User talk:Random user 39849958

Breaking the NPOV rule

Hi Levine2112,

It seems to me that you're breaking the neutral point of view rule of Wikipedia when you write: "The evidence is undeniable". This is not the case. I agree with some points of your article but the text can be considered as a self-promoting web page. The rule for "vanity links" is as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VANITY

What should not be linked to

1) In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it become an example of brilliant prose.

2)Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming.

3) Sites that primarily exist to sell products.

4) Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming

Respectfully,

Alain

No links to private practice...

Hi Levine2112,

To respect the Wikipedia's code of conduct, your link shouldn't refer to a private practice... You wrote: "Proof" is in eye of beholder, it seems. [Exactly. For some of us and regarding "cranial" or most other medical procedures, only data collected under controlled circumstances can offer proof. Others see proof in their more casual observations or their received doctrine. We have no more data now for the efficacy of "cranial" treatments than we ever had for the efficacy of blood letting. I do wonder how "cranial" practitioners can be so confident that they are right. As much as I've learned in recent years about human psychology, it still baffles me.] As the Wiki page on Osteopathy states: "Cranial osteopathy is a contested issue within the profession". I am merely providing a potential researcher with a supportive argument [Based on blatant or inadvertent misinterpretion of relevant literature]. As it is now, the section on Cranial Osteopathy is very slanted with judgemental phrases such as: "So called cranial osteopaths" and "How this mechanism is related to health / disease is not established" and "The brain does pulsate, but this is thought to be exclusively related to the cardiovascular system". Those are not neutral statements. They are based on research slanted against Cranial Osteopathy. [Not at all: of the three, statements two and three simply summarize the evidence. There is NO evidence for common "cranial" counterviews.] Also, I believe the entry confuses cranioscaral therapy with the wholly divergent science of Cranial Osteopathy. Rather than quibbling over semantics within the Wiki article, I thought it best to provide a supportive external link.

We have contrary opinions [Some of which are supported by data and others not.]- we can surely agree to disagree here [But is it wise to stop there if all data points in one direction?]-

Removal of documentation

Regarding this edit by you: [1]

Okay, you have removed the links for the citations, but you haven't moved them. Now there is no source listed for the quotes. How do you propose to link the quotes to the references in the References section, when it gets done? I'm not sure what the best way to do it would be. As it is now, the quotes stand alone, and that would be improper.

Your idea is good enough, I'm just seeking information on how to do it. Normal scientific articles (which this one isn't!) have a number after the quote, which links to the reference at the bottom. -- Fyslee 05:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You have mail

Here is my reply: [2]

Deletion of "improper comparison"

Hello to Fyslee's network of people he likes to make aware of my activities! Warmest greetings and salutations!

See my discussion on the actual chiropractic discusssion page. I think you'll see my justification. I'd rather all of these comments be there for everyone to see. Levine2112 00:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, what are doing? Let's discuss this rationally on the proper article discussion page. You present a very good argument... now give me a chance to respond instead of running to tell all of your friends. And by the way, I too am a skeptic. I doubt all until I see hard evidence for myself. I have seen enough of chiropractic in 23-plus years to know that it is science. It does promote health scientifically.

Actually I invite all of Fyslee's friends to join in. Let's discuss intelligently instead of playing these Fyslee games.

I may have to resort to Fyslee tactics where you remove links just because they are deemed "hate sites" by you. Click here for an example of an edit of Fyslee. By his rationale, I should be able to delete all links to ChiroBase, QuackWatch, etc. on the Chiropractic page because those are chiropractic "hate sites".

Just letting you all know of the kind of tactics this Fyslee guy employs and of his hypocrisy in Wiki edits. Levine2112 01:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Tim Bolen's site is a hate site by his own admission. He does nothing but ridicule Barrett and quackbusters. Pick your sites better. Read them before using them. I know Bolen much better than I'd like to. His trial for defamation is upcoming.

I'd like to see anything on the sites you mentioned that can be termed "hate". Skepticism, yes, but not hate. Provide some evidence. -- Fyslee 01:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's a hate site that is skeptical of Barrett and his compadres. I did read it and found it very enlightening about the Quackbuster organization. So why does it need to be deleted as a reference? Isn't it just a website that is skeptical of Barrett? I mean, if you're allowed to cite references to sites that are skeptical of chiropractic, shouldn'y the same hold true for sites that are skeptical of the skeptics? Otherwise you are being hypocritical. Nothing worse than a hypocritical skeptic. Levine2112 01:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, think about this. I am the true skeptic (or sceptic as your buddy likes to spell it). I am skeptical of the mainstream; that which is pushed in our brains from the moment we are born. How many drug commericials are there that say they can cure this or that? Why do we blindly believe what the AMA and pharmaceutical companies tell us? I am skeptical of them. For the true skeptic sees through the powers that be. The one's in control usually have the most to gain by staying in control. It's like religion. It's easy to believe one religion when you are brought up with it in a world that believes it. It still doesn't make it true. Levine2112 02:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I found this little gem: [3] Is it a (removed) hate site or a (removed) skeptical site? :-) Levine2112 02:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"By the way, think about this. I am the true skeptic (or sceptic as your buddy likes to spell it). I am skeptical of the mainstream; that which is pushed in our brains from the moment we are born. How many drug commericials are there that say they can cure this or that? Why do we blindly believe what the AMA and pharmaceutical companies tell us? I am skeptical of them. For the true skeptic sees through the powers that be." (quote from Levine2112]

Skepticism is the refusal to accept anything until evidence is presented. Skeptics do not doubt just one side, but all sides. Even those theories firmly established can be falsified as we discover more. Your insistance that skepticism is the refusal or rejection of the mainstream shows that you do not understand skepticism. I don't know what you and Fyslee are arguing about, and I really don't care that much. I have no desire to involve myself in an edit war. I also have no desire to involve the project in an edit war, but that is up to the rest of them. As long as you understand what skepticism really means, I really don't care that much what happens in this conflict. Maybe you should both step away from this article for a while to cool down and let others build a consensus. By the way, in case you weren't aware sceptic is the proper British spelling and is acceptible according to Wikipedia policy. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 09:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

About the spelling....yes, both spellings are correct. Since the original was consistently spelled with "k", it was an inappropriate edition to change it. If it had been an obvious UK article, or had originally been written with a "c", it would be a different matter. -- Fyslee 10:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the so-called skeptics that I have been dealing with are taking the easy road. They are only skeptical of the fringe, of the alternative, of the non-mainstream beliefs. And they attack these beliefs. That seems cowardly - attacking the underdog. When is skepticism not skepticism? When is the skeptic not a skeptic? Simple: when there is a motive other than skepticism behind the viewpoint. I believe that pharmaceutical companies and the AMA are still behind all of the supposed anti-chiropractic skepticism. And whether the anti-chiropractic skeptics realize that they are helping these enormous powers is irrelevant. Consciouslyor subconsciously you have been programmed to fight this battle for them. They have turned you into the true believer. I am asking you to step back and see things from the perspective of the underdog. Then you will be the true skeptic. Levine2112 19:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Levine, it's really irrelevant who the underdog is. The fact is, as Robert Todd Carroll Ph.D. says, the theory of sublaxations has not been supported by scientific studies (http://skepdic.com/chiro.html). Anti-chiropractic skepticism (conscious or subconcious-not that an accusation of subconscious motives is falsifiable in any meaningful way) doesn't come from "pharmaceuticul companies" or anyone else. It comes from their lack of scientific evidence, as might be provided by control group studies (http://skepdic.com/control.html), if they were ever bold enough to try them. But they won't, for the same reason Syliva Browne and other quacks won't put their alleged paranormal abilities to James Randi's test challenge: they don't want to be shown to be frauds. Who can blame them, right? They're making a killing ripping people off. They wouldn't want to ruin the good scam they have going by, you know, testing if they really can do what they say they do. They don't because they know they can't.Maprov 00:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are many, many scientific studies supporting chiropractic claims. I'me have posted just a handful on the chiropractic article. These are scientific studies done from several different kinds of groups worldwide. Comparing chiropractic to the world of James Randi is an insult. It would suggest that Chiropractic is magical. It is not. It is SCIENCE. It works. It is purely logical. Repeatable experiments have shown and continue to show its benefits. FACT: The brain controls the majority of your body. FACT: The brain does this my sending messages along the nervous system. FACT: All neural messages pass through the spinal cord. FACT: The spinal cord is housed in the vertebrae. FACT: Nerve branched protrude from the spinal cord between the vertebrae. FACT: A misaligned (or subluxated) vertebrae can pinch one of these nerve branches. SUPPORTED THEORY OF CHIROPRACTIC: This pinch interferes with neural message flow to and from the brain and thus interferes with the body's communication system. It is based on scientific research.

