plants article and not go searching for an article which discusses common homeopathic ingredients and may discuss the plant which I chose to write my paper about). I don't see the value in leaving this information out of the article; especially when it doesn't promote the only theoretical effectiveness of homeopathy but rather tells us that it is essentially rejected by science. That's where I am coming from. I am not looking for a war. I don't have any anti-science agenda. I am not trying to create thousands of homeopathic mini-articles. And I am not pushing any POVs. I hope that this explanation from me helps clear up some of the confusion and quells some of the hostility. I would very much appreciate your sentiments on this and you are welcome to talk to me freely at my talk page any time. Also, please know that I greatly appreciate your efforts to form a compromise with the current situation. As I have said, I am very much open to your suggestions and would agree to the compromise. However, I do want an answer to my NPOV question because I feel that the difference in my understanding of the policy and editors such as ScienceApologist's understanding of NPOV is at the very heart of this disagreement. I am hopeful that the discussion at the newly formed NPOV/N will help us all understand that policy better. AS I said, I am very much open to the possibility that my understanding is 100% wrong and that SA's is 100% correct. Whatever the case is, discussions at NPOV/N should in theory help. So let's try to keep the discussion there focused on the NPOV policy. Sound reasonable? Thanks for allowing me to occupy so much of your talk page with my sentiments which hopefully doesn't come off too much like a rant but rather an attempt to bring some mutual understand between us. Thanks for reading! -- Levine2112 discuss 23:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect that in all likelihood the sentence you want to introduce would be judged as one of those selected as part of the compromise. However, I think before things go much further, everyone will feel more comfortable if we have an agreement first about how to proceed. And then, I suspect there will be little if any problems.--Filll (talk) 23:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

typo
Hi Filll, I think in your third dot point of the recent expert withdrawal post, you seem to have a missed a 'not' - which does kind of reverse the meaning. You might want to edit quickly to fix. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it was so long I missed a few bits of grammar. What I would like is for a pseudoscience proponent or FRINGE advocate EXPLAIN to me what NPOV really means and why I have it wrong. Tell me why it is not what has been described to me, and what I have read. I have tried to explain it over and over and over. And I have been told over and over that I am wrong, subverting policy, lying, cheating, attacking people, being unfair, a POV pusher, etc. So I think we need clarity on this. Serious clarity. And if reality is different than I perceive it, I want to know. Maybe I will leave. Maybe I will be banned. --Filll (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Challenge
I hereby challenge anyone who is not in favor of mainstream science, but promotes alternative medicine or pseudoscience or magic or mysticism or the supernatural or ghosts to tell me how they interpret NPOV, and why the SPOV proponents are wrong about NPOV. Tell me why there should be little if any critical material in pseudoscience and alternative medicine articles for example. This is your chance to change Wikipedia. Write an essay. --Filll (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll, you are talking to yourself here. This is not good. Also I resent your statements about the ruling class on the NPOV noticeboard. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point (don't know which that could be). If you have a quote for your assertion, please provide it. I thank you in advance. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't know what the alleged point could be, how can you assume he's disrupting WP to make one? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 13:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel, I am not even sure what that point is either. And how I disrupted WP on that noticeboard. Perhaps you could be more specific?--Filll (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, now I see what you have supposedly been offended by. No, I stand by that statement. For more details, please see the relevant MH Arbcomm ruling, along with the two RfCs (one of which was deleted so you have to get it back). At least two administrators left or went on very long hiatus because of it. It is clear from the recent attitudes that I have seen expressed that WP:CIVIL is more important than all other WP principles, even WP:NPOV. For details, see the Expert Withdrawal discussion at User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal. I am not the only one who has noticed. Literally dozens of others have as well. Come to the Expert Withdrawal page at User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal and give your opinion on the matter if you are offended. If you are offended by the matter, then that is good; you should be. I am offended by it.--Filll (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that the situation is exactly as I described:. There is a price to making WP:CIVIL the main if not the sole policy that is being enforced. So be it... If those of you that are in power want to get rid of NPOV, then that is what will happen. I just would like you to make a formal announcement of the DEATH of NPOV first so those of us who thought it was a useful policy do not make fools of ourselves trying to advocate NPOV. --Filll (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Expert withdrawal
Hi, I'm thinking of writing a piece for the Signpost about the Expert withdrawal discussion, and I'm trying to figure out how and why it originated. Were you the originator of this movement? Would you mind explaining in a few words what led you to this rather extreme measure, and what do you believe should be done in order to alleviate the problem? --Zvika (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, User talk:Zvika Jay*Jay (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice
"Brevity is the soul of wit." - W. Shakespeare (from Hamlet, IIRC) Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah just what I was thinking. I gotta work on succinctness. Or at least summaries.--Filll (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really know why you bother with it. Leave the POV pushers to push their version of NPOV with optional N.  You're going to get an ulcer (which can be treated with homeopathic solutions I'm sure...).  Shot info (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ... well, maybe with ranitidine bismuth citrate taken with a homeopathic solution... :) Jay*Jay (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

