User talk:Infophile/Archive 1

Your user name
Hello, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your user name caught my eye on the recent changes page, because I thought you were an automated bot at first glance. (Most Wikipedia bots have names ending in -bot.) After looking at a couple of your contributions and your user page, I easily determined that you were obviously not a bot but rather a living, breathing human editor, as just about any other Wikipedia user could determine in a matter of seconds. According to Wikipedia's user name policy, user names of regular users should avoid giving the impression that the account has any status other than that of a regular user. I asked a few other editors whether they thought your user name was confusing, and they all agreed that your name (DrLeebot) was acceptable. (See Administrators' noticeboard.) Of course, it's entirely possible that your real-life last name is Leebot and that you have nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia bots, so your user name is acceptable to me also. Anyway, I just thought I should let you know  that we've been talking about you.

Although it is unlikely, there is a small chance that the community's interpretation of the user-name policy might become much more strict in the future. For example, Wikipedia guidelines concerning signatures and userboxes have changed drastically over the course of the last six months or so. The same could theoretically happen to user names. So, if you ever want to change your user name in order to avoid confusion or controversy, you can find instructions at Changing username. Thanks, and keep up the great work! -- Tantalum Telluride 22:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I had honestly not considered this possibility when I registered, and "Leebot" (and variations on it) is simply my typical online handle.


 * At the present time, I don't believe a name change is warranted, however. The first reason for this is simply that although there's an off-chance of initial confusion, it's obvious with very little work that I'm not a bot. The second reason is that I'd prefer to keep name continuity over different communities, so that people who know me can recognize me.


 * I will, however, put a brief note on my User Page about this, just in case.


 * The note on your user page is a good idea, and it should quickly clear up any confusion. Thanks for understanding. -- Tantalum Telluride 17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Requesting IP address unblock
<>