I think everyone in the world is a skeptic. That's what makes us human. So don't think you're special because you're part of a group of skeptics. Your group is made up of true believers brainwashed by what the powers-that-be into buying the same lie that keeps the powers-that-be in power. They (AMA and pharmeceutical companies) are threatened by chiropractic taking over any part of the health industry because they don't want to relinquish any tiny bit of the control they hold over this country. That's the big scam. It is so easy being skeptical of the fringe and the alternative. It takes guts to be skeptical of the mainstream. Levine2112 23:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, it's a good one. Duffy isn't capable of true skeptical thinking, since he's a true believer:

True Believer Syndrome:

"The true-believer syndrome merits study by science. What is it that compels a person, past all reason, to believe the unbelievable. How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it's exposed in the bright light of day he still clings to it--indeed, clings to it all the harder?" -- M. Lamar Keene True Believer Syndrome

Here's the page on his site:

http://www.duffyslaw.com/current19.htm

The mail on that page has a history. It was written in a very different setting as a private mail, at a time when I was very irritated about my high taxes (which is all the time....;-). Duffy accused me of being a socialist (he hates them), and I denied it, and related that I lived in a socialist country. Unfortunately I shared the mail with him, not realizing what he'd do with it.

Not only did he place it on his web site, he also browsed my web site's Guestbook, collected all the email addresses, and repeatedly spammed all of them with the worst types of chiro nonsense and doctor bashing. Some of the worst I've seen. You can see from his topics list what type of stuff he believes in. Really off-the-wall stuff.

After that happened, I changed my Guestbook so people could request me to remove their email address. That way I could still communicate with them by email without others spamming them.

I shared some of his mails with the Healthfraud list (anonymized of course), but he still was upset about it and mentions it on his site. He, OTOH, placed my mail on his site *without* anonymizing it, and spammed all the visitors to my Guestbook. A really nice guy!

To get an idea of the site, just start on these pages: http://www.duffyslaw.com/ http://www.duffyslaw.com/current_index.htm

There is more in a thread at Chirotalk:

• Topic: Daniel H Duffy Sr, DC (Read 573 times)

This guy is an embarrassment even for subluxation based chiros.

His emails to me contain some of the foulest language I've ever received since I came on the internet. -- Fyslee 02:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have provided you with so much documented scientific research that supports the existence of subluxation, the negative effects of subluxation and the benefits of chiropractic adjustments. The fact that you are still fighting the skeptic's battle against chriopractic leads me to the conclusion that you have fallen victim to your own True Believer's Syndrome - clinging to an idea when there is rational, scientific evidence refuting your belief. I think I will coin what you have "True Disbeliever's Syndrome". That's where a person clings to their skepticism despite being presented with rational scientific evidence refuting their disbelief. I think the root of this clinging is ego. After holding onto and defeding a disbelief for so long, the skeptic is unwilling to change their mind out of fear of public humiliation for having been so wrong for so long. You remind of the Vatican's defence of the world being flat - a point that they we're unwilling to bend on until after the space program. Levine2112 00:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic studies

Hi Levine; I noticed you left in the 1979 study in chiropractic, and also added the 2005 study. I found a 2006 (yes, 2006) study that found chiropractic to be only effective in short-term relief of low back pain. It was published in the European Journal of Pain a few days ago and its title is "Persistent back pain--why do physical therapy clinicians continue treatment? A mixed methods study of chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists." So, what do you think of me adding a reference to it in the article? --CDN99 20:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fine to add it as long as you cite it. For the article's clarity, I would prefer that all criticism of chiropractic be kept in the "critism" section. The fact that that section of the article exists (and that there is an entire section of links critical of chiropractic) would seem to be enough incentive to keep anti-chiropractic sentiment out of the rest of the article. I feel this way, the article would be less about "this sides says this, but this sides says this, but in response this side says this, and in response this side says this..." In fact, I would have less reason to keep citing pro-chiropractic studies in the article if all of the criticims were kept in the criticism section. What do you think of that? Levine2112 20:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel this way, the article would be less about "this sides says this, but this sides says this, but in response this side says this, and in response this side says this..." <-- my sentiments exactly. I'll add a section to criticisms about the seemingly short-term effects when I get some time. --CDN99 20:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you be opposed to limiting all chiropractic criticism to just the "criticism section"? Levine2112 20:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well... I agree that the bulk of the criticism should be in the "criticism section", but there should be clear mentions in the explanation/history/effectiveness sections about criticism (and maybe a link to the appropriate criticism section?). --CDN99 21:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the history and explanation section could be cleared of everything pro or anti and be reduced to just the pertinent facts. But I can certainly understand why the effectiveness portion would be open to criticism. I agree that links to the cristicism section would be appropriate there. Anything else? Levine2112 21:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: there is no such thing as article ownership on wikipedia, but if you insist on strictly monitoring the content of Chiropractic and devoting all of your editing to that one article, why not revert vandalism against the criticism section? Article ownership alone is grounds for arbitration, and allowing vandalism to occur won't help your case. --CDN99 03:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely don't allow vandalism. When I see it, I call attention to it and revert the damage. Sometimes I even post vandalism notices on the dicussion page of the article or the suspect vandal. Also, I edit other articles other than chiropractic including Osteopathy, Alternative Medicine, Doctor of Chiropractic and Quackery. And I'm not trying to make any case. Just trying to keep it fair. Levine2112 06:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for the barnstar ;) When I saw that pop-up on my user talk page it kinda took the edge off. Wjhonson 03:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. I certainly was able to sympathize with what you were going through. Having people gang up on you is not fun. Levine2112 07:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

For your enjoyment

I suspect you'll just love chiropractor Randall Lord's contribution in this thread at Chirotalk. You're welcome to debate him, but I don't think you'd dare, even though you can participate anonymously. The comments that follow are also interesting, including the humorous "adjusting sharks" one. -- Fyslee 19:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite not I 'd rather not walk into such hostile territory. I think I see who the real sharks are on that site and I'd just as soon stay out of the feeding frenzy of chiropractic hate that spews forth there.

Questionable links

Hi Levine, You have certainly demonstrated your expertise and fairness at editing at Wikipedia.

I am concerned about the links in the critiques section. They are clearly not even close to being NPOV. They don’t even represent the so-called skeptical viewpoint. These MDs, with no training in chiropractic, have made it quite well-known that if it’s chiropractic, they would like to see it damaged, degraded and destroyed.

Examples -Neck911 and chirowatch seem to be owned and operated by MDs with a clear agenda to demonize chiropractic. They also seem to be private enterprises that are seeking donations. I don’t see how driving traffic to increase donations satisfies the NPOV that is vital to Wikipedia. These are clearly soapboxes and soapboxes are specifically prohibited from Wikipedia

We should take a closer look at these to see if they just serve as link-farms for each other, another clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines. What do you think? Steth 00:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what purpose the External Links section serves. Do the links have to serve the NPOV interests of the article or can the links section be a place where specific points-of-view can have a chance to be expressed? As it is now, the chirorpactic link section is broken down into Advocacy and Critques. I think that this warns the researcher that they are leaving the NPOV environment that Wikipedia tries to provide and will be entering a POV external site.

If these links are truly just linking to the page for marketing reasons and don't serve a primary function of adding to the knowledge-base, I would then say to axe them. I haven't checked every critical link, but they do seem to link to essays or research on pages that don't directly try to sell you anything (other than their POV). If they are all offering the same POV with no really distinguishing differences, then they shold be reduced in number.

The soapbox point is interesting. These are external links so it would seem that Wikipedia is not being directly expoited as a soapbox. However, the abundance of critical links could be seen as an attempt to present bias... using the amount of negative criticisms to invoke a negative POV about chiropractic. My solution up ntil now has been to add to the advocacy links to balance out the criticism. You can certainly try to delete the critical links and claim NPOV but I can almost guarantee you that you be quickly (and improperly) accused of "vandalism" by one of three specific chiroskeptics who police the chiropractic page all day long as far as I can tell. They love to throw "vandalism" accusations around - and usually are vastly overstating the matter. That being said, I have suggested a "disarming" strategy, where both sides would remove links in a balanced way, but my suggestion was met with silence.

Now as far as the link farming goes. Yes, virtually all of the critical sites are linked together through the SkepticRing, Anti-Quackery Ring, Chiropractic Subluxated Ring and other ways fashioned specifically for the purpose of boosting Search Engine ranking. A lot of those sites are operated by Stephen Barrett and his buddy Sammy Homola - Chirobase.org, Quackwatch.org, and NCAHF. They're three organizations all saying the same thing. What's really slimy is that they state opinions then reference their sister-sites support to that opinion. A lot of the links are operated or moderated by Fyslee (one of the three chiroskepics users who regularly accuse people of vandalism for removing links to his sites). Check out his userpage to see which sites he operates and moderates for. These chiroskepitics are working together to actively employ search engine tricks such as artifically boosting Google ranking by adding external links to their sites all over Wikipedia. I have documented this. Their goal is for a researcher curious about chiropractic to encounter their anti-chiropractic sites first on a Google search. Given these organizations' objective, I can certainly understand why they would want to do this. Unfortunately, the tactics that they employ are objectionable to both Google and Wikipedia. Hopefully these organizations will get wise to the chiroskeptic ring and ban their sites.

