User talk:I'clast - Knowledge (XXG)

4265:"For example, in 2002, Joel M. Kauffman, of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, published a website review of Quackwatch. (53) For the review, Kauffman, a self-proclaimed member of a "local skeptics group," used eight webpages on topics with which he was familiar, and these he "examined minutely.... to make generalizations about the website." (54) The topics were "Tips for Lowering Your Dietary Fat Content," "Low Carbohydrate Diets," "Chelation Therapy," "Glucosamine for Arthritis" "Magnet Therapy" "Homeopathy" "Dietary Supplements," and "Stanislaw Burzynski and Antineoplastons.'" Kauffman says that "ll eight pages from www.quackwatch.com ... were found to be contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo.... Hostility to all alternatives was expected and observed from the website, but not repetition of groundless slogans from mainstream medicine...." (55) A good example was the website's use of a Danish study of chelation in which the investigators used a solution different from that used in chelation therapy--a dietary supplement including iron, the chelating properties of which "guaranteed a lesser effect"--and used a sample including 70 percent smokers "despite the fact that it has been shown that smoking will neutralize the effect of chelation." (56) When the study was investigated by the Danish Medical Society's Committee on Investigation into Scientific Dishonesty, it was found that "the double-blinding was broken," and that the investigators falsely claimed to be using the correct solution. (57) Additional flaws were cited from a variety of peer reviewed publications. (58)" 3043:

would really be surprised who has wanted my body. Here, at WP, I have been able to collaborate effectively with conventional MD editors that could look beyond their preconceptions at modern (and older) WP:V & WP:RS science/medical materials to reconcile science issues in the CAM related articles. At QW-WP space, this has totally broken down because of the cluster of "skeptical" internet warriors where extreme factional QW POV is trying to assert itself as mainstream and/or authority at all costs, WP:V, RS, fairness or accuracy be damned. You are a long time QW partisan that moved from one belief system to another without solid technical foundation, at least in the areas that concern me, and you have had great difficulty recognizing ground floor technical discussions where it throws less than favorable light on your passions. Although even biologically based CAM are always long, tough work, I have preferred collaborating with a number of strong conventional MDs, because those that are informed enough and intellectually honest have given careful consideration to my edits when they stare scientific illiteracy or scientific misconduct in the face with some nominally RS sources that turn out to not be WP:V, even though WP:RS. Such considerations have long flown out the window in the pro-QW edits that are not utterly praising of the article's subject. Your last comment is poor.--

446:

on their articles. That way, if you really want to invite Barrett et al into those articles, just do what you are suggesting. You'll get the whole scientific community on your backs, point-by-(excruciatingly revealing)-point. So far all the criticism you have provided on the various articles has only resulted in enlargening them and strenghtening them, for which we are actually grateful. Call it unintended "collateral benefit" to the cause of exposing quackery and fringe science...;-) Without it we might have settled for short and factual articles. (Maybe this is a result of too much mercury exposure? Dangerous stuff! It keeps one from seeing "the big picture." To see it, just look at the articles before and after you got involved.) Have a nice day. -- Fyslee 13:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Per the above, apparently bias, (in)accuracy, (im)balance are minor concerns once a certain POV is established. As for the "the whole scientific community", QW is already missing silent portions of the scientifc community, albeit many only express their opinion after retirement, if ever. The QW article before? the word hagiology comes to mind.--I'clast 13:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

3913:, has numerous suppositions, speculation and errors with an interesting degree of fishing. As for innuendos, I filed administrative papers long ago, perhaps a moot point by that later time (too late & a pre-empted start too soon), no remotely neutral admin is going to say that those papers are insubstantial. Assuming an editor remains civil there is no reason to pursue it, in fact every reason to encourage well reasoned, well referenced, GF fairminded, counterpoints with gentle humor. Our definition of "good editors" may vary, mine does not include editors that repeatedly refuse legit, notable fact/science-based V RS references, those that bring their QW activism, POV & links from offsite as "neutrals", astroturfing, subversive COI, biting & swallowing newbies whole, or zealous POV site reconstructions at WP. I have bitten my tongue a lot, but after some very painful experiences from trolls, I track POV and COI. I do encourage those that get too far out, to return to AGF editing, some are quite resistant. 482:"...Mention the controversies, link to them and the subjects - including wikilinks" this is similar to my thinking with the suggestion to Natto of 2-5 word phrases with 1-2 superscripted references to Natto earlier. I do like cleaner prose, but significant contention points need some kind of ' * '. In some cases I think that better examples could be given, e.g. I think Pauling is a poor example (i.e. QW bragging that it shot & skinned the rarest, largest of a protected species to both fed'l and state game agents after running the fleece up the flagpole would seem kind of ill advised, even in the most anti-govt woods). We've been working on this article hot & heavy for several weeks, things have been getting a little warm again this weekend. The QW article is in pretty good shape now, perhaps we should try to slow to small, occasional edits this week. Its still Sunday here, so let's think positive thoughts about our neighbors. Pace.--I'clast 23:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 450:

stimulating and helps us to developed informed biases, rather than blind prejudices. (Read my introduction for more on that subject.) Controversies should be mentioned and linked, but the article isn't the place for editors to continue the discussion on their own account, or on the account of others. Doing that is unencyclopedic and would end up reproducing the website and portions of other websites, ending up with a long, rambling, and argumentative article. We need to stay on-topic. Mention the controversies, link to them and the subjects - including wikilinks - and then let readers do their own studying outside of the article itself. The article should just mention things. It plants the seeds, but it isn't our job to do the harvesting. (If you were a fundamentalist Christian - like I have been - you'd recognize that that is the work of the Holy Spirit....;-) -- Fyslee 14:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

3876:

as stilted, one sided an atmosphere as exists at "QW WP". As for explanations, I emailed uninvolved mgmt with my understanding and explanation. I had nothing to do with Ilena outing someone. As for truly identifying info, someone had blatantly, long posted a sizable "Jolly Roger" where Ilena would have immediately picked it up the first time she read WP, but most of us did not (soon) recognize it. I was as shocked as most to read the depth of some of the connections that Ilena made. As for why Ilena waited this long, who knows? Perhaps Ilena listened just a little when, much earlier, I suggested that she tone/slow things down. I don't know addressed mgmt's response. I am going to be mostly off air for the next several days.--

