User talk:KrishnaVindaloo

A Guide to my Biases

 * Mixed parentage
 * Lived all over the place
 * Pretty much Western outlook, tho some would say not.
 * Hindu by birth, strong Catholic (school) influences


 * Science education
 * Education sector (work, yuk!)


 * Anti war
 * Anti any narrow mindedness
 * Anti cult (belief is a different matter tho)
 * Democrat and a bit of a green supporter


 * Trained in the ancient art of hitting my friends (boxing)
 * Chef extroadinaire (with chili)
 * I keep my eye open for wine and good rare teas (and drink them socially)


 * I don't like working in tight-nit groups
 * I don't believe in conspiracy theories (cockup theories are ok tho)
 * I believe Wikipedia could do with presenting NPOV compliant answers to "why" questions, rather than just making statements
 * I believe it is always best to avoid sweeping unqualified statements
 * I think Wikipedia will evolve pretty quickly, especially if views are kept open at the top
 * I'd like to have more time to contribute more

Category_talk:Pseudoscience
Hi KV, I appreciate your recent comments on pseudoscience on User_talk:Jefffire and elsewhere. You may want to check out Category_talk:Pseudoscience as well. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 05:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thought field therapy
KrishnaVindaloo wrote:
 * Hi Super. I made some changes to NPOV the art. If you have any particular recommendations to keep it neutral, please don't hesitate to post.

Exactly which article are you referring to? &mdash; Super-Magician (talk &bull; contribs &bull; count ) &#x2605; 22:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

hi again. I mean the TFT (thought field therapy) article. Cheers KrishnaVindaloo 04:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I looked up the article without capitalizing 'field' and 'therapy'. Anyway, I think the article is a bit better.  However, I'm not sure you'll get anywhere simply by changing 'claims' and 'claimed' to 'says' and 'said'.  I did see your edits further down the page, and they seem fine.  However, I'm not really the one you should talk to about improving the article.  I simply replaced a box with the proper template.  &mdash; Super-Magician (talk &bull; contribs &bull; count ) &#x2605; 14:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, Super. I'll keep working on it. KrishnaVindaloo 06:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Integration of subjects i the Pseudoscience article
In keeping with this comment of yours.....:


 * "Well, now (or else continue a reversion war) it seems the only option is to make the issues more concrete and recognizable to the reader by integrating examples of pseudoscientific subjects into the article text." KrishnaVindaloo 06:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been wondering how to couple the list and integration of the subject into the article. I think that if an item deserves listing, the reasons should be documented by inclusion in the article. I have a non-standard idea that might work, it just needs the proper heading.

We could use the references' code, with a proper heading. Then the explanatory notes, with references and links, would automatically appear in a section that provides explanations and documentation.

That way, if an item's documentation and references aren't good enough, removing it from the list automatically removes all mention of it.

What do you think of the idea? I know it's not standard practice, so another way might be better, but more cumbersome. -- Fyslee 07:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Fyslee. I believe integrating into the narrative of the article will be fine, and also a list will help readers to search. There may be different reasons for placing an item into a list, or into the text, so reasons (or excuses) for removal from each may be different. Things right now are a bit too hot for reasonable normal editing. So I suggest normal editing be postponed until censorship due to agenda is less prevelant. So, I believe it would be more appropriate now to integrate certain examples into the text of the article. The section on characteristics of pseudoscience certainly needs expanding, and the piece on protoscience needs minimizing.  So lets just get on with explaining pseudoscientific subjects with reference to specific pseudoscientific subjects in order to help the reader. We will no doubt be able to add a list of fields considered to be pseudoscientific later on (as that is what NPOV policy tells us clearly we can do). Explanation and clarity are the goal. But lets try to avoid triggering the censors and promoters of various interests. KrishnaVindaloo 08:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi agian Fyslee. There's definitely more work to do on the category talk of pseudoscience cat also. Right now its written as if there is a definitive list of pseudosciences somewhere (which is nonsense). The reader needs to be able to browse a good list of pseudoscientific subjects in order to understand the subject of pseudoscience. It can be a lot more extensive when good sources are given. KrishnaVindaloo 09:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuanced thinking
We seem to be editing a number of articles together. I would encourage you to embrace nuanced characterizations rather than making issues "black and white".