I'm not sure what to do in the meantime. One thing that I would like to suggest is that a website is linked to only once in the external links section. As it is now, they are linking to Chirobase and NCAHF several times throughout the article and in the external links section. Talk about boosting external link popularity!

I think that if you showed that some of these link are not providing anything new and are just marketing tools, you should be able to justify deleting them on the discussion page... just prepare yourself for an attack and false accusations. If you can handle all of that with a cool head, I say, "Be bold with your edits!"

I welcome your continued participation on the Chirorpactic and chiropractic-related articles. I think that you have a lot of great insight to offer Wikipedia and you seem to have a vary good graspe on Wikipedia's guidelines. I look forward to your future edits and discussions.

As a sidenote, I think the reason the chiroskeptics are "shouting" so loud is that they are realizing that nobody is listening to them. Chiropractic is growing faster than ever and more and more patients are receiving the benefits everyday. Levine2112 00:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. How would you recommend that one go about having the Wikipedia judges review for link repositories, soapbox, etc. Steth 16:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I guess one could find an admin and make a direct request. I'll start researching Wikipedia and see if there is a formal place to post to. Have you heard of anything such as that?

A discussion regarding this has just begun on the Chiropractic discussion page. One of the chiroskeptics suggested that the external links section be shortened. I have asked him which ones specificially he would like to see removed. Feel free to put your picks for removal there as well. Levine2112 17:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I have placed my recommendations on that page.Steth 19:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This page has some good ideas about prohibited behavior. Steth 19:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

Levine, I read your editing of Vertebral Subluxation article. You have done an excellent job. Truly enhancing the encyclopedic experience and keeping it NPOV along the Wikipedia guidelines. Keep it up! Steth 02:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Spinal Adjustments

Wow, Levine. You are right about that article. It is BAAADDD! Fysylee and Abotnick certainly did a lousy job of it didn't they?

Surely we can 'clean it up' to meet Wikipedia's standards, don't you think? Steth 05:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll be away for a week or two, but will be back in full force to help shape that article into something less biased. In the meantime, keep up the good work! Levine2112 09:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Swiftie

You posted the following:

• "Look at the those pasties twirl!" said Tom fastidiously.

"the those" is presumably an error. Also, if I even get this one, I don't find it all that funny. Of course what is funny enough to go on the page is likely to be a matter of opinion. For a while at least some of us were trying to discuss new submissions on the Swifties talk page before posting them.

Chiropractic

Hi Levine. I promise I'll take a serious look at the research linked, but I can't do this quickly, give me time on this; it will take me some time and I am getting into a busy time at work. Just letting you know I'm not ignoring your commentGleng 08:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Levine, I noticed you added your name to the RfC on Mccready. I think you may have meant to add it here: :RfC/Mccready Steth 12:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Mass Marketing

Hi Levine, I found this and am not fully comfortable with the wording. I would appreciate your suggestions. Mass Marketing Don't forget to see the Talk page. Thanks Steth 10:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think our friend thinks that he is subtly bashing chiropractic here. However, it is true but perhaps could be worded better. I would drop the second to last sentence...the one about chiropractors today being noted for their use of mass marketing. Otherwise, I really don't think that this is much of an attack on chiropractic. I believe the radio station still exists. Feel free to make appropriate edits, but I don't think that the whole section necessarily needs to be deleted. What do you think? Levine2112 16:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point and maybe you are right. I know you are busy elsewhere so I will put some attention on it. I think the public would also like to know how chiropractic gave Ronald Reagan his start, eh?

Keep up the good work! Steth 16:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan? Hmm, I am unfamiliar with this. Sounds mighty interesting though. Levine2112 18:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What! You are unfamiliar with the history of the Palmer family and Ronald Regan?!? Did you say you are a DC? I made a few changes at the Mass Marketing article, piggybacking on Fyslee's lead. Let me know what you think. Thanks Steth 23:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That is great! I had no idea. Hilarious. Levine2112 01:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

chiro revert

Hi Levine2112, I thought I should let you know as a matter of courtesy that it was quicker to use revert. There was not agreement to make the change you did. Perhaps you could let it wait a couple of days in future before changing the top. Thanks. best wishes. Mccready 02:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

ChiroTalk

I noticed recently that Chirotalk has started its own self-promoting article on WP. I nominated it for deletion. I thought you might want to chime in with your thoughts here. TheDoctorIsIn 23:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I will take a look at the article and comment. I think one thing that is immediately interesting, the two main authors of the article are the site's owner and one of its lead contributors. Levine2112 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like AfD closure is a little backed up. An admin should get to it in the next day or so, and it won't matter what he does on the page. Fan1967 21:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You could also {{db-afd}} it, I imagine. — Mike • 21:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That one's only supposed to get used once the AfD discussion is closed. Nobody'd gotten around to it last I checked. Fan1967 22:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it decided when an AfD discussion is closed? Levine2112 22:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Usually after a week, though sometimes closing happens more quickly at the somewhat limited discretion of the closing admin. Check WP:AfD for details. Ombudsman 23:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Levine. I see that Allen (Abotnick) has been trying to delete the part that says don't delete... the Article for Deletion banner at the top of his article. Thank you for watching out for this. Word on the street is that Allen is trying to gain publicity for his forum and is telling people that his site is now listed on Wikipedia. Maybe he is removing the Deletion banner because it makes his forum look bad to the people that he is trying to impress. Watch out for him. My dealings with him has proved him to be quite sly and unscrupulous when it comes to making his point. Right now, on his forum, he states that Wikipedia DCs are rallying against him to get his site booted off of Wikipedia. Funny, most of the people who voted to delete his site are not chiropractors or even interested in chiropractic. I guess it's all right for him to claim conspiracy when there is clearly none, but g-d forbid someone should say that there is a conspiracy against chiropractic around Allen - even though that was proven in a court of law. TheDoctorIsIn 05:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Good points. I take it you've dealt with Abotnick apart from Wikipedia? Levine2112 05:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Randalllord

Usually the fastest, if not the best way to bring an admin's attention to Randallord, or any issue for that matter, is to leave a note over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). While the Chirotalk forum doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria for an article of its own, there certainly should always be a bit more leeway with regard to external links. Even then, the forum is probably in a grey area at best. If the allegations of blatant censorship going on at Chirotalk are true, while reprehensible, they would be on par with what transpires with unfortunate frequency in and around the world of medicine. Ombudsman 22:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I posted the incidents on the 3RR noticeboard. My gratitude for your help and advice. Levine2112 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category

Hi Levine2112. I've appreciated your contributions on the Chiropractic page, and noticed you'd also done some edits on Pseudoscience. You might want to take a look at Category_talk:Pseudoscience. I'm trying to develop consensus on the criteria for populating the category. In theory, the category page provides a definition and WP:CG suggests avoiding adding topics to a cat unless the categorization is "self-evident and uncontroversial". In practice, topics seem to get categorized as PS because a reliable source has applied the label, even though the source's definition of PS may be broader than WP's, and even if other equally reliable sources (mainstream scientists) disagree. Would much appreciate any input. Best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 19:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience page

regardless of whether you agree with the following, please change immunization to immunology, as immunization is not the study, but the actual injection itself. I promised not to get into a revert war, and intend not to still. However, I'm asking, no, begging, for self-revert. Immunology is a very broad field with thousands of academics contributing to very active Scientific journals on the subject, as well as having broad research, with 100s of thousands of people involved(not all being researchers, but nonetheless involved with the research), in the pharmicudical industry. And I agree that no matter what others call him, Dr. mehendalson(i can't recall the spelling, forgive me) has appropriate expertise in that area(medical doctor), however I'm concerned his beleifs and statements on the subject are feulled by opposition to evolutionary biology, and no detailed opposistion to the fundemental set of axioms laid down by Immunology, and the primary focus of his accusations isn't the theory, but the applications of the field. So please reconsider. Either way, I'd like it if you responded on my talk page with regards to this. i kan reed 16:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. For one thing the section was arguably better when left as "Fields claimed to be pseudoscience" which makes Immunology much less sensable. Chiropracty fails about one half the pseudoscience tests, but passes the others with flying colors. I don't personally hold an opinion either way, but immunology has a basis in biology, with a underyling structure of the immune system as understood by biology, up to the top end of statistical research on frequency of disease in immunized and unimmunized people. I don't understand chiropracty that well, so I neither support nor reject it's presence on the list(unlike say intelligent design which has none of that structure). If it weren't for the supporters of this accusation using pseudoscience in a very strange way(not equivelant to the definition given there), I'd yeild to the experts and leave it alone. Take these arguments however you will. i kan reed 17:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

that's fine. I don't know, and myself haivng talked to you, as my source is no better than just you as the source. I only oppose what I know enough to oppose. please forgive my neutrality on chiropracty. i kan reed 17:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Case Studies

Good thinking with the case studies!! I also think this is the section we need to bring in the science, not just talk about it. It will open a bag of worms though. Are you ready? --Dematt 21:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is about getting reliable and citable information out there. In the end, there is more relaible and citable research supporting chiropractic than against it. Additionally, given that the AMA was actively trying surpress supportive chiropractic research as recently as 1993, speaks volumes about the motives of much of the negative research (like the ludicrous "Chiropractic causes strokes" campaign). Still, we must exercisize responsibility when opening that bag of worms. Levine2112 22:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Totally agreed.--Dematt 23:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So how do you think we should add positive studies? I don't like the idea of lists of studies but ....... And thanks for the rev. on the vs page, I was looking at it at the same time and you said exactly what I was going to say, kudos ;) --Hughgr 18:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that too. I think I like the idea of presenting it not as a list but in the context of the prose. I think in order to appease the skeptic crowd and (honestly to be most accurate), we should state clearly the scope, details and conclusions of any study pointed to. (i.e. A 2002 study involving 46 subjects tested for such-and-such suggested that chiropractic is 10% more beneficial for such-and-such than some-convential-treatment.) I also think we she point to the chiro.org research page for a variety of conditions and the similar ICPA research page.