2784:

often the case with geniuses - in this case practically the whole family are geniuses!!) quite unpredictable and unusual, with various affairs, illegitimate children, psychiatric and alcohol problems, forced and voluntary incarcerations in mental health facilities, etc.. He was a person who ignored conventions and went his own way, and he paid the price in loneliness and ruined friendships. He ended up in a monastary as a monk, having left his family and children behind. Much of his career was divided between Denmark and Germany. An interesting person. The nephew is also unusual and very intelligent, but fortunately not a psych case. --

4256:"I have said that Dr. Schneiderman is not alone in the approach I have criticized, and that these issues represent a systematic bias among the strongest critics of CAM. Dr. Schneiderman's recommendations of reliable information sources on CAM are useful in supporting my contention. Those that he says are "the best currently available sources for gaining accurate information about alternative medicine" are the website www.quackwatch.com and "publications like the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine and Alternative Medicine Alert." (52) 1 have often found Alternative Medicine Alert useful. 1632:? Even if I did reinvent history (I don't believe I did) then at least I did so in the arbitration and not on the Barrett talk page, while I'clast comes crashing in there claiming I did so, all the time doing so himself, reinterpreting the entire discussion. I am quite incensed, I'clast. You're out of line in too many instances to list. Frankly, I have the feeling this was your intention. Your edits addressed to me are just so much bait. You can't get me to respond in anger. This is, however, the type of behavior that drives me away. It poisons the atmosphere. It has to stop. 3379:

There is no sockpuppetry going on and mistakes simply allow pretext for ridiculous exchanges such as this to distract passersby. This has long available to the interested. As I said, there are sr admins and arbs long aware of this particular precaution, some who do similar things, and they are quite aware of the need to slow down the hot edits, prevent stalking, and to separate legitimately interests of parties and merely new &/or ill-informed editors from trolls & disruptive editors.--

3942:. I simply do not see the need to mention one's opinion/knowledge of other editors' POV or bias in every other post. All editors are biased. When it comes to editing Knowledge (XXG), I truly don't care what people have done under different identities, real-life, usenet, Knowledge (XXG), whatever, in the past. I prefer to discuss the edits, not the editor. I note that instead of stopping, you step up the accusations, which are already halfway "outing" 1429:

friendly warning because I felt (as do you towards Shot info) that he was so qualified and knowledgeable a person that I was interested in seeing him succeed here, even when it would mean strengthening the alternative medicine side's POV. That shows my concern for NPOV, in spite of my own personal POV. I have a feeling we are very much like each other (except for your obviously greater talents and know how in some areas). While we

703:

where the other 4 fingers are pointing; I have. If I treated you, as you have me, this past ~10 days, I think you would be *extremely & noisily unhappy* - I have avoided constantly objecting and quoting dubiously interpreted policy, rather discussing things as conversationally as possible. When I do quote policy, it is not for trival, inflated or imaginary reasons. I discuss & look for logical closure.

2971: 3334:

SPOV that develops WP:V and WP:RS sources for *current science* that also show some serious shortcomings, including systematic bias and gross scientific error, in their favorite POV. Most long time correspondents, if not all, have long aware of my speed bump for trolls and respected it to varying degrees, although adversarial "outings" have been made, too, with resultant increases in harrassment.--

4416:

edit the homeopathy or chiropractic articles - I simply see this as a disruptive extension of disputive POV pushing with clear features of initimidation, provocation and unfairness into an unrelated topic that needs to stop. Such "policy" intrepretations remind me all too much of 3rd world countries that claim a rule of law and wonder why they have negative growth and such a bad reputation.--

2258:. I put the tag on the article for a reason. It's Levine2112 (and others) who are ignoring it. You're playing your diversion tactics again, the ones that allowed Ilena to get away with edit warring for months, accusing others of problems that are apparent and need to be dealt with. Please stop stop hindering others' efforts to address the real issues at hand. -- 1689:

background are one sentence short of being accurate and that Mr Bolen's view is not the only one concerned. Some editors seem to exclusively link the two. Since I view Bolen as a political creature, I don't think he & I have much in common. I am not thrilled when comments about "hate mail" etc are thrown out to disparage the precise credentials discussion.--

2490: 4054: 3531: 3161: 3117: 1885:

a block and yet the ArbCom seemed headed for a topic ban. My editing experience with Fyslee, the looming ex de facto decision and my personal sense of justice were sufficient reason for me to dedicate some spare time to the matter. I would have appreciated a reasonable private conversation with you, but on the other hand I was not quite clueless.

1192: 3930:

the project itself, making this an unsafe place, especially for editors who (according to you) are not editing on your side of the debate. I view what you're doing as outing, threatening to out, spreading gossip, untruths and half-truths, etc., and certainly not as the corrective/educational interventions you think they are. See also

2825:

like creating Microsoft and becoming the richest person, while those on the other end aren't heard from, or they end up in the history books for some famous crime. So just because someone is odd or even crazy isn't a reason to discount the good they might do, it's just a good reason to be cautious. --

3929:

I no longer think you are trying to stir up trouble for good editors and accept that you believe you are simply denouncing undesirable activities/biases/etc of people you personally don't see as good Wikipedians. I, on the other hand, believe that your behavior is hurting other editors and ultimately

3715:

I interpret your answer to indicate that you intended to convey: "... is not a neutral party with respect to Levine by a long shot" and "is not a neutral party with respect to the article by a long, years long outside WP, shot", and NOT: "is not a neutral party with respect to Levine by a long, years

3672:

You have criticized (erroneously IMHO) and tangled with Levine ever since Fyslee's RFAR. That's not a neutral position. You are not neutral to QW according material offsite, I can't of course go any further here. I am not a VP user. Simply within the context of "vandalism" as repetitious, specious,

3392:

here that need to be clarified. I assume based on your above comments that you are in fact same person who has edited using TheNautilus account. Am I correct? Operating in good faith is having one account and to leave an audit trail for any editor to review, especially when making controversial edits

2824:

True enough. What history does show us is that those who become notable (the others are forgotten) can in some way or other still contribute often great things in spite of their problems. Genius and insanity often are close bedfellows. Those at the better end of the Aspergers Syndrome scale do things

1884:

I started out pretty neutral but the more familiar I became with the situation the more I thought that Ilena should be put on probation and Fyslee and Levine sent off to mediation. But Ilena got herself an indef ban so this was only about Fyslee. His editing regarding QW had not been deemed worthy of