I seem to notice you getting into a rather a lot of polarized discussions. I personally find it helpful to start by acknowledging as much as possible of another person's contribution - to work to find common elements - and then to raise remaining points of difference with the expectation that a compromise might be viable. None of us has the one truth; each of us sees a refracted view of the world, one point of view on the totality.

Best wishes, Hgilbert 10:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, HGilbert. I am interested in the shades of grey. The facts need to be presented, and the reader needs to make up their own mind. KrishnaVindaloo 01:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic
KV, after reading your comments about your plans, I feel guardedly comfortable with intentions concerning adding the pseudoscience elements to the chiro page. I agree with you that chiropractic has the history and even some current activities that can be described as pseudoscience. And I trust in your neutral tone and ability to bring it out in a NPOV way. If successful, we will have succeeded in creating an article that is probably the most complete and accurate description of chiropractic to date. I am only hopeful that you are able to help us illustrate how chiropractic is not the practice it was 100 years ago. 90 percent of people go to chiropractors for neck and low back pain. That is different than the perceived epistomology that chiropractic's competition would like scientists and the public to believe. They would like them portrayed as quacks. There is strong opposition to any edits that shed chiropractic in any form of positive light. We have yet to be able to present any research that is not deleted as insufficient or biased, no matter who performed it. I know this is really not your concern, as you will move on to other things. So please be careful and I will continue to work with you for a complete and balanced article. --Dematt 12:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Dematt. Do you have any sources on "chiropractor's competition"?. Sounds intriguing. KrishnaVindaloo 04:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * These are sites by an MD and physical therapist. Both fields are competitors and both website owners are editors here at WP.  I'm not sure healthy skepticism is a good description, but you can decide for yourself as I am certainly POV in the other direction. As far as pseudoscientific qualities of each field, I do not have a reliable source that would call them pseudoscience, but I don't have access to any of the books that consider this subject.  Perhaps you do;) --Dematt 04:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh I see. Well, they both refer to science and pseudoscientific ideas one way or another, so I think they are both reliable to read for yourself. But Chirobase seems to be the more relaible for Wikipedia. The other one looks to be a personal website. KrishnaVindaloo 04:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR
KrishnaVindaloo, I would be remiss in not letting you know you are already up to four reverts on pseudoscience. Three different editors have disagreed with your assertions on an issue that has been extensively argued on the talk page. Any further reversions on the issue of chiropractic in that article will perhaps result in a block of your access in accordance with WP:3RR. ... Kenosis 05:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Kenosis. I understand the 3RR. My last edit was a correction, and not a revert. Re-parenting is not mentioned by Lilienfeld. Lilienfeld classes chiropractic as pseudoscience and he criticises chiropractors for using spinal manipulations for such "ailments" as mental "imbalance", the vapours, add, dyslexia, mental trauma, and increasing "human potential". Your so called extensive discussion is completely unclear, as is the description and title of the section in question in relation to the entries already there. Plus, in order for you to be consistent with your deletion of chiropractic, you must delete other entries from the list. Now, if you are interested in being even halfway convincing, perhaps you would like to discuss and refer to the literature in question. KrishnaVindaloo 05:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal issues
I don't expect other editors to agree with me or me with them. This is not about disagreement about facts. It is about your persistent attribution of motives to other editors - that they are making this or that edit out of malice, out of bias or pov, or out of a wish to censor or suppress alternative points of view. Frankly, I am far from sure whether your personal opinions on many subjects are any different from mine. The issues on the Talk page are nothing to do with content or differences of opinion. They are solely to do with WP policies and guidelines, in particular WP OR, and WP Good Faith. Failing to recognise that is itself a breach of good faith.Gleng 08:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine Gleng, then lets deal with your objections on my talk page, instead of making a fuss on the PS talk page. I believe that will be in the best interests of the article and editors concerned. I am fine with continuing with RfC though I believe things can be ironed out here. I lost count of the amount of times I have been called a liar in one form or another. There are statements such as, "KV has far outlasted his usefulness", and you are making appeals to boot me from the article. A reasonable arbitrator is going to look at the attacks directed at me, and conclude that there is at least some malice. Even in the face of personal attack, I have made clear statements in order to calm the situation down.