 * Autoblock lifted. Apologies for the inconvenience (we're getting better software that will make these occurances happen less often, but it takes time for them to be created!) ➨  ЯEDVERS  16:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:DrLeebot
Just a quick notice to tell you that your previous account was re created. I blocked it, and removed the redirections from these pages to your account. Is this just luck or did you create the other account? Cheers! -- lucasbfr talk 13:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, just re create the redirects (you can blank the user talk page and put the redirect). Don't forget to change your signature to reflect your new name! :) -- lucasbfr talk 13:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fred A. Baughman
This guy is pretty much a quack "independent neurologist". Just because you have a medical degree from a third rate medical institution does not make one qualified to make distinctions of science and pseudoscience. It certainly doesn't belong in our encyclopedia. Cheers. --ScienceApologist 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Monomyth
It appears that there is a clear consensus to merge Monomyth and Hero's journey, please proceed, thanks! :) --Elonka 17:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA
You are very kind to offer, thank you. :) I'm actually expecting my next nom to be a very high-participation event, so I am proceeding cautiously. A few different people have offered to file the paperwork, but we have no firm schedule yet. Perhaps you would like to be a co-nominator?  Have you done RfA noms before? Elonka 17:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding Herbalism to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts
While I don't dispute that Herbalism merits inclusion in this list, I had to revert it out due to lack of a source. With a list such as this, which provides a pejorative but well-defined label, we need to be very careful to cite reliable and appropriate sources for the inclusion of anything. Compounding this problem is that the current version uses "default sourcing" (anything unsourced is assumed to be from the Skeptic Encyclopedia; it's bad, I know), so anyone browsing would assume Herbalism was mentioned there. If you do have a sufficient source for this, feel free to add it back with this source referenced. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This list had sources? I didn't see any.  But it's like the old duck joke.  If looks like pseudoscience, doesn't use the scientific method like pseudoscience, and the practitioners claim they don't need the scientific method like pseudoscience, it must be pseudoscience.  Well, there are dozens of references.  I'll find the most juicy one, and add it in.  Orangemarlin 14:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Overuling
Regarding the doctor who lists merge discussion. I'm well aware nobody overules anyone else... please don't take my comments out of context.--Dr who1975 00:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then please refrain from using terminology such as "overule." What you did was reverting it. This may seem like quibbling, but it seems to me that saying you "overuled" someone else is unnecessarily inflammatory. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I apreciate your advice... I didn't mean it in an inflamatory way. Please assume good faith.--Dr who1975 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And I apologize if I seemed overly rude to you. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: 3RR warning
Just to warn you, you're getting pretty close to violating the three-revert rule on Pseudoscience. Please hold off on your reversions and discuss this issue on the talk page. Also note that even if you try to continually slip under the limit but keep reverting, this could be considered gaming the system, and is also against the rules. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I must warn you not to argue with 3RR warning. I have constantly added sources and references when asked, and was reverted. No comment was given on the talk page, although I have continued to give more and more sources, cited directly, and available on the web. The version I corrected was written by myself. I tried to speak to the reverting user on his talk page, which he deliberately ignored and continued to revert. It is a common practice in controversial articles to try somehow to get people criticizing the article into doing something such that they can be banned according to 3RR. This is gaming the system and bad faith. --rtc 13:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I count your edits, you're currently at exactly three in the last 24 hours - this is why I said "close to violating [it]." I'm just giving you a warning in the hope that it will prevent you from making a fourth. Also, please note that the policy doesn't care whether you're editing in good faith, whether you keep adding more sources to make your version better, or whether you tried to resolve it through other means. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but none fit here. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The other user is reverting allegedly because he wants sources. So I added the sources. Because I am doing that, he reverts me again, and demands more sources. Isn't that somehow a little bit absurd? I have two options: Either not question the article, or try it, be reverted and blocked. If you are giving me a warning in the hope that it will prevent me from making a fourth revert, why are you not doing the same favour to the other user? --rtc 13:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The other user is an administrator (who would thus presumably know the policy quite well) with no blocks on record. You, on the other hand, have two blocks on record for 3RR violations (though I'll note that one was undone not long after imposed). You're quite frankly a much greater risk of violating the rule. Also, on the subject matter, you might want to read FeloniousMonk's edit summaries; they give his rationale for reverting. If you already have and disagree with it, you can bring it up on his talk page or the talk page of the article. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I already said, I have written to the user on his talk page, User_talk:FeloniousMonk The user ignored this and kept reverting. He seems not to be interested in discussion. --rtc 13:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't give you the right to violate WP:3RR (which you haven't yet, I'll note, but you shouldn't edit-war over it anyway). And if I may speak for him, I think he intended to give a response through his edit summaries (though I can't be sure). Of course, he isn't the only arbiter. Feel free to bring up your case on the article talk page, and if you can get other people to support your version, they can revert back to it for you. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 14:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeking consensus first is not needed for editing wikipedia, and I tried hard to discuss on the talk page, but there was no reply for some time, and now there are two replies, but still no argument. I provided sources and yet today added another source that is very clear. Either give a real argument, or stop reverting, you have no right to revert my edits simply for such claims as consensus allegedly being generally against me. That is mobbing. Stop that and start discussion if you have anything to say. Claiming such things is especially ridiculous since I have written the part of the text which I am correcting myself. --rtc 14:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're correct that WP:BOLD is an important part of editing Wikipedia; however what we have here amounts edit warring. The first time you inserted your interpretations, you were covered perfectly by WP:BOLD. The second time, not so much. Now, it's gotten completely irrelevent. Once it gets to this point, the best thing to do is step away from revert warring on the article and hammer it out on the talk page (preferably leaving it at the original version in the interim). I know you've tried to do this, but as I've explained, your lack of response is likely more a case of people not bothering to do all the work to respond than it is a case of people not objecting.
 * One other point that's important here: Wikipedia is primarily a tertiary source. The facts in articles should, when possible, be based on reliable secondary sources. Popper's original writing counts as a primary source. What we want is some other reliable source who has review what he's said and drawn interpretations from it, and then we report those interpretations. Interpreting ourselves amounts to original research. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 14:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at the Quackery article
I'm trying to get a discussion going over at the Quackery article about the Notable People Accused of Quackery section of the article. The section keeps getting removed so I'm trying to get a dialogue going about the usefulness of this section. I figured you might be interested since you were involved with the original discussion on this section. Elhector 20:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 2
Thanks very much for the kind words, and yes, I'll be trying again soon. :) I actually find the outcome of my RfA somewhat amusing, considering that a few hours after it closed, I was moving on with real-life, at the North American Sci-Fi Convention this weekend, giving talks and signing autographs. My lecture on the Knights Templar went really well! Internet access is a bit spotty here, and it makes Wikipedia seem very far away, but don't worry, I'll be back home again soon, and back to my normal schedule. Thanks again for the support, --Elonka 03:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Doctor (Doctor Who)
It's the same editing pattern the last time Movellon got involved on this article: three reverts are made by an ID, then another ID takes over for the next three reverts. If you recall the discussion from last time around, Movellon and the IPs arguing for Human-Time Lord hybrid had almost identical reasons for wanting that in the infobox. To my mind, this is highly suspicious, and smacks of some kind of puppetry. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the same impression, and I'm wondering if he stopped because he thought we'd caught on. Well, either way, as long as he's stopped. You know, it really seems odd to me that someone could get so up in arms about such a minor thing, and especially on this side of the issue. I can to some extent understand the fans who hate the decision to make him half-human in the movie (wasn't a fan back then so can't understand it personally), but those who are so far on the other side they won't accept anything else are a bit harder to comprehend. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did broach the subject of the IPs with Movellon last time, soon after which the IPs went strangely quiet (it's a split thread, so you'd have to dip into my archives to get the full exchange). If we've managed to send out a message to whoever's doing this, then it saves the trouble of filling out a report.  It's certainly an odd thing to war about.  --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 15:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems like all of this would be sufficient evidence for a check use request, but I agree that we don't need to fill out a report right now. The important thing is that he stops. Of course, if he starts again, then we can report it (and possibly for 3rr violations at the same time). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And it looks like he's at it again . If this repeats the same process from before, then it's probably time for a Check User. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've just picked up on this. I really wish he'd find a normal hobby. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 17:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Polonium
it's disputed, By who? and even if true it adds almost no value to this article (though it may for others Hmm... but it does add a little value. Why wouldn't you want to add a little value to an article?  I changed like 2 or 3 words.  It's not like I'm adding a paragraph with almost no value.  The reason why I make little changes is because large changes have much more you guys dispute.  If I start with small selections, there is less that I have to deal with in the way of complaining.  Seriously, the way you guys are defending the article, there is almost no way to improve it.EMSPhydeaux 23:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't quite work that way. A controversial change is a controversial change. It doesn't matter if it's made by a longstanding editor or a newbie, or whether that editor has worked up from small controversial changes. If you want to help improve Wikipedia, there are plenty of other articles that it should be easy to make non-controversial improvements to. Don't get hung up on one article. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 10:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it is only controversial among laymen... Not that I am not one.  I am only saying scientists don't disagree with what I said.  The reason I edit these articles is because I have researched this stuff.EMSPhydeaux 13:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The only place I have ever heard this claim was in "Evolution's Tiny Violences". Are there any papers in a peer-reviewed journals that make this claim?  The only claim that I have seen is that the halos are dropped off by radon.  If that was the case, (of course, it isn't) then it would be best to call it a polonium halo.EMSPhydeaux 16:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

