User talk:SkylabField/Archive 1

b

Vaillant wrote these books:
Hello, good fellow.

I've looked into the efficacy of AA -- and the AA 12-Step program of recovery. As a Thumper, I detest open discussion meetings and I advocate study meetings, including BB and Step.

Perhaps the most valuable source of information to support your cause is George E Vaillant, the subject of a separate Wikipedia article(!)and a former non-alcoholic Class A board member of Alcoholics Anonymous.


 * Vaillant, GE (1977), Adaptation to Life, Boston, MA, Little, Brown, 1977 (also Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Hardcover, 396pp ISBN 0-316-89520-2) [also German, Korean and Chinese translations] (Reprinted with a new preface in 1995 by Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
 * Vaillant, GE (1983), Natural History of Alcoholism, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press
 * Vaillant, GE (1992), Ego Mechanisms of Defense: A Guide for Clinicians and Researchers, Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Press
 * Vaillant, GE (1993), The Wisdom of the Ego, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-95373-8
 * Vaillant, GE (1995), The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, [also (Brazilian) Portuguese translation]
 * Vaillant, GE (2002), Aging Well, Boston, Little Brown, ISBN 0-316-09007-7
 * Vaillant, GE (2008), Spiritual Evolution: A Scientific Defense of Faith, Broadway Books, ISBN 0-7679-2657-9
 * Vaillant, GE (2012), Triumphs of Experience: The Men of the Harvard Grant Study, Belknap Press, ISBN 0-674-05982-4

I believe "Spiritual Evolution" is an extremely helpful book. I've read it twice, underlining the text the second time. It has ample references.

Let me know if I can be of assistance. Best regards, //Don K in Anchorage, Alaska //Don K. (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words and offers of assistance. The reason I am editing the Wikipedia is because the AA Critics, who I call the "anti-steppers", have started really dominating the narrative of Alcoholics Anonymous that the press is showing the world.  Lance Dodes's The Sober Truth was an extremist hit piece which did a lot of intellectual contortions to interpret the academic literature to be as negative of AA as possible.  For example, Dodes took a study which said that "Rates of abstinence are about twice as high among those who attend AA" and concluded that it was saying that "the strong evidence that one would expect if AA were clearly effective is simply not present."  But it was The Sober Truth which dominated the press about Alcoholics Anonymous last year, including a NPR segment.


 * However, the actual academic studies are more and more showing that AA is helping alcoholics as researchers find ways to work around the fact a true controlled trial is impossible because pretty much any alcoholic can just waltz down to a local AA meeting for free. The 2006 Cochrare study said that AA was no more and no less effective than other treatments for alcoholism; the up and coming 2015 study should be more favorable towards AA because of improved research methodologies (see Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous for discussion of this).


 * When I got sober, the press was a lot more favorable towards AA, and I think it was the favorable press AA was getting which helped me stay sober until I got a sponsor to work the steps from the Big Book with. Defendingaa (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on AA's relationship to temperance movements
Would like to get your perspective on this discussion. - Scarpy (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Defendingaa. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Alcoholics Anonymous, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please let me know which edits in article space violate NPOV. Defendingaa (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * sorry for butting in here, but El Cid, please see WP:DTTR. The drive-by templating of experienced editors is rude, impersonal and demeaning. - Scarpy (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I did not realize you were an experienced user since you have only made edits to AA-related articles since joining. I'm only recommending that you be wary in removing negative information about the AA page when your username explicitly states that you have a CoI, that is, that you are a member of the organization and have an account with the purpose of defending the organization. Your account fits the definition of a single-purpose account, with your single purpose being to defend AA. This is not a warning, it's just a notice, asking you to be mindful of any conflicts you admittedly have. When I see a name like "defendingaa" it does not inspire trust in a wp:npov. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  13:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concerns. I do not believe it is useful to the Wikipedia nor do I think it is the intention of the WP:COI policy to forbid anyone who happens to be a member of Alcoholics Anonymous to edit that article, just as we do not forbid anyone who is registered to the Democratic Party (United States) or the Republican Party (United States) from editing those articles. Otherwise, the articles would not be neutral, since they would be edited mainly by people with a POV against the subject matter of the article in question.
 * I do not feel it was helpful to negatively tag me; I was in the middle of the process of trying to undo the changes done by yet another new, POV-pushing disruptive editor who has since been blocked from editing. I can understand why you felt the need to do tag my talk page -- although I am not sure why it is you did not bother to tag the actual disruptive editor's talk page.  The content I removed (actually, moved to another page) is content that was added by an editor not acting in good faith.
 * I welcome you to come to Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous and discuss why it is you feel, for example, that Kownacki and Shadish 1999 (the content I moved to Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous) belongs on the main AA page; if we come up with consensus that this old study is relevant today, I will gladly restore the content. I have already opened up a section on the talk page about the three major pieces of content that disruptive editor tried to add; and your contributions would be very welcome there.
 * Thank you, again, for your interest in making Wikipedia a better place and for your contributions Defendingaa (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Wish you would have comments enabled on your blog
Read this with much interest. https://defendingaa.blogspot.com/2018/06/people-in-aa-or-na-should-not-play.html?m=1