 * If you remove all the personal attack, our discussions revolve around the inclusion of the PS elements of chiropractic. Some of that discussion has been fruitful, especially in terms of me obtaining literature I didn't previously have. I have long since stopped including chiropractic on the article using the citations previously presented, and you should recognize that. I have made apologies in order to placate angry and abusive editors. Any reasonable arbitrator is going to call your main objection silly. The assuming good faith (lying subclause) is based on the inclusion or exclusion of facts, not whether one source is correct and the other is a support for the correct source. It would be daft for any reasonable mediator to conclude that anything destructive was happening there. Well, thats my view. Now what reasonable specific suggestions could you make that will help us all carry on editing without incurring constant conflict with chiropractic proponents? KrishnaVindaloo 09:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Conflict reduction

See Gleng's response. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 10:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have avoided personal attacks and don't intend to start now. If you need clarity on exactly why I and other editors are angry about your remarks on Talk pages, then see for example this In this you commented on my correction of the reference to Ford where I substituted the word psychtherapy for the word chiropractic. You commented that it was the silliest edit... That edit was absolutely correct both to the spirit and to the meaning of Ford's article. It seems likely to me that, at that point you referred to that article and realised it, because from that point on you stopped trying to defend your reference to Ford directly. However, instead of openly acknowledging your error you continued to deceive the editors on that page until your deception was directly exposed by Steth.

This type of editing in my view gives skeptics a bad name. Had you looked at my contributions on WP closely, you would have realised that I am neither a chiropractor nor a proponent of it, but a scientist and rational skeptic myself. Gleng 13:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Gleng. But I told the truth when I said I realised the confusion when Steth asked me. I said yes, then clarified, yes I have read it, and there are other more specific cites. Ford is very easy to confuse as its written on the Christianson article.  There, so silly me. Two names are easy to confuse when they are both talking about the same subject.  Jim Butler did it himself, silly Jim also.


 * Concerning skepticism; I wasn't born yesterday. The main skeptic argument about chiropractic is that it is used as a panacea, right? People make wierd claims and say it can be used for anything. So of course applying chiropractic to treating homosexuality is pseudoscientific. Its plainly obvious. And the literature backs it up eg, Christianson. When Ford writes about pseudoscience in RT, its not psychotherapy that he blames. Its all the vitalistic whackos like those applying chiropractic. Its the best example for the point. So yes, its silly to replace it with psychotherapy. Your edit showed a complete lack of understanding, a desire to over-protect chiropractic even when its being presented very fairly, and it shows an unwillingness to write a clear article.


 * You seem to be very religious about defending chiropractic in comparison with all other subjects. The arguments you've presented are extremely spurious and largely PS arguments. I know because I've read a lot of chiropractic literature recently. Its all there. Others here will no doubt recognize it too, but I'm sure they don't want to get drawn into conflict on the talk page. Probably quite sensible too.  KrishnaVindaloo 03:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Vitalism
Hi there. I built a criticism section on the vitalism page... can we concentrate the counterpoints of the topic there? and use the talk page? more resources are welcome if you can find them. Thanks. --Travisthurston 15:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Travisthurston. A criticism section seems to be quite inappropriate here. The majority scientific view is that vitalism is an old pseudoscientific idea. There are some more recent New Age notions of vitalism that try to sound more scientific, but the majority is still in the opinion that vitalism is pseudoscience. If there was an article on New Age Vitalism then a criticism section would be fine there. But in this case, science comes first and the subject should be written from the science view primarily, otherwise we are going to get a very confusing set of excuse laden versions from all and sundry pseudoscientific followings. Thanks KrishnaVindaloo 03:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts about where to place vitalism on the scientific spectra:

"Prescientific" is a term that can be used to judge the historical significance of a phenomena, whether it be a body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief or practice. As such its usefulness as a term is limited to discussing the history of a phenomena, and does not accurately describe the phenomena's present day status.