List of ....
Please check chart in WP:CCC of WP:CON --Anthon01 19:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I responded on my talk page. Please take a look when you can. --Anthon01 19:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm going to take it slow for now -- I'm working my way through the New admin school, carefully investigating the admin tools and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! --Elonka 07:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Quackery
An article that you have been involved in editing, Quackery, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. &mdash;Whig (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Quackery
Please give me some time to review the new source you have added. I also ask you to remove the sources that you now agree are not reliable sources for this statement. &mdash;Whig (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope.....
.... this edit was OK with you. David D. (Talk) 03:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look here
 Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project. The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources. If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on. (discuss this here)

--Filll (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

semi-protection
Ha! You beat me to it. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Article-banned from Talk:Homeopathy for 24 hrs for incivility
Hi there. Your comment here: ... was rude, uncivil, and disruptive of discussions on Talk:Homeopathy. As the article is under community article probation, I am imposing a 24 hr article ban for you participating on Talk:Homeopathy and will log this on the probation page Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Canvassed
Regarding your comments here, first let me thank you for your honesty. I have some follow-up questions which you should feel more than free to ignore if answering them makes you feel uncomfortable. Again, please ignore either or both of these questions if answering them makes you feel leery at all. Alternatively, feel free to email me your response if that is more favorable. Thanks again for your candor. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Was the email sent only to you individually or could there have been more recipients than yourself?
 * 2) Was the email merely an invitation to participate in the AfD discussion or was it campaigning to get you to come and vote a certain way?
 * In response to your questions:
 * I have no way of knowing. It was through Wikipedia e-mail, so I received it directly. These are one-at-a-time in any case. He might have asked others, but there's no way I could know that.
 * There was no explicit request for me to vote a certain way, but the way he described the AfD seemed to make it clear he expected me to support him. I probably shouldn't get anymore specific about the e-mail, as doing so would be a breach of privacy.
 * --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 02:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks again for your candidness. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for being reasonable and pleasant. I really do appreciate it. 75.110.179.229 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks re:Talk:Quackwatch
Regarding, hopefully we'll see others reply in the same manner. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks re:FYI
thanks id ont usually see the name dana used fo rmen before and i did not know that our danaullman was the real-life dana ullman. thanks for pointing out that out. Smith Jones (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look
I did a bit of formatting on the RfC. I also asked someone with an opposing POV to comment briefly so respondents could get an idea of both sides of the argument. Feel free to undo anything you think appropriate. Anthon01 (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have some issues but I am concerned about complicating the RfC with too many issues. I generally agree with the issue you have raised. Would you prefer responses here or on my talk page? Anthon01 (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback request
I have granted your rollback request. Please remember that rollback is to be used to revert vandalism/blatant spam, and not for use in content disputes or to revert good-faith edits. For practice and information on rollback, you may wish to see New admin school/Rollback, and also Rollback feature. Good luck. Acalamari 20:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:WPSPAM - Filmsite
I can't get WPSPAM to appear, though I can see your diff. was who I saw spamming it. I should have probably just taken my concerns directly to Wikipedia_talk:External_links and WP:RSN. While there may be more spam, the real concerns are the use of it as a link and a source. --Ronz (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's working now. I'll continue there. --Ronz (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your reversion on Mockingbird Don't Sing
Sorry if you thought I was causing trouble but I thought that if the only reason why it was being removed was because it was added by a WP:SPA that didn't mean that it couldn't be added by another user if they wanted to keep it. Is there another reason why you wanted it removed? For An Angel (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry. I can understand your edits as being completely in good faith. It's just that it's often good policy to react strongly against spammers. Also, from the policy at WP:EL, external links should generally be kept to a minimum, and it isn't really standard practice here to link to trailers to movies (if you think it should be, then maybe raise the issue at WP:FILM). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, thanks for your assuming good faith, you don't see that here too often anymore. I honestly thought it was ok to link to trailers for articles on movies. I still think it would be good link to the trailer for this movie, simply because it is a rare and unique movie and seeing the trailer would help with understanding the movie much more so than with most movies. Besides, is 3 ELs too much to ask for? :-) For An Angel (talk • contribs) 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. Sorry if your encounters with other editors on this issue weren't so cordial (not my place to apologize for them, but still). Anyways, I'm not going to be removing that particular link anymore, but a case like this should probably be brought up with WP:FILM, as they'll be better able to judge just how appropriate it is here.