I appreciate what you're trying to say, but think you're missing a larger point. AAs and NAs are probably aware of doctor shopping when addicts want a drug. Indeed some doctors enable addiction. You're probably as aware of the doctors that were encouraged by pharmaceutical companies to push opiates as I am.

That does mean that MAT is bad or ineffective, I point it out only because the argument for not out-grouping people on it will encounter valid push back. People with a prescription pad can be part of the problem or part of the solution.

I would say groups like MATTR, Methadone Anonymous as well as SMART and others play an important role here. As was mentioned in the article, "everyone needs a tribe." NA is explicitly against MAT, AA has no opinion but often a similar sentiment. Not sure about CA and some of the others. But I think the answer is to promote the groups where people on MAT would fit in rather than pushing AAs and NAs to stop being MAT Nazis. If other fellowships grow, so much the better, I would say. Maybe that will be a data point for AA and NA world services to consider. - Scarpy (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Scarpy (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right that some people on ORT (opioid replacement therapies) are probably being dishonest with themselves. But I am not going to say that every single person taking a replacement opioid could get off of them if they got honest with themselves and tolerate a withdraw period--there are probably people out there who need to stay on them or they will go out again and die from street opiates.
 * The reason I have disabled comments on my blog is that discussions about 12-step effectiveness is a big time troll magnet (just look at the comments over at https://thefix.com to see what I'm talking about). I will, if you want, post a new blog entry with your comment (like a "letter to the editor"--pre-Internet trolls would submit a lot of those which wouldn't get published) Defendingaa (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have enabled moderated comments on my blog. Please be patient--I don't know how long it will take for me to approve you comment. Defendingaa (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Dry drunk article
so... after seven years I discovered that the dry drunk article had been redirected to Alcoholics Anonymous. I undid the redirect and cleaned it up a bit to make a neat stub. Would be curious what you're thoughts on the topic are. - Scarpy (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone else expanded it quite nicely. There was a WP:COPYVIO problem I fixed by rewriting the offending section. Defendingaa (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment put on my user page by User:Vestapol
From Vestapol: Thanks for responding to my first attempt to respond to you and other editors regarding the Wiki AA article. I'm not sure if this is the way to communicate with you, D-AA. But I will be trying my best to get on...I think it's called... "AA Talk"?. Reading your motivation, above, I see we have similar interests in science and objectivity. If you'd care to guide my navigation and how technically to add replies, I'd appreciate that.

Vestapol (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)VestapolVestapol (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

(Moved from my user page Defendingaa (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC) )

Nomination of Death of Amanda Froistad for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death of Amanda Froistad is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Death of Amanda Froistad until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia
First thank you for your help in creating and updating articles on wikipedia!

However I do have a quibble with one of your recent contributions. I can't see the deleted article Moderation Management, but from the report an ANI and comments you made like "Update wording now that this is a stand-alone article" I believe you've copied content from Moderation Management to make Death of Amanda Froistad. While the copying itself is fine, our licences requires that attribution for copyrighted content is preserved. This includes for any content eligible for copyright that is copied between articles for which you are not the only (copyright eligible) contributor. (If you are the only copyright eligible contributor, then there's no problem. Although since determining copyright eligibility is complicated with works like ours, IMO even if all the other edits were fairly minor fixes like correcting typos it's best to simply assume copyright may exist.) One of your later edit summaries "Here’s another paragraph rescued from Moderation Management’s history" is probably sufficient to acknowledge the copying. But the starting edit summary "Start article abput murder confession posted to Moderation Management" isn't particularly clear that content was actual copied from the other article. (The follow up edit summary strongly suggests it, but I think have to rely on 2 edit summaries to recognise what happened is a bit confusing.)