1806:

I did not realize I am defying an admin (no dif to it), are you saying you are an admin? I see on your User page, Vandal Proof and Counter-Vandalism Unit, are these admin only tools? (I previously replied to someone another time that appeared following up an AN presuming them an admin, turned out to

1718:

You are entitled to your opinion on what happened there, just as I am entitled to my opinion which vastly differs from yours. I am sure you believe your view is right so you are vehemently defending it here in vain. I am not even trying to prove you wrong (although I think you are but it's impossible

1414:

The oblique COI charge is not about you, but rather the problems Ilena had here, and will continue for the rest of us. It is a culmination of a series of my hints over the last month to an apparently real QW author/advisor/relative to back off the COI edits, not so subtle POV and provocations, if not

445:

Indeed. Please do, since that will provide an opportunity to provide Quackwatch's arguments on those points. Just open that door.....;-) But, on second thought, we're trying to write an encyclopedia, not conduct a discussion group. The article is about Quackwatch. If you really want to do that, do it

407:

I restored the edit as best I could determine. Please note that on the anti-skeptic issue. It appears that Kauffman is member of his local skeptic group so I thought best to have a neutral title , after his status as a skeptic is not the point, it is the content and quality of his review that is. :-)

3009:

If there is a war, I am the one getting bombarded by POV and traceable COIs, by editors bringing their work and their internet conflicts to WP. I make good use of edit summaries and the Talk page, I provide hard to find references and make careful policy and content positions, despite enduring some

2897:

Understand, we are not "adding" the Kauffman material, it is restoring material surreptiously removed in a ceaseless, multipronged POV assualt, by an editor already cited by an experienced admin, whose natural predisoposition is favorable to QW, as having a WP:COI. The consensus required would be to

2783:

article refs. My friend is a surveyor working for the government here in Denmark. The whole family is rather remarkable with many musicians, authors, and doctors in the family. He has told me quite a bit about his controversial and (in)famous psychiatrist uncle, whom he met many times. He was (as is

2113:

The sourcing issue I will take back to the SBarrett Talk page, we seem to have disagreement on source text research explictly encouraged in WP:RS, the notability/OR/sourcing and BLP. I do think that there are some policies that I am going to have to pick through the quotes and diffs on the WP:RS, V,

2064:

I think that it is true that Bolen most effectively raised the specific "board certified" issue to parts of the public and perhaps cannot be unlinked (unringing a bell?) in many people's minds in that aspect. However I separate the (sub)topic from the specific datum because WP:N previously addressed

1845:

That shouldn't be too hard; I think in the arbitration I was following the lead of others to some extent (kind of "Well, if this is how these people communicate, I can do it too. Let it roll" - but I hoped it would be obvious that I started out from the diffs, not from opinion supported by selective

1666:

3. I was surprised that AvB was able to influence with secondary "witness" re-interpretations that struck me as special pleading that I felt the arbs should be able to balance differently. AvB has a right to his opinion, just I think that it is both a different pov as well as less familiar with the

1428:

Well, I have woken up to a snow storm here in Denmark, and have checked your contributions and found this. This apparently involves more than I understand. Call me a naive idealist. So it looks like we both did the same thing, except that you are actually going to do it, while I really meant it as a

4128:

Shot Info has deleted twice a very important "Letter To The Editor" by Dr. F. Bandak that was published in response to another "Letter To The Editor". Dr. Bandak's results from his 2005 were challenged as being to high. This published letter gives a detailed explanation as the reasoning why he used

3875:

You are tailgating too much, creating OR connections and creating scenes. It is not considered polite to read other people's "post cards" and yell out your original research to everyone else to hear. As I said, I was as polite as possible to someone, where a number of issues have to be addressed in

3378:

Shot_info, despite my expressed preferences, where I have previously seen strong warnings of administrative sanctions for User page displays similar to Shot_info's. I operate in good faith, segregate my activities, occasionally making errors, or in some cases, browser problems as to current status.

1880:

No, more kicking myself for not diverting time to discuss several of your examples on articles and edits personally known to me that I signifcantly disagree and think I have greater depth of background on those specific articles. I viewed your RFAR participation as a previously unknown (to me) QW

1737:

As to a link between Bolen and Barrett: No one is suggesting the two are alike in any way. The link quite obviously is that Bolen accused, Barrett responded. Barrett's response did not come out of thin air. And you can't unlink the two; the information has always been put forward in response to the

1670:

4. I am sorry that we are having this conversation but it is best if you (all) analyze it for rational content. I am quite prepared to technically and rationally collaborate, but I will not easily be shouted down, flooded out or intimidated either. As for "crashing in" I am not a Johnny-come-lately

632:

More knowledge of evidence based medicine for you? There is little evidence regarding that, but you certainly must have more hope or belief in certain commercially influenced data sources. Kauffman is at scientific odds with a number of old medical saws & based on a current view of science, not

4415:

should be considered disruption and bad faith by an all too common ill-informed, -ing anti-scientific POV (I mean that quite literally - rejection of science & its methodology in practice with concrete examples, all while loudly claiming (falsely) its mantle) into an unrelated topic. I do not

3894:

did, and that you did so on a Knowledge (XXG) talk page, for no visible reason other than what I think drives your incessant innuendos and accusations regarding Shot Info (and recently also the nonsense that, in your "humble" opinion, although you assert this as a fact this for everyone to hear, I

3864:

Regarding I'clast's outing of Crohnie: I found her real-life identity rather easily after I'clast had suggested (on a WP talk page) a connection between her and what turned out to be the name of one of Ilena Rosenthal's Usenet nemeses. I've emailed the diff to JoshuaZ. I also note that I'clast has

3604:

Everything that I quoted this evening about Kauffman's article is quoted from within Hufford's peer reviewed paper in a quality mainstream journal, indisputably V RS. Yes, I do note that there are quite a few *long time* Quackwatch exponents and site linkers from the internet, some with impressive

3333:

You've been misled, it was the correction of an innocent mistake, where I have been hounded by several trolls, past and present, who try to silence any serious participation from outside a certain loose knit group of internet pov warriors. Some seem eager if not aggressive to silence a functioning

2677:

two days ago: Please provide evidence (i.e. diffs) of the forum shopping or similar behavior you're alleging here. Please provide evidence (i.e. diffs) where I (or Fyslee) "insistently include Spiked!". Although I say "please," answering these questions is not optional, I'clast. Thanks in advance.