After I read a good chunk of the Martinphi file, I realized their efforts are all just a load of nonsense. And to try to improve things is just a waste of time in this case.--Filll (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So would that be the Martinphile? :-)  Shot info (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly.--Filll (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes in the WMF privacy policy
Hello,

I posted some suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy at the WMF site:. The gist of the suggestions is to institute a requirement for notifying those registered users whose identifying info is being sought by subpoenas in third-party lawsuits. These suggestions are motivated in large part by a discussion that took place in January 2008 at the Village Pump (Policy) page in relation to an incident where identifying IP data of sixteen Wikipedia users was released in response to such a subpoena. I also left a note about these proposal at Village Pump, WP:Village_pump_%28policy%29. Since you have participated in the January Village Pump discussion, I hope that you will contribute to the discussion of the current suggestions at the WMF website,. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"OR"
If anyone ever tells me that converting 0.35 to 35% is "original research", I will respond that he should be ashamed of himself. Reading, writing, and 'rithmetic are taught in elementary school. What you were taught in elementary school is not your "original research". Michael Hardy (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it has happened where I have had a long fight with an admin who claimed that converting numbers like 312/783 into percentages is WP:OR. And now I am dealing with a slightly more complicated situation, but again being told that it is OR. And when I read math and physics pages, I see that people do all kinds of calculations and manipulations with seemingly no problem. Oh brother...--Filll (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Who was that administrator? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is this discussion? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This was on Level of support for evolution. And the admin was violet/riga. The article is still a mess and I have not bothered to correct his vandalism (and that of a few other passing editors who even ruined the quotes from publications to push their agenda), since I am rewriting the article and placing most of the data into better organized tables to be shorter and easier to absorb for readers. I am working on other stuff at the moment but I will get back to that article.--Filll (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on WP:AN
Hi, Filll. I have added some comments in response to the questions from Dlabtot (sp?) about the ArbCom prioritising of civility over anything else. I have noted that I was not meaning to speak on your behalf, but I thought I should let you know in case you want to have a look and / or make a comment. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments on potency rewrite
Leaving comments here, as the page is already in Talk space. Now, when it comes to examples of dilutions, it seems that (judging by some of my back-of-the-envelope calculations) it's assumed that you're starting off with one mole of the solute. For instance, let's say you have one liter of a one molar solution. This is typically about the scale you'll find for most common solutions, so it makes some sense. Homeopaths rarely bother with doing volume dilutions, so basing the examples off of these is misleading. Most of the time, they don't even bother being exact with the starting amount (after all, what does it matter?). So I think for the purpose of clarity and matching previous examples given, we should just go ahead assuming we start with a one molar solution. Aside from Yilloslime on Talk:Homeopathy, this seems to be the common assumption. (You can check for yourself that starting this way gives results matching those of the examples, and we also don't have to muddy the issue with mentioning what the material is, specifying its density, etc.). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason I did it with densities and molar masses is that it is more general, and I believe that if we just specify "one mole" few of our readers will be able to figure out how much that is. I also believe that putting the extra details in the footnotes will help people trying to understand the situation, but they will not be required to read the footnotes to get the general gist of the text. I also do not think homeopaths do anything with moles or 1 molar solutions etc, and I think specifying "1 molar solutions" will be confusing the readers. I think homeopaths do volume volume percentage dilutions, according to my reading of their literature. Different materials will produce different numbers of molecules in a given volume of remedy after homeopathic dilution, depending on what their densities and molar masses are. I will however, try to a different version using some of the ideas you suggest and see what it  looks like.--Filll (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also I think 1 liter for an initial quantity of the therapeutic material is a lot unless this is being produced in an industrial process, and even then I have my doubts about that quantity from what I know of the literature and technology used to produce these remedies. Sounds misleading to me.--Filll (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Filll, it could use a little word-smithing but overall it looks pretty good. I think I have a solution to the "molarity of the mother tincture" issue that doesn't require assuming it's 1M or using a specific example like NaCl. And that is: rather than discussing the number of molecules of the "active" ingredient left in the final dilution, we could instead discuss the number of molecules of the mother tincture (i.e. the "active" ingredient + the alcohol) that remain in the final dilution. Regardless of the nature of the mother tincture, it's mostly just alcohol (or alcohol/water), right? Whether it's 1M or 0.1M, or contains small amounts of myriad compounds, the overwhelming majority of molecules that are floating around are still just alcohol molecules. So instead of using 1M as our starting concentration, we could just use the molarity of pure alcohol (~17 mol/L for EtOH) and change the text so it says "there would only be xxx molecules of the mother tincture remaining in yyy volume of zzzC dilution." What do you think of that? Yilloslime (t) 05:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh and I tend to agree with what you're saying above about leaving the gory details of molarity, etc., out the text, lest they confuse people needlessly. Footnoting them seems best.Yilloslime (t) 05:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's fine leaving the details out; it's just that most of the time people have made these examples, they seem to be treating it like I did. It would be best to stick to these for NOR purposes, if nothing else. We can still keep the text simple, and just describe our assumptions in the footnotes. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the second version: First, the phrasing in the sentence, "Hahnemann is reported to have joked that a suitable procedure to deal with an epidemic would be to empty a bottle of poison into Lake Geneva, if it could be succussed 60 times." implies that it isn't sure that Hahnemann said this ("is reported to have joked..."). I think the sources we have for this are suitably reliable that we don't have to mince words here, and we can just say that he said this. I'm also not so sure he was joking about it.