For future reference, I recommend following the procedures at Copying within Wikipedia. (The fact that the other article has now been deleted leads to additional complications, I will be talking to DGG about how to handle this, but provided you followed the procedures it's not your fault.) As remarked there, it's helpful (albeit not strictly required for licencing reasons) to mark in the article you copied content from that this happened to reduce the chance this will happen. And just as a quick note, this isn't simply a minor bureaucratic issue, our contributors are entitled to have the terms of their licences respected, by not doing so we are effectively committing copyright violations against any who made copyright eligible contributions to the copied work. (You may not care, but some people definitely do.)

Thanks once again for your contributions to wikipedia!

Nil Einne (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the heads up. I know that we recently updated the legalese to make it clear linking to the Wikipedia article is sufficient attribution; however, a lot of edits were made before this distinction was made.  I will make a point of preserving the history of both articles with an online archiver, so if either gets deleted, its attribution history is still available. Defendingaa (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

How well do you think the NIAAA did here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqx3gs8hlv8 - Scarpy (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think they did quite well. Going to https://alcoholtreatment.niaaa.nih.gov/FAQs-searching-alcohol-treatment#topic-how-can-mutual-help-groups-help they point out that “Most research on mutual help groups has been on AA and similar 12-step groups. Both the anonymous and voluntary nature of participation in these groups makes it difficult to conduct randomized controlled trials (the gold standard of scientific research) to directly study their effectiveness. [...] While this body of literature is complex and still growing, the evidence suggests that the free and flexible support provided by mutual help groups can help people make and sustain beneficial changes and thus promote recovery. The research indicates that groups may help by providing a social framework that improves coping, boosts self-confidence, and continually enhances motivation toward recovery.”  Defendingaa (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Addiction recovery groups -> Drug addiction recovery groups
Hey there, I did a page move after a little discussion on Talk:Drug addiction recovery groups. Was wondering what your thoughts on the topic were? - Scarpy (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 2


A tag has been placed on Talk:Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"Archive page created out of archive order and messing with the counter on the automatic archiving system."

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Since the admin felt deleting that page is not appropriate, I have compromised by splitting it down the middle. The two discussions on Talk:Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous which you did not participate in are now in Archive #2.  The one discussion which you have participated in is still on the live Talk:Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous page, and I have asked another editor for their input so we can come up with a better consensus for what to do for the lead of Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous.  Defendingaa (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Attention needed at username change request
Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 19:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have opened up a new request to have the new name be "SkylabField". I do not think there is any confusion with Skylab.  Defendingaa (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't mean that you've given up working on AA-related articles. You've done a mountain of exceptional work and it's been good collaborating with you over the years. I will miss if you if you're gone. - Scarpy (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I have no intention to stop working on AA related articles, but I need a new username so other editors don’t think I’m editing in bad faith. Defendingaa (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Good to hear. Wikipedia is a better place having you around edit it. :) - Scarpy (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. These topics unfortunately result in a lot of confrontational edits which can be very tiring to deal with at times, so it’s good to be appreciated.  Defendingaa (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Guys, it looks like is on wiki vacation, so can one of you process my username change request? Thank you. Defendingaa (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I will take a look at it. --SimmeD (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You have now been renamed. --SimmeD (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk page archiving
D!

I see you archived a discussion because it was not currently active. That's understandable, but it's really not why we archive discussions. Per WP:ARCHIVE, "It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers." Generally, we actually want to have the last few discussions available, both because some people who are irregular contributors may still have something to say, and also because it gives new editors a better sense of what's going on with the page. Even if the last discussion is 7 years ago, that tells them that there hasn't been any discussion in 7 years.

Talk:Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous‎ is actually already set up for automatic archiving - if there are more than 5 discussion threads on the page, then threads with no activity in 60 days get moved to the archives. Archiving by hand is not only not necessary because of this, it actually interferes with it. You created a second archive page, but the counter on the automatic system is still set to the first page (it updates automatically when that page gets to large), so if you went away for a while and automatic archiving started taking place, the threads would end up out of order.

So while I appreciate the tidiness instinct, this is one of those cases where the best thing is also the easier thing - let the computer handle it.