2429:

My sincere apologies Ralph, thanks to Avb for the minder. It appears to be an edit conflict between when I scooped up the Q&A survey into Wordpad to edit full screen, added my interspersed comments and replaced them into the WP edit text. Ralph, thank you for taking time to fix it before I got

1810:

My mistake, I seemed to remember Ronz was one; his efforts here surely qualify as admin-grade but I stand corrected. As an aside, although in a number of areas my experience is nearing the point where I think I would acquire the mop if I tried, I have never felt the need to do so since it would be

1733:

Shouted down, flooded out or intimidated? Why are you broadcasting your personal beliefs about me, thus far on the Barrett article only I hope? You are claiming things about other people that cannot be proved or disproved. It is simply your personal view of me and I think it is both baiting me and

1433:

had our differences (in the past), I have come to appreciate your integrity, which I have previously doubted. (It can be hard to always AGF in a conflict situation. Fortunately I don't have the type of conspiracy theory mentality that prevents me from ever AGF. Sometimes one just has to give up on

1146:

I did not break 3RR. My edits were in good faith and in consideration of the edit summaries. If you go through, you'll find that I only reverted to a previous version 3 times. Every other edit was a new attempt to reword the offending passage -- I never reverted to a previous version. Go ahead and

3745:

I'm still waiting for answers. I've (at least temporarily, until you have provided evidence) removed your VP/abuse post. It has been considered by the VP mod days ago and the case has already been closed, so its removal will have no consequences regarding the warning given to Levine. Your post is

1627:

I particularly resent that I'clast has brought something that he thinks happened in the ArbCom case to a talk page where it's crystal clear that I had not interpreted any history. Not that interpreting history is wrong in an ArbCom case ; arbitrators do it all the time, Levine2112 had brought his

449:

Well, we wouldn't want that kind of thing. It's a controversial site, and it can't be any other way. Any website or anyone who has an opinion will risk getting involved in controversy, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. That's one of the ways we learn. Studying both sides of a controversy is

4026:

Ronz, I will support an RfC/U. In fact, in view of I'clast's unwillingness to listen to others when it comes to interpreting policies/community standards, as very clear from his response to you above, his preference for his own understanding of our modus operandi, his talk page edits that can be

3918:

By the way, you should know, some critical editors that you approve quite so highly against me, are known to me under previous user accounts before they ceased active use of those accounts, presumably for administrative impatience & block, well known trolling according to their friends &

3809:

I did not "out" you. I have been far more polite & non-accusatory to you than vice versa, I have ignored numerous little subterfuges, games and gouges at the expense of select editors from a "neutral" not-so-uninvolved-editor after-all, hoping you would stop the games. After I minded you, as

3238:

You might want to talk to Fyslee about this for some guidance, as well as historical and cautionary insights, as a familiar editor in QW-SB-etc space. Perhaps having more political commonality with you, he is pretty well aware of the rules and ropes around here. He also recently has become more

3042:

Fyslee, I am an independent SPOV who tries very hard to honestly develop & reconcile various sources from a broad view of hard science with various uncertainities in the mainstream literature. I have a far more extensive, conventional technical & experimental background than you do. You

2085:

Well, this is a point where we differ. It's a finer point of NPOV interpretation based on Jimbo's insights. I am not surprised it is proving difficult for me to convey it to others, especially to those who feel it upsets their own interpretation of the rules. This type of debate tends to stretch

1994:

problem even if we assume the sources you gave are reliable. We need the same information in a single reliable source (reliable in this context also means undisputed by others). "with opinion pages that have been confused many times as a reliable technical fact source at Knowledge (XXG)." is not

1723:

putting similar "newly arrived" nonsense on the Barrett talk page smack in the middle of an RfC. How do you think this will come across on any newly arriving uninvolved RfC respondents? You're also going against an admin who is doing his utmost to keep editors calm and reasonable and out of each

1688:

If I seem out of line to you, you should know I am pretty straight forward and that simply means we are not yet well aligned on some crucial issues. Effective collaboration needs to start. As far as I can tell, the primary problem at hand is that a clear outline of Dr Barrett's credentials &

1609:

Let me make this very clear. I'm talking about your editing behavior, not Ilena's. I think we can all learn from the Ilena/Fyslee Arb, and I for one am working to prevent anything similar from occurring. You've used the "Editor A is a victim..." argument before. I'm letting you know that I'm

702:

My comments primarily were for the benefit of Ilena and for various readers, even if phrased for you ( since you would be looking for responses). I am not harrassing anyone. Au contre, in fact every time you have pointed the finger at me or someone else, I have thought you should monitor closely

237:

l'clast. I agree with you on this issue. Another editor, Fyslee, was bent on including it in the Barrett article as well with the same references even if the editors had clearly agreed that in legal matters, a high level of verifiability was required. Fyslee is an editor who is a self-proclaimed

3977:

That is not an attack. That is criticism of your position trying to deny a legit, highly V RS edit, where you do not have a comparable academic source, by simple dismissal out of hand, taking a hike with the bogus BLP tree. *You've* been here far too many times, despite the admins' & arbs'

3700:

Also note that my criticism of some of Levine's behavior has generally been accepted, supported and augmented by (by now dozens of) experienced Wikipedians and admins. Most of that criticism was in the form of talk page comments. I have been very patient with Levine when it comes to escalation,

2891:

Joel M Kauffman, PhD (MIT), professor emeritus, USP. Kauffman has been vetted several times now, including showing MDs here in previous consensus that Kauffman is, and has been, in fact more current on research in areas that are mainstream in current medical school research & literature vs

1595:

We may disagree on a number of issues. A candid assessment of edit actions where I have supportable points is not a personal attack. Whether to use the User Talk page separately from the article Talk page can be difficult to separate out. I reject your WP:NPA accusation and insinuations that my

1553:

Right, I studiously avoided those issues, absolved certain parties on the identity issue (very, very important here), and constructively suggested a movement to his Talk page. He did imply that there is unfinished business and the cumulative effect of various editors' answers do not accurately

2189:

Good. For me it's simple, I tend to respond to the behavior of others and am known to mirror it occasionally, sometimes intentionally. In other words, when people are implying things, I tend to start writing between the lines, sarcasm breeds sarcasm, etc. I generally edit such stuff out before