As far as the VS page goes, I left a pleasant message on the user's page providing them with the basic overview of how to use Wikipedia. Hopefully, they will get the message and begin editing responsibly. BTW, the anonymous user who reverted our reverts yesterday with the IP address 216.193.137.208 is one Stephen Barrett of Allentown, PA. I left him a message as well. Check out that IP's editing history and you can see that all he has done is added links to his sites and deleted anything negative about himself. I am more and more amazed by the world everyday. Levine2112 18:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, maybe the "critic" doesn't like to be criticized....:) Anyway, back on topic, I'm copying this from Gleng's page (stumbled onto it [[4]]) looks like a good format. What do you think?

a) Report the major claims for the benefits of chiropractic – i.e. which conditions is there most acceptance for its efficacy. Report the evidence on which these claims are based (i.e. report the nature of the evidence that led to these claims, without criticising that evidence, give a V RS for one or two good examples))

b) Report that there are other claims less widely accepted within chiropractic. (Give an example of some of the disagreements within the profession with V RS)

c) Observe (neutrally) that the evidence supporting chiropractic is mainly empirical (reported clinical experience of chiropractors and patient reports).

d) Observe (neutrally) that the scientific foundations of chiropractic are not accepted as well established, and that this was at the core of the historically hostile attitude of the AMA pre Wilks (quote AMA here?)

e) quote statements from chiropractors and chiropractic organisations reflecting their endorsement of the importance of evidence-based evaluation of benefits.

f) Observe the particular difficulties of designing such tests.

g) Report the outcomes of major, significant tests of chiropractic efficacy and of comparisons between different therapies. (selection based on best RS)

h) Report significant published policy statements of medical organisations and comparable significant bodies where they indicate establishment views about chiropractic

i) Report any significant evidence about current attitudes of conventional medics to chiropractic. (V RS studies).

Looks like a good format, perhaps we could use it as a guide to making the science section better. Also, I've been thinking that since chiro is considered to be a science, art and philosophy, the philosophy part needs expanding and clarification too.--Hughgr 20:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it, except for "d". I think that at the core of the Wilk case was, as the Judge cited, financial concerns. IOW, the AMA was afraid of the competition and thus supressed the existing evidence. Thoughts on that? Levine2112 20:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have some thoughts on that. In the history, it was evident that the AMA played a significant role in making sure chiropractic never got significant research money from government sources and the boycott kept researchers from working with chiropractic. IOW, they controlled the research market as well, therefore no good chiropractic research was capable of coming out until after 1983. Chiropractors HAD to spend all their resources on survival. Basically, DC's only have 20 or so years of what would be valid research efforts built up. That is a young science by anyone's measure. It is barely enough to develop the protocols and plans to test a hypothesis. We need the sources to back this up though. I know I've seen some.--Dematt 21:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the AMA was appealing the court's decision as recently as 1993. Levine2112 21:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Universal Intelligence

Universal Intelligence I've started this page, perhaps you could check it with your editing expertise :)--Hughgr 00:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your thoughts on several disputes

I'd be interested in your comments and thoughts on the dispute involving sarner on the Bowlby page and on the related dispute of his colleague and partner, mercer, on the Attachment Therapy page. Thanks 68.66.160.228 01:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that my knowledge in this area is too limited to pitch in. If you have a general editing prinicples question, I'd be happy to assist though. Levine2112 18:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Banned from editing the Barrett article

• Dear Levine;

As you know I have been " soft banned " by an administrator in the Barrett article. I am the one who posted the warning on NPOV after repeated edits removing or significantly altering factual information that was not favorable to Stephen Barrett as I felt that those editing in such manner ( Sarner and others ) were bent on showing only the good side of his activities in a very self promoting way. I have posted a message on Nicholas Turnbull talk page a few days ago but he has not replied. It seems he just swooped in , handed out some kind a swift judgment as I was at the time trying to contain the exhuberant Sarner in his actions to delete anything presenting the other side of Stephen Barrett. What do you think ? --OKO 03:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If my opinion counts, I thought Nicholas Turnbull action was harsh but diplomatic. Kind of a neutral way of getting a point across. How long does the soft ban apply? Bottomline, Barrett is contraversial and thus his article elicits strong feelings and reactions. If you're interested in him at all, he is either someone you loathe (representing all that is evil) or he's your saviour. (I don't know. The fact that he paid himself to act as NCAHF's expert witness, helps me to understand why I lean more towards the "Barrett is a total scumbag" side of the impression scale.) Basically, all that is to say that even that you are banned and even if I got banned and even if 30 more anti-Barrett wiki-editors get banned, there will still be countless others that will come and fight for their POV to appear. The same goes for Sarner and pro-Barrett POV. I feel bad that you have been soft banned. I didn't see anything wrong with adding the POV banner. I'm unsure of your intentions, but I do agree that the article is/was extremely slanted and deserved to be labelled as such for the time being. Sorry for what transgressed... I know you got the short end of the stick. Levine2112 08:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Dear Levine: In my post on Nicholas Turnbull talk page I was actually not angry at being banned although I felt the action in my case was severe since, unlike Sarner, I had not been warned at all previously. I am not a fan of Stephen Barrett because, as he himself stated, he is not interested in giving a fair and balanced view on those he attacks. This said my purpose in the article is simply to make sure that both sides of the issue are given in a neutral point of view. It is difficult to achieve when there are editors that will delete or significantly alter any info that is no promotional of his views. For a judge to state in a legal ruling that he is not qualified enough to testify on legal matters and on homeopathy, it is definitely credible information and it is frustrating when an editors simply deletes the information as untrue or whatever excuse they use. I have seen your posts and you certainly do an honest job at trying to balance the pro-Barrett, at all cost, views of some biased editors. I have not , for myself, deleted any pro-Barrett information, simply added factual information that gave the other side of the issue. However instead of being improved upon, these edits were bulk deleted... You have been at the receiving end of the same medicine... So keep up the good work as Wikipedia should not become another promotional tool for the Stephen Barrett to push his one side view of health and health care. --OKO 10:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What's your opinion?

Hello Levine, I was wondering what your opinion is for starting an AfD on SCAM. It was started by, and solely edited by fyslee, and then makes references to his own website for verification. [5] It then has numerous quotes that have nothing to do with sCAM, except offer other peoples opinions of CAM. Lastly, if a user wants to look up "scam", thats what they'll find, which isn't a description of a scam...--Hughgr 22:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would love to chime in. However, I am having difficulty locating the article or the AfD. Could you kindly point me to it? Levine2112 00:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is SCAM. I haven't started an AfD yet, but was wanting your opinion on starting one. I would point to "It defines new terms" [6] and "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" [7] Do you think it should be nominated? He references himself (website) as the primary source.--Hughgr 03:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I am missing it, but clicking on the SCAM link takes me to a general article about "confidence tricks". Sorry, I can't see the page you are referring to. Levine2112 04:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I found this. It appears that it has already been deleted. If you read here it appears that Fyslee would like to reinstate the article, however. Levine2112 04:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm really laughing at myself right now!#@$ I ended up at "skepticwiki".com or whatever. HAHA Forgetaboutit. :)--Hughgr 22:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk about a wild goose chase! That's an old page, and of course can't be used here at Wikipedia, but is perfectly allowable at SkepticWiki. "sCAM" is not synonymous with "scam," since it is an acronym. -- Fyslee 10:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

String theory

You'd commented on the UI talk page about string theory and I just watched a PBS Nova show on it. Very interesting theory, strings of energy are within the quarks of the protons and neutrons. That they don't have a stable point, thus non-predictible. And in the end, not-falsifyable...Mcready should be all over it! :) Their theory of everything is interesting too. :)--Hughgr 20:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I know. It's all so mind boggling. And though theoretical, there is already real life application... even to some degree teleportation (if you can believe it). Check out quantum teleportation. It will absolutely blow your mind because it is an actuality! Levine2112 21:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I recall hearing that scientists have made the same object appear in two places at the same time, as well...beam me up Scotty! ;)--Hughgr 22:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the star

Would you believe I just noticed you gave me an outstanding editing star! Thank you so very much! :) --Hughgr 18:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Added catagory to vS page

Hi, I've added a catagory to the VS page. You seem to have a good handle on the various current research so I'd appreciate your chiming in. It will take a bit of work, but in the end it should paint a good picture. Thanks.--Hughgr 22:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm there for you. I will gather some resources and organize them and then post. Thanks again for your tireless efforts! Levine2112 01:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

AMA conspiracy

Good point here:

"You couldn't have picked a worse example. Read Wilk v. American Medical Association and you'll see that the conspiracy is a lot more than a theory... the U.S. court system found and holds that it was a reality. For decades, the AMA - out of fear of competition - was surpressing evidence of chiropractic effectiveness. And though this trial started in the 1970's, the AMA was appealling the decision and losing until 1990. So you citing chiropractic as an example of a discipline that claims conspiracy is not entirely ture. It would be more factual to say that chiropractic claimed a conspiracy and it was claim that actual wound up being 100% true."