Let me know if you have any questions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * My issue is simple: This issue is, IMHO, silly, and not worth getting in an edit war over. Yet, you reverted my changes two times over a 24 hour period, which really makes it difficult for me to assume good faith.  From where I sit, it looks like an edit war is being started for the sake of having an edit war.  I saw this same attitude in our discussion about AA’s efficacy, where you came off as being really confrontational to me.  Defendingaa (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So you made a change, were reverted, and then instead of discussing matters toward a resolution, made mostly the same change again. In other words, you were the one who turned it into an "edit war". And apparently your derision about how "silly" it is is reserved for my part of this, not your own efforts. In the earlier discussion, was I addressing some of your suggestions? Absolutely, that's what the Talk page is for. Did I call you on assuming others agreed with you when they had not stated so? Yes, and given your posting in the deletion discussion, that appears to be a habit of yours, one you might do well to break. One should learn to deal reasonably with one's edits being addressed if one is editing Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I now see that you've changed your !vote, and that is appreciated. I wish you swift success on your change of username. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 2
Talk:Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 2, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 2 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 2 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lance Dodes has been accepted
 Lance Dodes, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Lance_Dodes help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-retirement
Hey - there's still a lot more work to do here! Besides, I'll miss you. - Scarpy (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I’ll miss you too. The reason I originally created the account—to counter Lance Dodes’s inaccurate claims of low AA efficacy which got a lot of press in the mid-2010s—no longer apply, now that the 2020 Cochrane Review has debunked Dodes’s claims.  I also feel uncomfortable using this alternate account, since I do frown upon single purpose accounts.  It has been an incredibly great pleasure editing with you, and I am deeply thankful for all of the support you have provided me over the years.  SkylabField (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks man, I appreciate it. :) I've been trying to think of various arguments to exhort you to stick around and work on other part of the Addictions and Recovery Project, which has been sadly neglected for a long time. None of them are really better than the others, but I hope you'll keep an eye on your notifications for this account in case a situation arises where your expertise would be useful. If you're feel like shooting the breeze a bit about AA or other topics, send me an email. - Scarpy (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous Self Publish Sources Undo
Did you have any issue with the actual content or just the sources?

curprev 02:05, 27 November 2020‎ SkylabField talk contribs‎ 76,850 bytes -1,155‎ Revert claims which are only published by self-published sources undo Tag: Manual revert

curprev 01:20, 27 November 2020‎ 98.148.24.201 talk‎ 78,005 bytes +419‎ Grammar and 3rd founder undo Tags: Visual edit Reverted

curprev 00:51, 27 November 2020‎ 98.148.24.201 talk‎ 77,586 bytes +736‎ Added some info at the top about Clarence Snyder cause he was really influential and his method is stilled pushed by tons if not most of AAs without them even realizing it. undo Tags: Visual edit Reverted

I ask because a lot of people are huge fans of the 3rd guy and he has a strong following. Further, there are actual books I think for everything that was listed so it could be sourced easily. I just don't understand why it is deleted without ever giving anyone a chance to put the correct source up - I see lots of pages with "citation needed" so I guess a lot of stuff is even unsourced completely. A big problem with this topic too is that since it is a pretty young movement and close knit group, a lot of sources you might describe as self published really aren't that - because everything done by AA pretty much is by a member of the group. I mean, there are a few exceptions but basically all the books about its history are done by members and a lot of the commonly known history is really passed along word of mouth still (i.e. Stories about Clancy) and so to discount some of those voices that detail the history online because they are self published doesn't make so much sense. I'm not sure what it is that is supposed to be required- does the information have to come from AA itself, like something published by the Central Office or what exactly is it that would count? Do pamphlets made by AA count? If I found Clancy's website (example - I don't think one ever existed - died in '84 I think but there members of similar stature I'm sure have them) would that still not count? I didn't think what was removed was all that controversial but understanding the sourcing issue as being the problem. If it is sourcing, why is deleted even though most AAs know its true or a commonly held historical view of the group by many of its members instead of just noting it needs a different type of source?


 * For content to be placed on the Wikipedia, it must come from reliable sources, which means not using self-published sources. AA-created literature is actually not the best source to use (it can be used as per our “about self” policy); the best sources to use are reliable secondary sources, ideally sources listed as reliable on our reliable source list.  SkylabField (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

3RR report on 66.60.170.151
Feel free to comment. WP:ANEW. Sundayclose (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion has been archived but, since the IP subsequently reverted after that ticket was closed we are discussing the handling of that ticket with the editor who closed it SkylabField (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

A substantial reply focused on the edit you reverted in a start of an edit war without cause but for apparent personal reasons would help resolve the issues. See you in court is not the best way to go. Why do you insist on a falsehood regarding the review to persist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.170.151 (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please take this to Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous, and please stop the uncivil behavior, including the claim I am making a “falsehood”. The only reason I must place warnings on your talk page is because Wikipedia policy requires I do so before escalating things to WP:AN/I SkylabField (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)