Also, I went and read the section of this textbook, and it doesn't actually say that you'd be certain to encounter a molecule after consuming about 1% of the pool. It says this is how much you'd have to consume to expect to encounter one molecule. To me, the word "expect" implies probability (as in "expectation value"). It seems that the writers here just decided not to get into the details of probability. I think the best way to write this would be to just have "expect" in the main text, and you can explain the exact probabilities in the footnotes. Also, though you mentioned you were using molar solutions above, this doesn't carry into the footnotes for this version. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a bit difficult to know what they meant by "expect" here. I took it to be certainty, but of course there are other interpretations. I was less sure that Hahnemann had actually made that comment about Lake Geneva, since it comes from a religious tract that basically says homeopathy is the work of the devil, etc. And I put "joke" in there to soften to blow to homeopathy supporters. The molar solution is used in the earlier examples, but I saw no reasonable way to use it in the swimming pool example. The reason is that molar solution implies that the original material is some quantity of molecules or moles in a given volume, that is a density. Whereas the swimming pool example, reading between the lines, suggests that the original material is some volume of material. So the starting assumptions are different; one is of a density, or equivalently, a number of moles, the other is of a volume. --Filll (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I modified the text in the article slightly to put "expect" in there, although this is a somewhat improper use of the word "expect" in a probability setting. I tried to keep it accurate and as close to the textbook example as I could.--Filll (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)The way I look at things is more a question of how easy it is to do these calculations. Since homeopaths are inexact in their preparations, all that's really needed is a rough estimate of the starting concentration. The reason I think these examples are using moles is that it's a ton easier to do calculations that way. Moles already translated directly into molecules with no extra information (such as density and molar weight) being needed. However, running through the calculations, it seems this actually isn't how it's done in the swimming pool example. Here's how my calculations for it would work:
 * Start with a 1 molar solution. Dilute it to a factor of 15C, getting a 10-30 molar solution.
 * Multiply 10-30 M by the volume of the solution: 2.5 x 106, getting the number of moles in the pool: 2.5*10-24
 * Multiply this by Avogadro's Constant to get about 1.5 molecules in the pool.
 * What I think they're actually doing in this example is assuming the original substance is similar to water. They basically did their calculation by taking the number of water molecules (1032) and dividing it by the dilution factor (15C, or 1030), to get a result of 100 molecules in the pool. Given that this reproduces their result exactly, I'm pretty confident that this is indeed how they did it. It might not be how I would have done it, but that's how they went, and we should work with that.