You're absolutely correct. Chiropractic is a poor example. Otherwise it's generally true that pseudosciences often use conspiracy theories as a defense, and any group that continues to do so, rather than clean up its act, risks falling into that pit, without thereby necessarily being a pseudoscience because of it. Even if it was true at one time, it shouldn't be misused. -- Fyslee 09:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Thanks for catching my typo on Economy of Africa. It's so embarrassing to introduce typos when you're copyediting an article! Peirigill 21:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Levine!

Could you please email me at [email protected]. Would like your thoughts on a few subjects. Thanks Steth 03:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience article

Levine, I would appreciate it if you could provide a summary-list (or for that matter a comprehensive one if you want) of the contemporary empirical research on chriropractic. I don't have the time to research this myself, though it's my definite understanding that there are plenty of studies out showing significant correlations between treatment and measurable benefits (range of motion, pain indices, etc. etc.). I'd appreciate it if you'd throw in references to studies which assert no correlation or negative correlation as well, just to be objective. Please email via the "E-mail this user" link on my talk page if possible, as I suspect it'll be a mile long on my talk page. Thanks ... Kenosis 15:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Easier yet, it may be posted at User talk:Kenosis/Research. ... Kenosis 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out mc's latest,[8] he tagged a user's talk page as pseudoscience! ROFLMFAO--Hughgr 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't let the facts get in the way eh Hughie?? Pretty standard ROFLMFAO Mccready 13:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant! However, I think he might not have been the one to label it as such. I believe User: Jim Butler may have inadvertanly done so in his post on the page. Levine2112 18:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, still funny as hell!--Hughgr 19:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Levine, that list you provided will not do. It goes through a website that is obviously oriented towards PR for the profession. I think what's needed is a text-list of some kind, or at a minimum something that portals through an independent website. I know there's a growing body of empirical research since the Workmen's comp study in the late 70's/early 80's, and should be somehow available as a list of important studies showing verifiable benefits (and contraindications as well, if applicable). Does anyone you know have a text list of the studies that are in the chiro.org website? without all the fancy PR?... Kenosis 05:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Just ONE article will do. It's been asked for for ages. No can do. Mccready 13:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis is not questioning the science. He is concerned with a massive amount of science that supports chiropractic being presented on a pro-chiropractic website. He would rather see this exact same list of the exact same research on a non-impartial site. I am unsure what you are asking for, but I am sure your motive, as usual, is to stir up a fight. Please come back when you have something valuable to add to this discussion. Thank you. Levine2112 18:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You are FAMOUS Levine!

Thought you might find this discussion about you interesting: Levine

Nice. Thanks for that, Steth. Did you read all of the emails in that thread? One guy references 20/20 as a definitive source. These guys are relentlessly ignorant. Levine2112 03:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice

I like the change with the graphs on the chiro article, looks much better! Cheers--Hughgr 00:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons quackery persists

You wrote:

"In the case of chiropractic this conspiracy theory was proven true. (See Wilk v. American Medical Association." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackery&diff=70805152&oldid=70789350

True enough. There was a conspiracy which resulted in an illegal boycott, and the AMA lost the case, as they should. What the judge did do, was to state that the AMA was still correct in their concern about quackery in the chiropractic profession, but they had just chosen the wrong tactic to stop it. So using your example as some kind of proof for any legitimacy for chiropractic (which the judge also refused to provide), is quite counterproductive, as the case didn't solve the quackery concerns, but highlighted that they were still a problem.

That's also where I have my concerns - the quackery aspects. Those concerns are shared by many chiropractors, who find their profession's image compromised by this problem.

Do you consider it to be a problem, or don't you see anything in chiropractic that borders on quackery or "unscientificness"? That's a serious question. -- Fyslee 20:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't find anything in the discipline of chiropractic that borders on quackery or pseudoscience. I cannot account for every private practitioner, but as a discipline on the whole, it is a completely legitimate science. Certainly, chiropractic's claims are not as in tune with what you call quackery as, say, pharmaceuticals which regularly advertise miracle cures for all of your problems. What about all of the unnecessary surgeries that happen every year that claim to heal but often lead to more illness, injury and death? I find it disingenuous that the Quackery article fails to mention any of this and instead limits itself to alternative medicine. Where's the NPOV?

With regards to Wilk, that which the judge was qualified to do was to judge the law. She found the AMA guilty of conspiracy - not out of concern for patient well-being, but rather for the elimination of economic competition. The judge, however, was not qualified to make a proclamation of science, which she readily admited to... something about not being able to pronounce chiropractic as valid or invalid.

By the way, I think it is a good move on your part distancing yourself from McCready now.Levine2112 21:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have distanced myself from him a long time ago. -- Fyslee 22:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

americanco centric

Focused on US issues only.Geni 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

National Association of Healthcare Fraud may be a US organisation but the issues they cover go beyond the US. Does not appear to be the case for ChiroWeb.Geni 01:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving discussion to chiropractic discussion page.

Reply to Mccready's email

See my response to Mccready's unblock request by email. [9] Hope this helps since nothing else has so far. Take care, FloNight 22:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope so too. Levine2112 05:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

ABMS and 81% in Barrett's article

• Levine, David D. is making a fuss about the 81% statistic in the Barrett article. Can you please have a look on his talk page. NATTO 23:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

McCready to get 10-day ban on Pseudoscience

You might want to weigh in your thoughts here, if you haven't already. TheDoctorIsIn 18:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

You've been sorely missed. I do hope you enjoyed your vacation! See you out there;) --Dematt 21:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Levine2112 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Levine. I agree with Dematt ! :-)NATTO 23:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Levine 'ole chum, welcome back! Guess what? I got me a Barnstar, too! Can you believe it? Steth's Barnstar See what you missed. Steth 04:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That one is perfect for you! Good going. Levine2112 05:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee and Barrett

• Levine, from his numerous comments on the Barrett talk page, Fyslee seems to have a rather close relationship with the topic of the article. I find it quite intriguing that when I originally looked at the link ( reference ) he had himself placed in the article, I got the "archived" page and now I get this "Oops" page with a redirect. It looks like that either is continually monitoring the talk page so he can make rapid changes to the website or there is another explanation... NATTO 00:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of Fyslee's relationship with Barrett. I think he does some web administration for him, but I am not sure. Fyslee, care to set the record straight? Levine2112 02:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

On my talk page and elsewhere, he calls himself Barrett's "Assistant Listmaster".--Hughgr 03:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• One questions: 1- What is an "Assistant Listmaster" ?NATTO 04:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC) OK I saw the short explanation on your talk page : "Assistant Listmaster consists of checking the list for excess traffic caused by off-topic discussions or trolls". It looks like Fyslee is working part-time for Barrett in that capacity. NATTO 04:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to explain my "relationship" with Barrett. I have never met him or spoken to him. I have no access to, or control of, any of Barrett's websites. He and his son, and possibly other assistants, take care of that stuff.

There is a discussion list that has existed for a number of years, the Healthfraud Discussion List. I have been a participant there since 1999. There are several hundred list members, most of whom only lurk. Some of the lurkers are people like Bolen. The list was not started by Barrett, but by Rebecca Long. It was a list sponsored by a local chapter (Georgia) of the NCAHF. (There is an interesting collection of information about her here. She couldn't continue running the list, so she turned it over to him, and he is now its Moderator (Listmaster). For the last few years I have been Assistant Listmaster, which is only relevant on rare occasions. If Barrett is out of town and can't monitor the list (he rarely participates in discussions), he let's me know and I try to keep an eye on it. There can be from 30-50 posts per day on many topics. A moderator's job is simply to make sure that no one disrupts the list, or gets too far off-topic. If that isn't done, the volume of posts can suddenly explode and people get irritated. This is naturally a voluntary effort, and it's been over a year since I last had to take any action. I can ban trolls when necessary, but I usually contact Barrett and let him do it. I am not a member of the NCAHF, although there are others here in Europe who are members.