A prescientific phenomena can follow at least one of three paths leading to extremely different conclusions:


 * 1) It can be scientifically validated and accepted, becoming a part of scientifically accepted fact. In medicine, such phenomena often start as traditional medicine, or "alternative" medicine, and end up becoming evidence based medicine (EBM).
 * 2) It can be disproven and rejected after much experimentation shows negative results. Such phenomena are relegated to the history books as historic artifacts.
 * 3) It can, in spite of a lack of scientific validation - and even in spite of clear rejection - be preserved and believed, thus becoming a current pseudoscientific phenomena. In medicine, such phenomena are often labeled quackery by the medical community and skeptics.

Translation: Vitalism was a prescientific concept, and for those who continue to espouse it, it is a pseudoscientific idea, and makes them vulnerable to being labeled with the pejorative term "vitalist." -- Fyslee 19:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Fyslee. As far as I know, vitalism is untestable. It doesn't matter how many people say such and such biochemical reaction looks just a little bit like "vitalism" in inverted commas. The majority view is that it is untestable. Its also certainly pseudoscientific. The scientific method has been largely neglected in the article in favour of fring or minority boosterism over emergence. Normally, emergentism exclused the idea of any kind of vitalism. In scientific testing or theory building, vitalism is definitely frowned upon. This is the majority view, and minority should be stated in a way that says it is minority. Well, I pretty much agree with you over your statement, except vitalism is untestable and is presently not pre-science. Thanks KrishnaVindaloo 03:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Vitalism. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Reversion is not endorsed as a way of pursuing content disputes. Guy 10:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks Guy. I'm working without sleep. Time kinda gets second dibs. I'll watch it. KrishnaVindaloo 11:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Majority view of vitalism
Thanks for this edit. I was having a hard time getting comfortable with that section. I think it is true that within biology there is a majority position with respect to vitalism, and it is important to explain what that position is and how it came about. However, as soon as we step outside of the rather small circle of biologists, I'm not sure what the majority position is! --JWSchmidt 19:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure JW. We just have to represent all significant views with the science ones explaining things properly. The reader should be able to work out what the majority view is on their own. KrishnaVindaloo 01:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much Thatcher131. Will do. KrishnaVindaloo 12:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block
Sorry William. Slept right through it. KrishnaVindaloo 03:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on October 17 2006 to Chiropractic
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 15:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry William. Slept right through it. KrishnaVindaloo 03:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You need references
Without properly referencing this subject, how can you expect to defend it or get other editors to even consider backing you up? Much of your work here is seriously undermined by a failure to properly reference your edits. -- Fyslee 09:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the reference provided is compliant with NPOV policy on reliable views. Look it up. KrishnaVindaloo 13:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning - AGF, CIVIL, NPA
Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * KC, I know exactly how and when to assume good faith. Thank you. Would you be so kind as to offer an explanation for whenever you revert my edits? I mean, we are working on controversial articles and you would do well to heed my advice. Otherwise you may feel my wrath! I will do an NPOV on your particular likings! Now you wouldn't like that would you? KrishnaVindaloo 12:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel your wrath? Are you joking? What kind of threat is that? KillerChihuahua?!? 12:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Warning! Are you joking? Do you think I do not know what bullshit has been going on here for months?  KrishnaVindaloo 12:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Three examples of your failure to AGF and violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL policies from the last 24 hours - which has become your normal method. I am most assuredly NOT joking about the warning. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * KC, you go right ahead and do whatever you feel like. I will present NPOV compliant material, and keep my frustrations to myself as much as I can. You can go ahead and cause as much trouble as the censorious proponent. Its all on your head. What have I got to lose? Why should I give a damn? KrishnaVindaloo 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Tit for tat, nah! 