I think you are basically correct. They assume that the original substance has essentially the same properties as water (which you notice I note in my footnote where I discuss the D/M for the original substance). They have 10**32 molecules in the pool, and after 15C dilution, about 100 molecules left of the original material if it has the same properties as water (for example, if initially the 10**32 molecules in the pool were all original material and this was diluted by 15C, 100 molecules would remain after dilution, and the rest of the molecules in the pool would be water). If these 100 molecules are evenly distributed through the pool, for every 1% of the pool you ingest, you will get about 1 molecule. And then you are done! The problem is that of course there is no guarantee that 100 molecules of the original substance will be evenly distributed throughout the pool (you could be unlucky and just drink parts of the pool that had no original molecules in them, for example, or the original molecules could "clump together"). Also, there is no reason to believe that the original material has a D/M similar to that of water! However, in the footnotes all this is explained in enough detail that someone interested can figure it all out properly.--Filll (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Another Venue
Filll, I would appreciate it if you would calm down. I was not ranting, merely responding to statements similar to those who do support evolution have made in the past. If you want me to stop, ask on my page, don't repeatedly respond with comments on my "ranting," or "preaching." I have hoped to disassociate myself with that sort of creationist crowd. By the way, you don't know what "sort of creationism" I do believe in. If you wish to respond to my comments, or address any other comments or criticism towards me, please use my talk page. If you can convince me my comments are inflamatory, I will remove them. ---G.T.N. (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate it if you would calm down and not pollute the talk pages of those articles with irrelevant inaccurate material. No the whole world does not believe in "creationism" and evolution is not some evil theory started in Ancient Greece or associated with the Tower of Babel or some other nonsense. Those are creationist canards and you look ridiculous parroting them. Care to tell me how the Buddhists are creationists? Most Jews? The Muslims? The Catholics? Native Americans? Australian Aborigines? Chinese Animists? Hindus? Sure some have creation myths, but they are so different from the fundamentalist Christian one that it is not even funny. And most have no problem with accepting evolution.  Some even claim their creation myths include evolution (like many Hindus). Some claim that their coreligionists came up with evolution centuries before Darwin (like many Moslems). Most Americans see no conflict between Christianity and evolution. Most Christians see no conflict between Christianity and evolution. Only a teeny tiny minority who have been lead into confused denial, mostly in the United States, subscribes to this crazy notion.


 * You do not have to remove your comments since they are irrelevant. They will just be archived and we can all forget them. But it is sort of silly to come to a page and respond to posts that are months old and lecture the people who posted them to not preach, when you are preaching yourself. It is even worse when a large fraction of what you are spouting makes no sense and is just random creationist junk.


 * The original post of mine you objected to was me responding to someone writing about what happened "before" the cosmic egg (by which I presume they mean the big bang). Even the fact that they spew this sort of silliness tells me that they have no idea what they are talking about; there was no before since the big bang created time itself. But it is hardly worth responding to these ignorant statements except to discourage people from posting nonsense and to maybe make some positive contributions. But few if any ever do. They are not here for that.--Filll (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would be careful who you are lecturing and engaging in fights with on the talk pages. You also have posted right in the middle of someone else's post, which is a complete no-no.--Filll (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Filll. I think you are against creationism. At the same time, you are religious. How is this possible? I am a Humanist. I am a little confused about your views. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is the position of most Christians and even most American Christians, most Jews, and many Muslims, and most Hindus, most Catholics, most Buddhists, etc. If you believe otherwise, you have fallen into the fallacious thinking traps laid out for you by the fundamentalists and creationists.--Filll (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Filll, I don't believe in creationism. Are you suggesting that most American Christians are against creationism? I don't think so. I am a non-American. If that were true, then GW Bush should not have won the re-election in 2004? GW Bush is a creationist and an irrational person. Can you please explain your position on creationism and religion clearly? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, there is no reason I should have to. But I think biblical literalism, which is the root of most creationism, is just ludicrous and unreasonable. And so do most Christians. It has been strictly discouraged in the Catholic Church for centuries, for example. If you want to look at statistics, look at level of support for evolution. I am not even sure that Bush is much of a creationist; I think he tries to keep a large voting block reasonably tranquil.--Filll (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You were dead right
about Amaltheus. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was? What do you know? Email me.--Filll (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it isn't that conspiratorial. It is just that his entire time at Wikipedia bracketed the Into to Evol FAC. He hasn't contributed since 28 Jan 2008. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right never trust the ones that just disappear: ;)


 * And welcome back. David D. (Talk) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

He was only here for fighting. When there was a "checkmate" situation and he was on the losing end, he vanished.--Filll (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strange one for sure. David D. (Talk) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