As far as the current discussion about the confusion about URLs, it's just that. The information above is incorrect. I'll try to explain it on the other page if I don't get dragged away from the PC before then. -- Fyslee 07:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, thank you for the above explanation confirming that your are doing voluntary work for Stephen Barrett as a part-time Assistant Listmaster on the Healthfraud Discussion list of his website Quackwatch. He contacts you when he needs your services and you contact him to keep him informed of what is going on on the list. NATTO 23:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not that it really makes any difference, but just to make sure you understand this. The discussion list is only mentioned at Quackwatch. It is on an independent server that has nothing to do with Quackwatch. It simply continues as it was before Barrett was asked to take over as listmaster: "Scottsoft Research, which donates the computers and technical support. Headed by Scott Ballantyne, its staff does unix and networking consulting." -- Fyslee 23:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, thanks for the added information. I clearly understood your relationship with Dr. Barrett after your initial explanation.NATTO 23:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, it this your blog Confessions of a Quackbuster? NATTO 23:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. Just like many other people I am active on the internet and have websites, including blogs. You're welcome to ask specific questions about any of the topics you find there. -- Fyslee 06:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Mccready is issued a 30 day community probation related to Pseudoscience articles

Hello

Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log [10]) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I [11] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. FloNight 01:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

• Levine, I have left a Barn star on your user page... well at least I tried. As you can see I am not very good at this yet. Anyway thanks. NATTO 10:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You're Invited

Come on over - [Dematts ChiroPractice page]--Dematt 23:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Vitalism

I know you're busy, but I thought that maybe you would want to weigh in at the Vitalism discussions and edits. It's similar to the mccready days... Thanks for all your hard work! --Travisthurston 04:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking it over now. Boy! There is a lot to take in. What are your chief grievances with the article at the moment? Levine2112 04:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

~tit for tat. gleng does awesome work, taking out pov, and reducing the distraction of krishna's harsh, minority, combative editing. It all seems too familiar to the old mccready scene on chiropractic and naturopathic. I am trying to rally around the tireless work of gleng. He's really made the article what is now, as you can see... all in the matter of a couple days too. Thanks for listening. --Travisthurston 05:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, GlenG is pretty great at this Wikipedia thing. A bunch of us think he's ready to be "promoted" to become a Wiki admin. Anyhow, I just read the article and put my two-cents in. As you will read, my main issue was with the "Vitalist notions in alternative medicine" section, which seemed poorly written and devoid of any distinct point. Levine2112 05:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

QW review

Levine, I think the confusion comes from the fact that you were not privy to the earlier discussion and agreement. The idea is that I think that the review is more than mere criticism and should have it's own section as it goes to the core of what QW is. There was an agreement to do that with a totally neutral text. The we could have discussed additions to that original text as I do agree that more should be attached to the original text. I certainly would like to see another review of the same caliber either pro or con as it would stop all that opposition from some editors. That JAMA thing looks more like an aside in the journal rather than a real article and in was over 8 years ago. Since we cannot check the content on the web , it is difficult to know. Can you get your hand on it - Journal of the American Medical Association 280:1380, 1998 ? NATTO 03:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is not online, no. No easier than anyone else could. Maybe a medical library might have it? Levine2112 05:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Barrett, Quackwatch etc merge

Thanks for bringing this to my attention[12]; have been very busy IRL so sorry for the tardy response[13]. best, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Life U

Good job cleaning up the Life CC page! I'd seen how poor it was but hadn't jumped in. It is looking waaaay better. Kudos!--Hughgr 02:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure! Levine2112 02:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Forbes rating for QW

Levine. turns out that Forbes never gave a Best of the Web rating to QW, only a low listing on its web Site Review. The JAMA thing is more a wet petard than anything of substance, just a POV from someone at JAMA and certainly not peer-reviewed. Looks like some editors are twisting the facts to try to paint QW in a better light.NATTO 07:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing "turns out," since NATTO seems to be obsessed with some straw men of his own making. No one has suggested that Forbes gave a "Best of the Web" rating to QuackWatch, so of course nothing could "turn out." It was listed along with the other sites, in alphabetical order. All the chosen sites are "Best of the Web" sites. Only one site gets chosen as "Forbes Favorite," which is always placed at the top of the list. The next ones are "pick"s. In this case five were chosen as "Forbes Best of The Web pick"s, and they were placed, as always, immediately afterwards. All the rest (18 very good sites) were then listed in alphabetical order, and were of course still among the "Best of the Web." That's the way Forbes does it. No one (other than NATTO) has claimed anything more than that QuackWatch was among the "Best of the Web" sites.

The JAMA mention has never been claimed to be peer-reviewed. The reference simply quotes JAMA. That's about as NPOV as one can get. Another straw man. NATTO seems to be desperate for something to gripe about. -- Fyslee 20:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Levine. I posted a message for you above. I am sure you are able to look at the issue for yourself and make up your own mind without Fyslee telling you what to think...NATTO 20:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Rag Tag Posse of Snake Oil Vigilantes

I thought you might find this juvenile site fun. Check out the "Who we are" page and take note of its members. Levine2112 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Levine. Yes, I see what you mean..... :-) NATTO 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC) ( P.S. This is a message for Levine, posted on his talk page and not on the talk page of Fyslee. )

Levine. In turn the following site may be of interest Duffy's Law. Click on Current Topic the check some of the items on that page. NATTO 23:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks you so much. Levine2112 16:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a message for Levine, about a message which involves me, and Levine has not forbidden or limited my access to his talk page.....;-)

(There NATTO, is that childish enough? Just how low do we have to go?)

The RTPSOV is a spoof made by Peter Bowditch. We had fun teasing some trolls and jerks. (Actually death threats from quacks are no laughing matter, but it comes with the turf. I usually just delete the ones I get from chiros and don't count them against the profession. There are loonies everywhere.) Several of the "members" (the RTPSOV only exists on that list) are also members of the Healthfraud Discussion List, and Levine will recognize their names. They (and I) were named in the (malicious prosecution) suit filed by Negrete, Hulda Clark, et al, mentioned here, and which has been accepted and is upcoming. Some of the others I don't even know. We've even got another spoof group, but it's "top secret".....;-) It's called the "Quackbusters of the Illuminati," and I'm not giving you the URL...;-) I don't think anyone has posted to it in over a year. Some conspiracy! Not even that works! It's easy to claim there is a conspiracy, but whenever I hear of it and turn over the stones that are mentioned, there is nothing there. How odd! I still haven't gotten my checks from the FDA, AMA, ADA, CDC, WHO, UN, Bin Laden, whoever.... I'm very disappointed! This hobby doesn't pay very well. Not even an ad on my blog. (I guess that's my own fault, since I constantly get offers and refuse them. The advertisers can see that my blog gets twice as many hits as Bolen's site, and he has ads.)

As for Duffy Sr., he is probably the most embarrassing chiro I've ever encountered. Other chiros flee when I mention him. (I don't count him as a typical example of chiropractors, or even of typical dogs, cats or gilla monsters. His kind are often found wearing straight jackets.) His story is a quite interesting example of devious behavior, but I think I've already told it here at Wikipedia. -- Fyslee 22:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I figured it was just you guys taunting people... you guys are particularly mean to that Ileana Rosenthal lady. Some of those songs you've written... wow! I know death threats must be bad news, but perhaps you wouldn't attract so many whackos if you weren't stooping to their level with these juvenile tactics. If anything you are just feeding their paranoia, unless your intent is to lead them on a wild goose chase... or would wild "duck" be more appropriate. ;-)

I thought Duffy was a little extreme for my tastes, but I do liken his analyses to Barrett's on Quackwatch. Extremists and only paying attention to research that suits their beliefs and disregarding the rest.

Oh, I can care less who posts on my talk page as long as they are respectful. Levine2112 00:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

...as long as they are respectful.