KrishnaVindaloo 13:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

AMA
Before things get too out of hand, KV, perhaps you can consider getting an advocate. I think you would be a prime candidate. --ScienceApologist 13:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I also suggest you simply disengage. One side is going to have to do it if things are going to get any better. So if you are as anti-war as you claim, you should take the Gandhi-esque approach and unilaterally disarm. The article will still be here long after these disputes are over, but if you continue down this road of lashing out at those who you think are attacking you, you yourself won't be around. --ScienceApologist 13:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much SA. Will do. I'm off to Barbados for a few weeks anyhow. I can focus my efforts far better on research when I return, though I guess we will all have to handle the same old pushers at some point. Cheers. KrishnaVindaloo 16:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
KV, you have displayed some quite worrying and disruptive behaviour. You are currently blocked per this thread on WP:ANI. It is my view that you should not be unblocked until you undertake to stop this behaviour. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Guy. Firstly I don't mind you blocking me because there are some things that seriously need sorting out here. Tell me how to edit using NPOV policy on the pseudoscience article without being disruptive. Because so far, it seems the only way to not be disruptive is to avoid any edit that has anything even vaguely to do with chiropractic. The request that led you to block me is full of evidence of other editors ganging up against me because they do not like me. I have persistently presented NPOV compliant edits that only my detractors do not like and that they refuse to look up for themselves. The PS article hardly gets any progress when I am away, and mostly only goes forward when I am there. Though there is a great deal of pressure to lock the article. It is presently in need of more clarity to make it more accessible to readers, and it is in need of updating using NPOV compliant facts. According to Bishonen, it is they who are holding similar pseudoscientific articles hostage by POV pushing. Please offer some sort of solution that I can follow. I have abundant research that will help the article improve. KrishnaVindaloo 04:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, here is more detail. I was not informed about this or other complaints against me. I believe complainants are supposed to inform me of their complaints when they try to gang up in such a manner. I will however defend myself here. As per the thread.


 * The complainants are devout chiropractic adherants or have a problem with me personally. Dematt and Levine2112 are adherants, and Jim62sch and the others have repeatedly accused me of lying and none have them have presented any evidence whatsoever, and Jim62sch has used racist stereotypes against me in discussion. KillerChihuahua also obviously bares a grudge because I complained against him in arbitration for calling me obtuse (personal attack).  All of the facts that I have presented have source support, and KC denies it.  Now I have to ask you about your particular bias. What is your position towards chiropractic?


 * The first line of the complaint is that I was caught lying. There is no evidence of me lying whatsoever and I have explained this in detail when I made applications for Wikiquette alerts against the said complainants (the first link in the thread I instigated that alert). There is evidence of me getting mixed up between references (references that Jim Butler also mixed up btw, and nobody is accusing him of being a "pathalogical liar"). My main facts at the time still stick like glue according to two peer reviewed sources: Chiropractic is used to treat homosexuality - fact! Chiropractic is used to treat a vast range of ailments that it has no clinical support for, based upon pseudoscientific notions -  fact! Neither of those are lies. Editors have been accusing me of lying for months after the presentation of those facts nevertheless. I believe that either they don't like me complaining about them in arbitration, or they want to stifle relevant views about chiropractic or pseudoscience. Please offer me some sort of solution to put the accusers straight.