Response to your question
You asked me a question here, and because my answer is off-topic there, I thought I'd come to you here with it. The initial misquoting is referenced here, see reference #19:. DanaUllmanTalk 00:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I got your response. Thanx...but didn't I do just what you have suggested in the original posting that I made at Randy's user-page to which I linked in my Incident report.  I am relatively new to wiki and am trying to be as collaborative as possible.  Even though you and I don't usually agree, I hope that we can move beyond our own POV to create good NPOV stuff.  DanaUllmanTalk 00:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (I posted this at my user-page, but to make your life easier, here it is) I assume that you somehow didn't read what Randy wrote : "You are a monster who sells nonsense to the sick, and the sooner you die the sooner the world will be a better place. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is being called a "monster" and wishing me to die soon any type of civility? Do you still think that this is civil and that it warrants a simple week's penalty, while many anti-homeopathy editors are seeking to ban Whig primarily because he has a good backbone for defending a minority viewpoint.  DanaUllmanTalk 01:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are assuming very bad faith when you write "...seeking to ban Whig primarily because he has a good backbone for defending a minority viewpoint." That's not true. Yes, he not only defends, but also advocates (advocacy is forbidden here), but it is his combative nature and disruptiveness that's the problem. If you can't see that, then you may end up in the same boat. It would be best to learn from this situation so you don't end up repeating his errors. Defending them is dangerously close to the edge of the precipice and can make you an accessory to the crime. Fellow travellers don't get treated nicely. -- Fyslee / talk 02:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My observations are that Whig "advocates" for verifiable and notable information from reliable sources. I will likewise "advocate" for this...and hopefully, you will too. DanaUllmanTalk 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, but that's not at issue at all in this matter. It is basically his talk page behavior on multiple talk pages since he has come here. There is no discussion or mention of his actual editing of article content, except the actual paucity of such editing in relation to the vast amount of disruptive interactions with other editors. -- Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 03:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, "advocacy" - in the forbidden Wikipedia sense - isn't just supporting a particular form of edit or policy, it is actually advocating the "truth" of a fringe theory or other non-mainstream (and usually poorly supported by good references) idea. IOW it is basically trying to sell or pawn off the idea itself as if it was "true", when the majority of good scientific sources (fringe sources don't count, since they are basically off-wiki OR) say otherwise. I don't expect you to either understand this or agree. My point is that "advocacy" has a special meaning here, akin to trying to get "The Truth" accepted here, which is akin to soapboxing for a fringe idea. The Rouge admins are particulary ruthless in making sure that "The Truth" is relegated to its rightful place. Fight for good edits backed by good sources, but don't fight for fringe ideas. That will only get you into trouble. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not convince the world of our particular brand of "truth". If that "truth" happens to be what the mainstream scientific world considers fact, then no one will object to fighting for such facts, but fringe ideas aren't in that category. They are disputed concepts. It takes a tremendous amount of objectivity and self-control to stand back and explain an idea because it's necessary for the editorial process, and avoid drifting into a defense of the idea. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 03:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

briefest of notes
I didn't to revert your edit like you had done something wrong, and perhaps should not have used twinkle which may be construed more as a combat mechanism. He is looking at Falun Gong within the history of Chinese "religion" and qigong, but in my view is kind of also explaining that these are fuzzy terms when it comes to the Chinese context., e.g. from the same document: "From a Western perspective, much of Chinese religious practice in the late imperial and modern periods appears to be recklessly underdefined." (emphasis his), and the first line of abstract: "This article seeks to place Falun Gong — and the larger qigong movement from which it emerged — into the long-term context of the history of Chinese popular religion from the mid-Ming (1368-1644) to the present." There should be some exploration of "Falun Gong as religion" on the third party page, because there's certainly some scholarship in this connection. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 02:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Alleging that Homeopathic medicine is placebo and it's practice Quackery is objectionable.
Dear Infophile, I am not a rebel, but alleging that Homeopathic medicine is placebo and it's practice Quackery is objectionable. Please try to see that no one, especially George William Herbert doesn't block me for sockpuppetry again. I promise not to be disruptive. Thanks, Ramaanand (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Ramaanand

Chiropractic
Hi. You mentioned this article as an example of one where editors have been unable to indicate the rejection of the method by the scientific community. Is that something you'd be willing to talk about more? I'm interested in this problem, and I'd like to understand it better. Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
Please stop using the discussion page to engage in specific NPOV disputes. Thank you. Bensaccount (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The NPOV project talk page is not for specific disputes. Use the individual article pages. Also, please stop spamming my talk page. Bensaccount (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2008. (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: your responses
I appreciate the feedback on my proposed principles. I felt it was important to address underlying editing paradigm and behavioral issues that plague all of the Wikipedia war zones rather than specific examples regarding any specific editor...I think everyone falls short of these principles once in a while, but those that consistently do so (no matter which side) are the ones that hold back progress. WP:TE/WP:DE are generally vague; delineating these issues would, in my opinion, go a long ways towards explaining the current general frustration, better identify future occurance, and enable future admin/community action to better handle general disruptive patterns that currently linger long after acute violations have been dealt with. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)