Levine. Ditto. NATTO 22:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Deed Harrison D.C

Levine. I you have not seen this webpage, it may be of interest. NATTO

I have seen this before. It is a interesting critique of a criticism. The criticism comes from a contributor here of Wikipedia who once tried to get his own chiro-hate message board made into an article. It ended up getting deleted for lack of notability and vanity. Check it out. Levine2112 18:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It did look like a clear attempt at self-promotion. It seems to confirm what Deed Harrison is saying. It is not the first contributor to QW that has been taken to task for this sort of thing.NATTO 19:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I remember when that happened. Botnick was (is) inexperienced in the "ways of Wikipedia." Not understanding the rules here, he began posting links and making edits that were too bold. Very common newbie mistakes. I left a warning message on his user page and also a message at chirotalk. He then stopped. -- Fyslee 20:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you found any more articles to drop the Quackwatch link on? Keep working on that link popularity. Spreading the gospel in hard work. I'm sure an ex-fundamentalist knows all about that. Levine2112 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Only if relevant. I haven't done it nearly as much as has been implied. If I have done it inappropriately, I would appreciate it being pointed out to me. No one has done that yet, even when asked to do so. (Of course the question of "relevancy" could be debatable.....;-) -- Fyslee 20:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought the Coretta Scott king was a little over the top. Not entirely irrelevant, it just seems as if your are struggling to drop the link in as many places as the rules will allow. You are certainly working with in the WP policy. I am only pointing out your intentions. I know you know the value of one-way inbound external links, especially from a site such as Wikipedia. Keep on spreading the gospel according to Steve, if that is what makes you happy. Levine2112 20:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would you think they were over the top? The newspaper link which also mentions the Donsbach link were very relevant. Have you read them? It's not mine or your fault that Donsbach is a chiro and probably been involved in more quackery and scams than just about anyone around. He tops Trudeau, even having been convicted, but I doubt he's as wealthy because of it. I'm not even sure that my mother might not have visited his place in Mexico before she died of cancer. When I read about Rosarito Beach it triggered a memory. I have been there as a young teenager, but he's not the only one there, so I can't be sure. There are many dubious clinics there. -- Fyslee 21:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Coretta Scott King. I'm not defending Donsbach as you are trying to spin this. I am just saying that you have implemented a link to Quackwatch in a page seemingly not relevant. That's all. There's nothing wrong with what you did technically. I'm just showing you how you seem to be on a mission to place as many links to Quackwatch as possible. Levine2112 22:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Since this line of discussion came after Fyslee replied to a message I left Levine, I have to agree with Levine about the mission thing. Let's judge and condemn all those who do not follow the 'gospel' according to the quackbusters, the real quacks with everyone else. After all if we are not with the quackbusters, we must surely be for the quacks ( as defined by the QBs )... Hum reminds me of the words of a U.S. president... :-) NATTO 23:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Gee, I think I have been saying this same thing for many months. It seems that Fyslee is unabashedly turning the very encyclopedic Wikipedia into the advertising arm of Stephen Barrett Enterprises (Donations gladly accepted!) There must be many dozens, maybe a hundred, links placed there by only one person, namely Fyslee. It is encouraging to see that finally others are concerned that these links may be self-serving given that Fyslee has a personal relationship with his friend, colleague, mentor, SB, not to mention being assistant listmaster, webmaster, best boy, sidekick, faithful companion, etc., etc., and God knows what else to SB who, at the snap of Fyslee's fingers, appears when summoned. Sort of like rubbing a magic lamp and the genie appears!

It would be an interesting experiment to review Fyslee's edit history and count the number of links to SB Enterprises (Donations gladly accepted!) Perhaps some friendly wagering or a pool would make it more interesting? Any guesses? Steth 02:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I had read, I can't remember where, that the clinic didn't even treat her because she was too far gone. So the attack by SB Enterprises may be just for soundbites and search engine optimization. Steth 02:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Self-published e-mail  ?

Levine. Have a look a this site. Does that qualify as a self-published e-mail ? Looks to me like it has been posted by CMD and not by the author of the e-mail himself so it look like CMD quoting Duane Weed . What is your take on this ?NATTO 04:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is an entry by Weed (buy my supplements...) in a Usenet discussion that was then posted by an editor (just like us here) at the SourceWatch wiki, which is even less reliable than this one, which is by its own policies considered to not be a reliable source (we can't use Wikipedia as a source in Wikipedia articles, but we can use wikilinks). It is not some official pronouncement by anyone, but represents the view of Weed, and an editor there posted it. You can find plenty of criticism of NCAHF and Quackwatch on Usenet and other discussion groups. They are not reliable sources, no matter where they are reposted. If they are significant enough, the same ideas can be found on stable and reliable sources, which doesn't include wikis. It has nothing to do with "self-published email" newsletters, which is another matter that is also covered in Wikipedia policies regarding unRS. For example, the CHD would not be a good source to quote from here. Since all of its content can be found elsewhere, that content may or may not be considered valid as a source. If you aren't receiving it, you ought to. It will help you keep an eye on the NCAHF and what they are keeping an eye on. -- Fyslee 05:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Look Fyslee. I asked Levine for his input. Can you please let other editors reply for themselves. Is that too hard ? NATTO 05:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have of course added the information on my own behalf (as properly signed), and Levine will no doubt reply on his own behalf, and as an adult you should be able to tell the difference. "Is that too hard" to understand? Not only is your continued behavior in this type of situation quite childish, this happens to be a matter involving a desperate effort of yours to include some off-beat and extremely unreliable criticism of NCAHF, which I removed, using this edit summary:

• "Usenet is far below the standards allowed for sources here. Gossip columnists probably rate higher, and they aren't allowed either." [14]

We are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not some gossip column or yellow journalism rag. Criticisms need to be good ones, from verifiable and reliable sources, and they shouldn't be given undue weight. Just take a look (visually!) at the Stephen Barrett article and see where the preponderance of weight is. It literally "looks" like a hatchet job, which no doubt pleases you.

You need to get used to the fact that nothing at Wikipedia is done in secret, and part of exercising good faith toward other editors and of showing a collaborative spirit, means that conversations often end up including many people. Collaborative editing means that "our" will gets done, not just "your" will, or the will of a certain allied group of editors. You could learn alot from User:Dematt. -- Fyslee 05:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As usual your are inflating things. I can see very well you have added the info on your behalf, I merely pointed out that if I had wanted your input I would have asked you. I know as well as you that WP is an open environment. Maybe you are confusing secrecy and privacy for manners. I asked you politely, "can you please" and all I get is an ongoing litany...:-( NATTO

I would say that CMD's use of a quote from a user posted on Usenet would be a pretty weak source for use in Wikipedia. However, the Carter book certainly can and is used. And the quote itself might generate more leads to better sources of material. Oh, and I don't think the Barrett article is a hatchett job as Fyslee suggests. Visually, it looks like it is 50/50 in terms of biographical affirmations versus reliably sources criticism. Don't forget, the litigation section isn't criticism nor is the selection of his published works.Levine2112 16:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Levine. Thanks for the constructive information :-) NATTO 22:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Levine. Can you have a look at this letter from Julian M. Whitaker. He raises a valid point about attacks by the NCAHF and Barrett and co, against health practitioners. NATTO 00:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a fantastic letter. I have read it before. Perhaps passages from it could be cited and used in the NCAHF article. After all it is a secondhand account of NCAHF activities and it documented on many sites throughout the web and it comes from a person certainly qualified to speak on the matter. Levine2112 01:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You also may find it interesting to know that user Fyslee, before heading to Denmark, hailed from (you guessed it) Loma Linda, CA. Now, I know he'll just deny any connection if we ask him and write the whole thing off as coincidence, but what do you think? Levine2112 02:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe in coincidences.... NATTO 07:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No coincidence at all. This is part of the eternal and ongoing Illuminati conspiracy. I am a member of the Quackbusters of the Illuminati and was destined to be born into an SDA family, with preachers on all sides for the last three generations. Loma Linda is an SDA university town, and my family moved there when I was 11 years old, after returning from their missionary sojourns in the Far East (Japan, Korea, Philippines). I lived in Loma Linda for a few years, but left for private boarding school when I was 15, which is a tradition in our family. All, including my great grandparents, have gone to private schools. My first contact with a public school was in college, being the only member of my family to break the tradition. During my time in LL I never met or knew about Dr. Jarvis, who is the founder of the NCAHF. Nor was I an active skeptic. On the contrary, I was a true believing fundamentalist Christian, creationist, young earther, vegetarian, bla bla bla. My chiroskepticism did get started when I was about 12, but only began to really take form when I worked for some MDs as a research assistant, and later became a Physicians Assistant. During my Physical Therapy education I was in contact with some other skeptics, but only with my start on the internet in 1999 did I come in contact with any others. I immediately discovered Chiroweb, Planetchiro, Chirobase and the Healthfraud Discussion List, and the rest is history. I have even exchanged emails a few times with Dr. Jarvis in the process of writing an article on the history of the Quackbusters. I began to make really big bucks by combating chiropractic. The millions just rolled in! The checks from the AMA, FDA, CDC, WHO, Illuminati, and the Rockefellers have made me so wealthy that I can't even afford to have two cars, and I have to work 10 hours a day treating patients just to support my family. (Cars in Denmark cost three times the price in neighboring countries. Really!) We are so succesful in our efforts to cause needless suffering and death, that our goal for the destruction of mankind is nearly achieved. Now if we can find one single life that would be lost if chiropractic vanished, our goal might be achieved, but no one has yet been able to prove that possibility. Weird! They literally make no difference in that aspect, although many people are brainwashed into believing their lives will be shortened if they don't get regular adjustments, and many actually do get relief from certain musculoskeletal problems, the same ones I also treat. So you see, higher powers have guided me to live in Loma Linda, without my ever knowing why...;-) So just go on believing that there are no coincidences, because there aren't! Keep reading that horoscope....;-) -- Fyslee 22:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I blocked you and Fryslee 12 hours each for violating the WP:3RR rule in Quackwatch. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Levine2112, I have left the following message and apology to you on the Quackwatch talk page:

I have responded to Levine2112's complaint here. It appears that I was mistaken in my count of his reverts. He was at 3RR, and not at 4RR, just as I was. I am awaiting responses on the issues I have raised above, and the issues raised in my response. In the mean time I apologize to Levine2112 for counting incorrectly, and to all of you for this debacle. It was the first time I've ever experienced this kind of thing. -- Fyslee 21:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Levine2112 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Relevancy of Barrett's opinion on court decision

More amd more opinions of Barrett on legal decisions are added to the article. I wonder if that is really relevant. The courts have rule and whatever Barrett or anyone else thinks of the decisions will not change them unless it is reversed by a higher court. The article is not a platform for Barrett to display his numerous opinions, He already has 22 websites to do so.