 * Levine2112 has just been badgering me on the PS talk page for access to the source. Jim62sch cast aspersions again on myself without any evidence. Fyslee demanded that I present the source material. I have no access to a scanner and I have no obligation to copy or send material anyway. Then he accuses me of being uncooperative. A no win situation! Levine2112 accused me repeatedly that I was being uncooperative and kept badgering for the source. I made a statement on the chiropractic article for adopting cooperation and collaboration. I maintain that position. If there is something you find wrong with that approach, then please quote the relevant Wikipedia policy that supports your objection. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 08:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * KV you're not going to win many friends by shooting the messengers. I know Jim pretty well by now, he is a fair-minded guy and absolutely not given to support quackery and other nonsense.  He is, on the other hand, an admin and bound to uphold WP:NPOV.  Your major problem is that you are so intent on debunking that you fail to see the bigger picture.  WP:NPOV certainly allows for the coverage of subjects rejected by the scientific mainstream, and although it requires that we make clear what the mainstream view is, it does not mean that every claim made by proponents needs to be rebutted with five sources.
 * Chiropractic is a good case study here. It is routinely over-hyped, but it is also accepted as a valid complementary therapy by many conventional practitioners.  There is reasonable evidence to suggest it is effective in relieving chronic back pain, for example, and many National Health Service practices will fund chiropractic on that basis.  So it's a slightly uneasy situation, with practitioners arguing for more acceptance, True Believers making claims which often cannot be substantiated, some outright charlatans and some die-hard sceptics.  And that's what the article needs to say.  And it needs to say it not by reference to our own opinions, but by documenting the debate in the reliable secondary sources.  My personal view is that the article should be divided into a few sections according to the degree of acceptance, but I have not looked at that article in detail for some considerable time.
 * The biggest problem here is that you are perceived to have declared an intent to hold these articles hostage. That is completely unacceptable.  You do the cause of scepticism and objectivity a great disservice by giving extremists on the other side an excuse to feel aggrieved.  Yes, we have in these articles the fallacy of the false middle, with supporters painting scepticism as the opposite extreme instead of the middle ground, I am well used to this in other areas, but the way to deal with that is with reason not rhetoric, and by discussion, because what you have done is essentially to validate this fallacious reasoning and make it much harder for others to knock it down along with the entire house of cards built on it.  If proponents refuse, on Talk, to accept neutralisation of an excessively promotional paragraph, and if neutralisatiuon has gained the support of several well-informed editors in reasoned debate and with support from unimpeachable sources, then you have a strong case for mediation and eventually enforcement against them.  Simply fighting with them is pointless, your behaviour makes your bias more of a problem than their bias, and that is why you are blocked and they are not.
 * It is absolutely not the case that everybody who is opposed to your editing style is in favour of their point of view. There is no logical connection between the two.  None at all. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, then it sounds to me you are a proponent. I am happy to collaborate with you. I will get to work on dividing the chiropractic article into degrees of acceptance. If you could help me out there I would be very grateful. KrishnaVindaloo 15:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you just proved my point for me. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, what is your solution for Jim62sch using a racist stereotype towards me, and the others saying I am lying when I present NPOV compliant material? I believe there should be far less of that kind of thing on Wikipedia. That is certainly not the sort of thing admin should be up to. KrishnaVindaloo 16:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Concerning your assessment of myself. I am not into debunking. In fact I above the proponents wish to show more proponent views, including the wilder claims. Unfortunately it is an uphill battle. They will flatly deny they exist. The people who percieve me to hold the article hostage are the same who do not wish me around. They don't like me because after I have been accused many multiple times of lying, I tell the truth. They really don't like that, so they complain. I am after solutions. I have offered solutions all along, and have been at the forefront of most communications. When I make an edit, I usually make a statement on a talk page. Others (such as KC and Kenosis), revert without any kind of reasoning and often without referring to the source material. That I believe is a lot of the problem here. The PS article is a problem article. You still, it seems have offered no particular solution. I am not sure what you intend. Though judging by your writing, it seems that you just want me to go away. Or would you like to suggest to me some kind of plan of action? I still suggest my collaboration with yourself on the chiropractic or PS article. KrishnaVindaloo 16:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi KV, sorry to hear about your ongoing misfortunes and being sent to the naughty chair. I guess it looks like holding unrelated articles hostage with your radical chiropractic-hating fundamentalist extremism of the type you are obsessed with, doesn't seem to go over too well, now does it?


 * Your plight reminds me of a story I once heard from an wise rabbi.


 * Murray and Willie sit down for their lunch break at their job. They open their lunch boxes and Murray looks at his sandwich and starts ranting and screaming, "Baloney, everyday baloney. Day in and day out it's always baloney. I'm sick and tired of the the same thing every day, day after day, baloney sandwiches!!"


 * Willie, startled, looks over at the ranting Murray and says, "Calm down, Murray! Just ask your wife to make you something different for a change!"


 * The ranting sadsack, Murray looks at Willie and says, "Wife? What wife? I'm not married. I make these sandwiches myself!"


 * The moral of the story is that all the baloney we have in our lives, we bring ourselves.