1659:

1. I am an eyewitness to contribution history where I am sure I had broader knowledge of the scattered edits in real time and AvB is a very latecoming participant that I never saw on a number of articles until the BvR RFAR. The most common points on articles that I was most concerned with were

645:

I'm awaiting some reviews of his book by respectable sources. My point is that the valid issues Kauffman brings up should be solved by evidenced-based medicine. Of course, the political and financial issues are ultimately another matter altogether. Did I miss something in his book where he

185:

Apparently suggestions about corrective & informative edits of "owned" pages weren't welcome by the above editor on "his" agenda driven essay that he severely criticizes Knowledge (XXG) in general and other editors broadly. Looks like an AfD candidate. Above editor's recent improvements:

2086:

across many articles and may or may not congeal into some dedicated policy language in the future. But others came up with other policies that apply and I still think the "reliable secondary sources" issue has not been settled. Your reasoning may well apply in less sensitive articles though.

1377:

This is doubly incriminating, since I am being accused of threatening to "out" Alan2012, when I'm actually protecting him. (You see, there's no rule that requires me to out someone, even when that protection risks allowing continued policy violations.) We both know who he is.... I'd rather

655:

I guess so, he takes the "evidence" and reruns it critically. That's the point of the analyses and his book. He doesn't have fresh data, he is using what others refused to properly assess (or design or run or report), sometimes rather blatantly. This approaches the heart of concerns about

1881:

proponent & "secondary witness" rather than primary witness as being weaker, rather than as a neutral 3rd party (or admin?) with more standing for neutrality on analysis; in which case I severely erred in not spending more time addressing & adding difs on several of your analyses.

3290:

There was a signing convention finally adopted after several months of serious trolling last year, many editors (e.g. Fyslee, Ronz, Shot_info, Levine...), arbs & admins are already long informed of it. It has helped to identify and reduce stalking & trolling by transient

2148:(unindent) OK, after calming myself down I just went through the recent discussions and RfC material, traced the to-and-fro of personal comments and removed them all as far as I could find. Take a look and let me know if this helps to start with a clean slate. Or revert at will. 925:

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.

3788:

And how are you investigating without contacting her? You outed me once and you will not have that opportunity again. You are mean as far as I am concerned, you and all of you other ID's you use on Knowledge (XXG). So have fun, Knowledge (XXG) is all yours.

1738:

Bolen criticism. Especially when you're talking about primary sources not discussed in independent reliable third-party sources. All the more so in a BLP. I'm not trying to convince you, just bringing you up to date on this viewpoint should you have missed it.

1318:

Could you please rewrite "I did not realize Ronz too, as an IP, went that far back until Levine's note above" to clarify what you mean? It sounds like you are accusing me of being the ip in question when I believe you mean Fyslee. Please clarify. Thanks.

4434:

For what's it worth, I completely agree the tags shouldn't have been added to unrelated articles. That said, adding the tags wasn't vandalism, so I would suggest you don't edit war over this. However, I don't consider fixing this error is disruptive.

2986:

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

569:

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

1714:

This is a dispute about bringing something you have against another editor to a different article/project page, and generally writing things about me that may tarnish my reputation as a good Wikipedian, wind me up, and push me into inappropriate

1402:

The issue is not outing Alan2012's real id or profession, which Alan2012 clearly does not hide. Rather the problem is what might at first appear to be "friendly" advice reads as an implicit threat over Alan's profession as a severe, bannable COI

1584:

Additionally, I think we should avoid the arguments of the sort "Editor A is a victim of Editor B's behavior (so we can ignore Editor A's own behavior)". Also, discussions of editors behavioral problems should be avoided on article Talk pages.

3677:

good faith assumptions have broken down repeatedly about those editors with regard to Levine, I would think a note & request to Levine *before* that report would be expected, especially with regard to the reverted editor involved. That's

3810:

gently and positively as possible, that I was not a totally blind sucker to the outside agenda(s), you improved some for a while. It was not in my, or WP's, interest to blithely out you, rather to improve your edits. Fare thee well, again.--

1628:

interpretation, so I added mine, which was properly referenced with supporting diffs and acted on by several arbitrators. It's also an error to presume I did not know anything about that history; and that's just for starters. And what about

642:(I'm just continuing what I found to be an interesting discussion which I felt would be inappropriate to continue on the article talk page. If you're not interested in continuing the conversation, just let me know. I won't be offeneded.) 1841:

Actually I've had lot of this feeling myself from a certain point in the BvR:RFAR from the combined effects of multiple new editors that I am encountering more challenges from, so let's work on that step back from the abyss together.

4238:

from Hufford D. "Evaluating complementary and alternative medicine: the limits of science and of scientists." (Ninth Annual Thomas A. Pitts Memorial Lectureship in Medical Ethics, Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston)

2294: 4222:- unending denial, and the Doomsday Defense...where no credible counterpoint to strident QW claims and attacks are allowed here despite QW having almost no academic coverage at all. Hufford, actually referenced by Quackwatch itself 2808:(and others), who is certainly interested in genetic and metabolic variances that, of course, remain much disagreed as well as uncharted. Hoffer's sin is, of course, that he has not established anything like a deficiency disease in 3673:

disruptive editing at WP, Levine's use would seem appropriate. Given your long record of criticism of Levine, which I don't agree with, where there is a generally dominant, highly partisan atmosphere concerning some articles, and

877:

You're welcome. I am trying to figure out how to reduce tensions between both of you, although I am not idlely counting on world peace. I figure there are things that I need to get clear on from Ilena, you, and the off premises

2722:

Am I missing something here, or is it no longer a requirement that "repeated" insertions be preceded by "repeated" deletions, performed by ..... There are two sides to the story, so you aren't in a position to point fingers. --

2643:"Previously the usual editors opposed to "not BC" wrote vigorously, but absent a real policy basis." I can name some editors that have done that, but curiously, none of them have taken the side you suggest. Please stop. -- 1330: 2869:

Would you please tell me Kauffman's first name? I did a Google search and there are a lot of Kauffman's listed. I really would appreciate your help so I can research what you want added into the article. Thank you in

254:

I'clast. many thanks for the links to the independent review of QW. Very relevant and factual. Hopefully that will help focus on the real issues instead of having to deal with the specific worldview of some editors. :-)