Personnally I think his opinions in such court matters are not relevant to the article. He simply shows that he does not accept the court's decision which, of course is to be expected. However when the courts support his POV then he will post all the info dutifully on his websites... Double standard anyone ? NATTO 23:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. The WP:BLP seems to support allowing a living person to comment on their own biography. If you'd like, you might want to read the policies there and see what you think. Personally, I think Barrett's retorts to a judge's decision makes him look weak and petty. Levine2112 01:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree however after checking WP:BLP I doubt he is allowed to be quoted attacking the judge especially since there is no independant verifiable sources to confirm what he is saying ( the judge is wrong, I got paid very little, there was no fund and other "bad loser" complaints...). NATTO 04:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I see we had the same idea at the same time....;-) [15] -- Fyslee 05:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering what happened there. Levine2112 05:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OMG. Great minds think alike? --Dematt 12:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ground for Sculpture

Shalom! Thanks for correcting my mistake. The Grounds for sculpture is realy a lovely place. I am putting its photos there. But sorry, I cant write clearly.... THatnk for correcting me GK tramrunner 23:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition to one of your templates I can say that "religion is an opium for a nation." I am also dreaming of the perfect world. You can alway write back to me.... or send me email to tramrunner229SHIFTTWOyahooDOTcom GK tramrunner 23:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC) but no spam please.

My please to help out. Let me know if I can be of any other assistance on the article. Levine2112 23:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Barrett

Just thought I'd let you know that I was nosy and looked at your user page. I agree with all your userboxes, and feel similarly. As to Barrett, I have mixed feelings, but generally am suspicious of his highly political bent. I refrain comment on any particular user, but it is my experience on Wikipedia in the relatively short time I have been acquainted with 'editing' in it, that on occasion small roving gangs of admins behave like the a bad condo board. Just an observation.Jance 02:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not nosey at all! I welcome visitors. I am glad we are so like-minded. Believe it or not, some of my great adversaries here share very similar userboxes with me. I too am very suspicious of Barrett's political motivations, but at the end of the day all any of us can do is edit in good faith and add only information supported notable and verifiable references. I really appreciate having your legal mind around to analyze some of these complicated cases! I see legal jargon and sometimes my mind retreats to that place where we go to when we are unwilling to broach learning something new. :-) Levine2112 04:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note what you are actually changing in an article before you do so. Removal of non-contentious edits without comment could be interpreted as vandalism or personal bias against another editor. [16] --Ronz 03:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this. As an explanation, not accusing you of oversight or worse, the information I added on Day was from the very source we're referencing, which I pointed out in my edit summary. --Ronz 16:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen Barrett

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.[17] --Ronz 17:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop accusing others of personal attacks when the accusation is completely unwarranted. I am suggesting that perhaps you are a little too over-sensitive and jumped the gun with this warning here. Levine2112 18:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously we disagree. "I'm sorry but your biases will not dictate this article, nor will your opinions of what is notable and what is not. We have verifiable sources from notable critics... enough said" How am I to interpret that other than you're accusing me of bias? And you're telling me that my interpretation of WP:N doesn't count? --Ronz 00:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm telling you that your interpretation is wrong. As for the "accusation", let me ask... are you biased in favor of Barrett? Levine2112 02:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! [18] [19]

I don't find accusations of "attempting to 'white wash' this article" as civil nor assuming good faith. --Ronz 03:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My head is as cool as a cucumber. And I am not attacking you by calling you biased or pointing out your whitewashing efforts. It isn't even an accusation. It is an accurate description of what you are attempting to do. One more time: Are you biased in favor of Barrett? Levine2112 03:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm biased to following wiki policy and guidelines. --Ronz 03:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As am I. Okay. So you are not biased for Barrett. I would like to see your actions ever reflect that. Levine2112 08:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

But, of course, you offer no explanation whatsoever of how my actions reflect bias. And you don't think for a second that this is uncivil and assuming bad faith? How would you react if someone repeatedly accused you of bias without offering a shred of evidence? --Ronz 15:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is anyone who ignores evidence around here it is you. We have given you tax records and government database info and you simply ignore it. The only explanation here is bias. Levine2112 18:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"I simply ignore it". I disagree. Sorry that you see no other explanation. I'm not letting your inability to find other explanations be my problem. I will continue to take your comments of bias for what they are: uncivil assumptions of bad faith, often in the form of personal attacks. --Ronz 20:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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. [20] --Ronz 20:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And I will take your accusation that I am making personal attacks as what it is: you dealing with another editor in bad faith. Levine2112 03:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in but this is escalating into a massively non productive "discussion". Hopefully i can bring a little insight to this discussion. Ronz i am pretty sure that I support most of your editorial thoughts and Levine and i certainly do not agree on many issues with the page. That said, we enjoyed a very productive time on the Barratt page (or quackwatch, i forget which) about six months ago. Real discussion occurred and real compromises from both sides were offered. Let's get back to talking and try not to read too much into stray comments. Its very easy to take comments the wrong way in these written forums. I can vouch that Levine will discuss and compromise with regard to issues on the table. But it does take time to hash things out. David D. (Talk) 19:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that David. I too would like to go back to those more cooperative times. The article progressed so well then and I think it was vastly iimproved. We got rid of the accusations of making the article a "hatchet job" or a "white wash". Let's get back to those days. As an exercise in good faith, I would appreciate if Ronz would cease vandalizing my talk page. Levine2112 19:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Holford

Dear Levine,

I was quite disturbed by this report in The Guardian 06.01.07 about Patrick Holford and thought it might interest you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,,1983925,00.html

Yours sincerely,

robert2957 08:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

SBarrett

Well you missed all the fun. Welcome back. I would appreciate your review of the Barrett article section, Defamation lawsuits. Jance has driven the Barrett v. Rosenthal article, and the Talk page histories are important to get the legal mechanics & lingo right. However there is an encyclopedic issue in the intro section (mid page) to the Barrett litigation that I differ from Ronz & Jance. NCAHF was stuck for a while so badly, almost everyone was supporting each other in harmony for Xmas over a new disruptive editor. Ilena is the subject of Ronz' initiation of a 2nd AN/I Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ilena_revisited despite her planning to take a Wikibreak and already going quiet. Welcome home to Wikipedia!--I'clast 13:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Take a little time off and look what happens. All right. I'll be mulling about soon. Just finishing up some New Year's business. Levine2112 21:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you not get the Tom Swiftie:

"Ah! I wouldnt worry about that missing flower" Tom said lackadaisically

?!?!?!66.236.130.35 22:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112, please send me an email

Hi! I am Alan, or "alan2012", a sometime contributor to Wikipedia -- e.g. the Barrett/Quackwatch page and (last summer) the Orthomolecular Med page.

Actually I am a naive, inexperienced contributor who is still trying to figure things out around here. Lots to learn and I am not sure how much detail I want to try to absorb. Just figured out tonight (duhhhh) that I should SIGN IN before I do an edit! Ha. I'll get better at it.

Anyway, would you mind dropping me a line by email -- aelewis AT provide DOT net

I would appreciate it. There are several folk I would like to be able to communicate with, but the Wiki thing still feels like something of a maze to me.

Sincerely,

Alan Lewis

PS: Me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alan2012

reverting through popups

Hi Levine2112. It's been nice working with you lately on Barrett-related pages the last day or two. I notice that sometimes you revert using popups, and you probably should be a little more careful about how you do this. Popups (and various other scripts) were designed to give users access to an admin's roll-back function, a tool that is meant for reverting vandalism. It is regarded as bad manners to use such tools to revert other posts because they shut off dialogue: they don't communicate what the specific problem with the intervening edit is and thereby encourage compromise. (See WP:REVERT#Rollback.) Reversion itself is to be avoided when you can, but if you absolutely must revert, do it manually and explain it in the header. Bucketsofg 17:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets

Thanks for the link about sockpuppets. Let me know if there is anything I can do as a basic editor. TheDoctorIsIn 06:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No prob, Bob. ;-) Levine2112 06:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR

1. Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits , as you are doing in Quackwatch. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)