 * So you see KV, just in case you missed the point, you are in the naughty chair in the naughty corner because of your own baloney, baloney that you bring yourself. Now, didn't you like that story? Steth 19:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Steth. You rather prove many of my points. Just for the admin here, would you care to provide some sort of evidence to prove that I was talking baloney (lying) about chiropractic being used for sexual conversion therapy? Because in truth, I believe that is the source of this problem. You, Jim62sch, Kenosis, KC, Jim Butler, and all the others, will never be able to prove that I was talking baloney about that, even though the accusations continue. If you can prove somehow that those peer reviewed sources that I provided at your insistence are some kind of a fantasy, then you may have something. Otherwise, baloney is not on the menu. KrishnaVindaloo 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, KV, to clarify, the baloney was actually referring more to your uncooperative behaviour rather than your references, which might also be baloney. Steth 21:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again Steth. Now here we have your evidence. - Might be baloney!


 * Based on your, "might be baloney" assertion, you have called me a pathalogical liar. And following in your footsteps, Jim62sch, Jim Butler, Levine2112, and the rest have done the same or similar for months, and used that as an excuse not to assume good faith on any edit that does not quite fit your particular agendas. Note they all say I am uncooperative. Its mostly because they don't like me defending myself whenever someone accuses me of lying.


 * And it all came to a head in the last week when I presented yet another edit that follows on and corroborates the evidence in the section in question. Levine2112 said that it was not relevant because the reference did not include the term "pseudoscience". But the source does contain the term pseudocience. Is Levine2112 a liar? Talking baloney?  The term pseudoscience is definitely in the article more than once, so according to Levine2112's argument, the ref is actually relevant.


 * And even though I had provided the citation, Fyslee tells me to provide the source material. I cannot, and do not need to. Fyslee accuses me of being uncooperative. I collaborated perfectly, providing NPOV compliant sources, and explaining in full the situation, corroborating refs, and so on. So is Fyslee talking baloney?


 * Fyslee writes a new heading "KVs inability to collaborate etc". Jim62sch chimes in and infers that I am a liar again. Now Steth, is it one of those "could be baloney" issues again? I provided two verifiable peer reviewed refs to prove I was not lying many multiple times already. So is Jim62sch lying?


 * Levine2112 carries on demanding that I provide the source material in full. When I say I do not need to, Levine2112 accuses me of being uncooperative. I collaborated fully, yet I am being accused of being uncooperative once again. I consider the reference and possible places where it may be even more appropriate, and of course the chiropractic article rings a bell. There have been edits that other editors told me would be more appropriate on the chiropractic article. So I follow up with a start up on the context of the changes I would need to make, and give a note of cooperation on the chiro talk page.  It depended upon what happened to the discussion on the PS article. I stated that fully and collaboratively in the chiropractic article and edit summaries.


 * Then I get blocked for not collaborating.


 * Perhaps we could get some outside parties in here to tell us the baloney from the NPOV from the collaboration. KrishnaVindaloo 22:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas. All the best, Steth 23:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Steth, please stop trolling. It is not helping in any way. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Summary of my view of this incident. I am interested in solutions here. Of course I believe there could be many and I have suggested some. I have also presented what I believe to be at least one source of the problem (people refusing to assume good faith by claiming that I lied). As I originally stated, please someone tell me how I should adjust things in order to deal with this situation. I am open to admin suggestions. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 11:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Decision: Ok, time's up Guy. I have come to a decision based upon your arguments and actions and further investigation of the others involved. Please keep the block in place indefinitely. You have led me to believe that you have no intention to solve problems relevant to this incident. You have presented erroneous information and poor judgment. You claim that it is unacceptable for other editors to percieve me to be disruptive, yet you failed to look at their actions and motives. You supported the opinions of some of the most abusive and dismissive editors I have ever had to encounter on Wikipedia, including your friend Jim62sch. See the KV evidence section of . As an editor who has contributed both in informed research and with reasoned discussion which has led to substantial improvement of Wikipedia articles, especially concerning science explanations of pseudoscience, I have collaborated with those willing to collaborate, and I have had to endure abuse and dismissive behaviour from ill informed editors with a grudge or a personal agenda. I have had to stand up for myself throughout. So now, I am unwilling to just bend over and take it. Therefore, though I have made positive contributions, I wholeheartedly reject Wikipedia. I will not work with such a group. Enjoy the effigy burning. Goodbye. KrishnaVindaloo 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)