3724:

to make sure that others will not interpret it that way. If I'm wrong, I look forward to seeing you connect me with Levine in year-long interactions somewhere outside of WP, just like you've been doing with other good

1975:

No, you come across as a outspoken, sincere supporter or proponent of QW that I can't get into technical focus with yet. You deleted my clearly (so I thought) sourced points on the limitations on some of Dr Barrett's

441:

I think if you could come up with 1-2 references that show QW attacking or unfairly characterizing Weil (or Pauling) and perhaps a 2-5 word phrase, that would be a better format.--I'clast 12:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

3937:

Tracking POV and COI, subjective as it may be, seems perfectly OK to me; I do the same. Trust but verify. For example, I noticed a long time ago that your I'clast and other identities did not exactly arrive here as

3821:

I have collaborated with Ilena when she was here... I'clast also wrote: I have sometimes utilized Ilena's material and knowledge as a resource since she has significant background in USENET (ugh) but we are quite

984:

I am itching to edit this again. Levine212 is right. This does constitute a OR violation. You asked me to write you before I edit. Well, here I am. GigiButterfly is confused about what constitutes vandalism, too.

2190:

posting but lack of time can be a factor and sometimes I think it just isn't worth it to go for full political correctness. In natural speech I need to be careful not to be too outspoken unless I'm with friends.

4813:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 662:

article reflects my own (limited) experience with Harrison's. On finding contra reviewers, his statins part alone will gather Kauffman innumerable "respectable" critics. $ 25b+/yr buys lots of (camp)followers.--

1260: 1256: 621:

You make some interesting points, but either I have more knowledge of evidenced-based medicine than you or more hope in it. Kauffman appears completely unaware, but then he's a biochemist so why should he be?

3609:

provide support for Dr Barrett and Quackwatch related articles here. I think your haranguing, POV and edit war history w/o meritorious discussion are far more germane to the subject of policy understanding or

1667:

long & scattered contribution histories. AvB obviously made some kind of heroic effort to write and reference all that he did, I just do not consider it as a complete view in the areas that I am familliar.

2318: 3728:

VP rules are very very clear on this. Warnings are not to be given by editors but by VP moderators. Also note that this was by no means the first time Levine abused Vandalproof this way. Repeated question:

370:

I apologize if I removed any of your edits on that topic. I was trying to undo the edits of Travis who insist on putting a POV spin on the review section. You are more than welcome to re-insert your edits.

4707:

If so, do you have a reason for not placing a notice on both user and talk pages alerting other editors to these accounts? Would you object to placing such a notice prominently on your user page (such as

1671:

to QW space. I in fact have recently stayed away because of some other problems that I saw at QW etc, but one can only hang back so long before some changes become too entrenched and difficult to correct.

2175:

In natural speech, I am said to have a dry humor with lots of irony and sarcasm. The faster I have to write, the more it shows, so hopefully that will help interpret my writing and intent in a friendly

2779:

On a more placid and congenial note (nice for once in this place!), you might be interested to know that I am a good friend of the nephew (who is about 63 now) of PJ Reiter. Reiter is mentioned in the

2120:

I'm always interested in the well-reasoned application of policy. But in the end it's something to be decided by the community I think (unless of course Barrett does write or phone the Foundation).

566: 2308: 2281: 2071:

notability. Over the last 10 years or so, Dr Barrett has been much more challenged on scientifc credibility, subject expertise (competencies) and credentials than ever before, that is why the

4670:

Could you provide me with an unambiguous answer to the following questions? I've been referred to a variety of venues with a lot of diffs, but I figure this is the easiest way to clarify.

4129:

the high velocity forces. There was great discussion and questioning in the SBS scientific community concerning the high levels and this was his explanation, and needs to be included. Thanks

3252:

I still do not understand. I'm having difficulty understanding your comments. I am asking you a simple question. TheNautilus made a comment but you deleted the TheNautilus signature and then

1912:

since you mentioned that I was "crashing in" which carries some imputation of "new" as well as unexpected, I felt comment on relative "newly arrived" was a point that needed to be addressed.

1207:

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

1252: 1242: 891:

I have finally gotten around to reading the last 11 hours on the Barrett talk page and have come away with a very positive impression of your mediative spirit. Thanks for trying. Regards.

4457:

Thanks for the agreement on the general inappropriateness of the mistagging. Hopefully my one Talk page edit in an area doesn't qualify as a war. I have been participating in discussions

2706:

the Spiked! quote which is a lesser quality reference (less than your denial on the EXPLORE editorially) and gives too much space & voice to the subject's self-congratulatory opinions

1434:

such persons.) Hmmm, I am indeed very curious where this is going. I have a feeling I'm in for a big shock! (If you would enable your email, you'd get the rest of this. Contact me.) --

2628:"The choice of words and phrases like "innuendo", "sources...begging you please stop" and "...chiropractors-ear candlers-whatever" in your reply don't build communication and trust." 3142:

I have attempted to discuss serious issues. I think that your opinion may be interfering with you perceptions or that substantially more detail is needed. Also see my answer above.--

821:

Great...now just the paragraph above where you commented - "agree" or "disagree" to Curtis' statement. Now there are three "Disagree" - Ronz, someone I have not heard of, and me.

3427:

I'clast has answered the question. I completely understand. If you still don't, then please re-read with greater care. At this point, I can tell you that I'clast is not violating

3128:

to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Per this policy, please refrain from making personal attacks when posting comments or don't post at all. Thanks.

238:

quackbuster as well as an Assistant Listmaster for Dr. Barrett and very actively involved in editing articles related to the subject at hand as well as to subjects posted on QW.

3213:. However, later on, I noticed your signature their. This was quite odd to me. I first thought the comments were made by TheNautilus. I checked the history. I was right. It was 4319:"One might infer from SA's comments on Hufford's humanities studies, as anyone who ever goes to church or studies church-goers, is disqualified to say anything critical of QW." 1999:. Under normal circumstances other editors would probably alert you to this, but there would be no problem leaving it in. In biographic material, however, we can't let it stay. 4355:

Hufford, based on SA's comment and his bio, includes religious studies, and perhaps some psychoimmunoneurology component, a hot expansion area in some major medical schools.--

4645: 4641: 3660:

Also please explain your edit summary "IMHO harrassment". Who is harassing whom in your humble opinion? Note that I am a long time user of VP and quite aware of its rules.