More to this than meets the eye, I suspect.--Filll (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, I never trust me. Especially 'cause I can be a bit naive :-) So far the experience is number 1 on my list of Wikipedia weirdness. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it
Why would you say that? Do you think I'm going to block you or something. I'm very sorry if I've offended you in some way. I would be happy to collaborate with you. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The system has become more and more poisonous. One has to be extremely careful in the present circumstances because of the way the powers that be have decided WP must be. I cannot change it. I can only try to avoid getting into trouble. It is a shame, but we have decided that CIVIL is more important than anything else. And I can tell that this entire discussion has become so heated and unpleasant that it is too dangerous to continue.--Filll (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that WP:CIVIL is more important than anything else, and I would never act as if it were. How have I ever given you the impression that I would behave that way? What kind of trouble do you think you'll get into? I have no desire to see you in trouble; I want to collaborate with you. Can you work with me, just a little bit? I'm not the "get you in trouble" type. We could use your help. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What sort of help could I offer? And you might not be someone who was interested in getting me in trouble, but there are plenty that are. I have had numerous warnings about this in the last 6 months or so, and I have watched Arbcomm's recent behavior on this issue. And I have observed how things have been moving on the pseudoscience pages. If we had to clean up the creationism pages today the way we did a year ago, it would be almost impossible today to do it given the current climate on Wikipedia, where the benefit of the doubt has to be given to those who are against NPOV and RS and LEAD and NOR and other WP policies. If you want to read more about this, take a look at some of what has been written here.--Filll (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The help you could offer is balance. You're familiar with the dispute and the sources. The fact of your contributing would help solidify whatever consensus we arrive at, because we would know that your input was considered fairly. You also have insight into a current problem with the political climate here. You could help change that. Help make Wikipedia a welcoming place for experts by helping me to empower users to deal with tendentious editors and trolls. That's precisely what I'm trying to do. We may disagree about causes of the atmosphere which you describe as increasingly poisonous, but we both want to do something about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, regarding the expert withdrawal page, I know about that. I've read it. I agree with this view, and with this one. Oh, this is extremely good, too. I've actually left a comment there, and I have a question for you. You said: "The powers that be including Arbcomm are dead set against this and have made it clear that they will desysop any admin who does this." Can you give me a link for that, please? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not have a direct diff or link to this. However, I would direct you to the outcome of the Matthew Hoffman case at Arbcomm, and many of the complaints and comments made by Arbcomm members and hangers on on the pages associated with the case. The message I took from that case was very clear; newbies and trolls and disruptive elements are to be coddled and nurtured at all costs, because they might turn out to be productive in a few months or years. Established productive editors are unwanted; they were called "dogs" and worse. And they should basically f-off.--Filll (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would that be Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman? I'm reading it now. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And there are 2-3 RfCs as well involved. And many many pages of material.--Filll (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, cool. I've read main page of the ArbCom case, and I would disagree with your interpretation. ArbCom did not say that that trolls are to be coddled, they did not say that productive editors are unwanted, and they did not say that WP:CIV and WP:BITE are more important than WP:NPOV and WP:V. That interpretation seems to be based on something other than the case I just read. My experience is very different, and it seems to me that the Admin in that case was de-sysoped for handling the block very badly and unprofessionally. It's true that admins who deal with trolls, vandals and POV-pushers unprofessionally will be de-sysoped, and that is healthy and right. Admins who deal with such users correctly have nothing to fear. I intend to demonstrate this fact on the homeopathy pages to which I've been pointed. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at the sections you agree with, as near as I can tell, they basically say there is no problem here and if experts do not like it, they should get lost. Frankly, that is not a particularly helpful position if one is trying to change the culture to make it more welcoming.--Filll (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not the meaning I take from those positions. Would it be helpful for us to understand each other a bit better before making conclusions? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes maybe. I am just giving you my feedback on those sections.--Filll (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What I take from those sections is that the problem, insofar as it exists, can be solved by the experts taking a different approach. There are ways to edit the wiki, maintaining one's integrity, and effectively working against POV-pushers without incurring blocks or other negative results. Those who don't like the current state of affairs would do well to take swimming lessons. It makes getting around in these waters much easier. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure the problem can be solved unless there are some new approaches. If it has been decided that NPOV is not important any more, or is not as important as CIVIL, then I think there is nothing anyone can do.--Filll (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that has by no means been decided, nor will it be as long as there are any of us left to fight it. I would take issue with the notion that there is any conflict between NPOV and CIVIL, because I see no instance in which being less than perfectly civil could help with greater neutrality, but recall that I'm talking about actual civility, not adherence to some "rule" that's written on the page WP:CIV. New approaches are indeed the solution, and we're working on some of those now. See the section on my talk page about Admin training, for example. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)