3576:. Sorry if your preconceptions and POV are overwhelmed by such new, high quality, V RS material in a QW related article as well as the science criticism of prof Kauffman.-- 750:??? Pls add difs or to show where/what you want. If I deleted something, it means I thought that Jimbo's request to delete uncited material first or BLP was apprpriate.-- 2031:

thanks but I seem to not be communicating my points very well here and you beat the daylights out of me on writing capacity, I feel like I am drowning when I say "flood".

3405:. IMHO, this is not the purpose of having multiple accounts. With all due respect, I recommend you edit with only one account and agree that all other accounts should be 3397:

that is making controversial edits to said Stephen Barrett as well as Quackwatch articles. Both articles are protected due to a content dispute on each article that your

2164:

Sure, I am quite willing to start over with a clean slate, I think we have identified a number of points of (mis)understanding and I will try hard to get into focus.--

760:

l'clast: Good call on "currently." I don't even know if I did that or not.. You are absolutely right - it is redundant. I have never liked the "is currently"....

4143:

I think your '13:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)' edit in the 'WP:SYNTH violation' section may be missed by some editors. You might want to post it lower on the talk page.

4532:

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from

3346:. Are you and the account TheNautilus the same person. This is a simple question. Also, do you have anymore accounts out there. Please answer directly and honestly. 3708:

anything you think you may have, or e-mail it to an admin of your choice for an external opinion. Until you have done so and this accusation has been corroborated,

2455:

that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at

656:

pervasive, multilevel systemic biases in a trillion+ $ industry. I start counting with the expurgated textbooks when one walks into medical school on day one.

4775:. I have yet to receive from either yourself, or TheNautalis, confirmation that you are or are not the same person. Please provide an unequivocal response. 4195:

Today you suggested a Hufford sentence but appear to have shortened it with '...' Could you provide the whole sentence wherever you think it most appropriate?

3978:

warnings (elsewhere), as well as other editors, about some of your "policy interpretations" that you "decorate" me and other "favored" editors. Please cease.--

3209:

Hello I'cast. I need some help understanding something. I saw another Wikipedian, as we are known, made a comment on the Stephen Barrett talk page. I read the

3342:

Let me get to the point. This is not about other editors. This is about you. Having more than one account such as to avoid public scrutiny is in violation of

2034:

The feeling that points have not come across is mutual. And you write some very compact prose that needs a lot of attention if one has to cover all the bases.

692:

I don't appreciate the harrassment by you against me on Ilena's talk page. If you have something to say about my behavior, do it here or on my talk page. --

4469:. Actually I consider this particular mistagging incident much worse than vandalism, a form of POV pushing threat and intimidation by a known POV warrior.-- 1215:. 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. 1575:

Again, I really want to nip the type of problems we had when Ilena was around. Your personal attacks on editors is definitely not helping the situation. --

922:

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

932:

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.

3537:

to Knowledge (XXG), and thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Knowledge (XXG) community, please be aware of Knowledge (XXG)'s policy that

811:. He is saying the only complaint about his very long long edits was that it was copyrighted. Not the case. WE all need to show this clearly. Thanks 604:

accusation. Further, you say so in the midst of another's blatant povpush effort. However, I appreciate your notable difference in tone and approach. --

3538: 1029: 458:

on his talk page that this is inappropriate and that in addition his comments were of a threatening nature. I am not sure if this is acceptable in WP ?

1730:

You are using what you see as a fact (my being an uninvolved editor) against me. Being uninvolved is a Good Thing in the Ilena/Fyslee type of dispute.

754: 45: 2911:

Thank you very much for the information. I will research him as soon as I am able to. Thanks again for taking the time to help me out with this. --

126: 3886:

I'clast, please tell us who the "you" is you're addressing here. Also note that I'm referring to an edit you made months ago, making the connection

1554:

represent me or my work on a serious issue. You might however consider discussing the issue with shot_info, he may be closer on several comments.--

3632:

and abide by it, especially when it comes to the interpretation of our policies and community standards as explained to him by countless editors.

1610:

calling you on it now. Editors are responsible for their own behavior. Encouraging them to act otherwise is detrimental to Knowledge (XXG). --

1409:. That is how it reads to me, additionally fueled by your various AN, etc filings and other edit actions (versus recent philosophical writings). 2697:. You guys are such prolific writers, it will be at least this weekend before I can go dig out the difs there. You guys did repeatedly insert 908:

Due to a family tragedy, I will be off the air (and WP) for a while. Just letting you know on your talk as we have had the most discussions.

388:

One more thing. Can you please put the name of the editor you are addressing your comments in the talk page to avoid any confusion. Thanks :-)

4425: 98: 2114:

NOT policies with respect to SB's professional background/credentials to clarify why I think the one sentence applies and it will take time.

1990:

checked: with assertions that were incomplete per se, miscontrued, overstated and/or obsolete about 1/2 to 1/4 of a century ago" is mainly a

1233: 1061: 998: 979: 506:

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

428: 2502: 2456: 1307: 4838: 4396: 2434: 3486: 3194:

What, my signing fails your version of AGF? Frankly, you & your multitudinous, tenditious edits have *no* credibility on good faith.--

797: 130: 4592: 4508: 4092: 3850: 3653:

You wrote on the VP abuse page "... is not a neutral party with respect to Levine or the article by a long, years long outside WP, shot"

3623: 3580: 3383: 3243: 3198: 3146: 357: 4364: 1846:

diffs). It isn't really my style, it leads to tedious debates and I'm much stronger arguing facts and probabilities than opinion anyway.

1041: 3814: 3783: 3295: 2902: 1123: 1111: 1081: 4478: 3047: 2239: 1466: 1419: 882: 349: 1070: 282: 205: 83: 79: 4561: 3982: 1600: 1346: 862:

I think I understand why you have revised my comments above, but NPOV only applies to articles, not to talk pages or user space. --

721: 666: 637: 591: 4766: 4560:. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at 3923: 3880: 3701:

hoping he would listen and learn. Instead, you and he drove me away and I am no longer editing articles the two of you are editing.

3682: 3014: 2713: 2180: 2168: 1693: 3164:

Welcome to Knowledge (XXG). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you

3824:

According to these statements you wrote it seems you have been communicating with Ilena. Is this true? Please elaborate. Thanks.

153:; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Best of luck, I'clast, and most importantly, have fun! 4058: 4057:

Welcome to Knowledge (XXG). Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to

3121: 633:

the 1950s. I would say Kauffman might be hyperaware. His work is an independent analysis & synthesis of recent literature.--

562: 210:

You're quite right. Azmoc is soleley a POV warrior who has yet to make a single useful contribution to the encyclopedia, which

118: 4834: 4323:

One might infer from SA's comments on Hufford's humanities studies, as anyone who ever goes to church or studies church-goers,

3120:

Welcome to Knowledge (XXG). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to

1329:

Thanks for removing it. I still think a clarification would be in order. In case you didnt notice, I brought up the issue in

1169:), even though I expect that it was not intended as such. I assure you that SA has quite a good knowledge of the 3RR policy. -- 520:

Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.

1942:

We may both perceive the other louder and more aggressive than ourselves on issues that we think are clear enough but aren't.

1558: 122: 25: 4344: 4027:

indistinguishable from throwing sand in the machinery, and his role as enabler in support of biased edits, I'd also second a

2995:

from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a

2988: 2983: 1773:

Please bear with me, we may be clearing up some miscommunications here, I am speaking frankly to try to help clear the air.

1212: 1204: 785: 541: 110: 72: 4166:. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. 1147:

report me if you think that's wrong, but I'll note that you are far from a clean conscience when it comes to these things,

3919:

internet associates, or perhaps simple self-embarrassment on handily *demonstrated* massive errors in their accusations.--

2324: 2804:

Profound psych problems seem to be an associated background problem that lurks in many such prominent families according

2501:

to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage,

318:

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamation of the merge

4712: 4483:

Who is the "known POV warrior" you are describing? Why do you think it was "much worse than vandalism." Please discuss.

3605:

combat experience, as well as related "skeptic" site bloggers and competing professional/personal interests with CAM to

4825:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

3899:

causing problems for good editors, I'clast. You're into outing other editors, big time, and it's time for you to stop.

3746:

still available in that page's history but will no longer be indexed by Google or Knowledge (XXG)'s own search engine.

2992: 2809: 1986:

I'll check it out; the sources should be clickable from the content itself and reliable enough. When in doubt, remove.

1200: 172: 53: 4830: 3588:

At least ten editors believe the JSE ref does not belong in the article for various reasons. Do you understand this.

1331:

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal/Evidence#Can_anyone_clarify_a_statement_by_I.27clast.3F

138: 774:

Hi I'clast - any ideas on dealing with the mannatech vandal / spammer? Check out my user page to see what I mean...

3089:

This comes at an unfortunate time as I won't be on-line much for the next two weeks since I will be travelling. --

2336: 4697: 3996:

Given your long history of this, and related disputes at the moment, any reason not to take it straight to ANI? --

3779:

I have no part of Crohnie's problem. I am investigating, I should have been doing other work, over two hours ago--

3546: 1719:

to prove or disprove). I am trying to express my anger at your behavior. That anger is reinforced now that you're

142: 3306:

Replacing someone else's signature with your own is a signing convention? You want to explain a little bit more?

2780: 1563:

Thanks! After the Ilena/Fyslee Arb, I want to nip problems before they get out of hand. Thanks for the help. --

1290: 332:

Wow, a lot of these have been merged eh? Like, even that Tim Bolen and Quackpotwatch articles were redirected to

4067:

The editor that Levine reverted with VP, actually needs something stronger than VP and more frequent appliation.

4062: 3534: 3125: 1492: 1443: 1390: 146: 68: 4390: 2582:

Thanks for taking the time to comment on my incident report and offering some good advice. Much appreciated. ॐ

2267:

Also, if you insist speaking for multiple editors (not a good idea from my perspective), make it clear who. --

134: 2852:

Per WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, WP:NPA, WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:HARASS, etc., please stop this type of harassment.

2459:, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to 4529:

I know you already read this, but officially I apparently have to put this block of text on your talk page:

4378:

Do not remove those tags, as that is a possible offense under the approved probation. Thank you. Please see

1037: 4332: 1342:

It's deleted, I'm done. Least confusion might be to simply delete your request, it's not even a molehill.--

809: 150: 2590: 4826: 4223: 4106: 3629: 3272:

It was an wee hours signing error, obvious & long known to most frequent editors here, and corrected.

3219:

replace TheNautilus signature with your own signature that were comments originally posted by TheNautilus

2996: 2460: 168: 61: 3755:

PS I just saw you updated the VP/abuse page regarding item #3 above, so thank-you for solving that one.

2418:

You have deleted my comments on the Barret Talk page. Why did that happen? Please restore my comments.

2332: 1152: 4644:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic

4379: 4329:

And what do church-goers have to do with Hufford? I assume a metaphor but I am not sure what you mean.

4175: 3322: 2975: 2608: 2305: 2278: 1536:

I think it would be best to keep discussions about editor's identies and your investigation into them (

1208: 571: 561:

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits.

546: 511: 114: 49: 4784: 4606: 4492: 4444: 4113: 3991: 3835: 3804: 3704:"You are not neutral to QW according material offsite, I can't of course go any further here." --: --> 3636: 3599: 3499: 3420: 3267: 3060: 3037: 2926: 2737: 2335:; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my 2200: 1748: 1614: 1567: 1498: 1449: 1355: 989: 895: 730: 675: 650: 608: 587:

I did ask nicely and hope that others will see the positive, collaborative merits in my suggestions.--

223: 4653: 3513: 3474: 3469: 3461: 3441: 3436: 3374:

The answer has been stated for some time, with varying degrees of loudness, previously by Fyslee and

3312: 3058: 3053: 2667: 2473: 2468: 2377: 2314: 2247: 1530: 1286: 323: 4802: 4793: 3256:. This is very weird. Frankly, I'm puzzled. Can you explain this. Are you friends with TheNautilus? 3169: 2560: 1979:). I am hoping that was an oversight since it was paragraphs down rather than factored back in the 1915:

I might have expected something in user space, but not in an article RfC. There it poisons the well.

1727:

Heroic effort? I just unofficially assisted the arbitrators, and they were free to peruse or ignore.

1010:

I challenge you to report me right now. Tell me where to go and I will report me to the wikipolice.

601: 4646:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sock_accounts_editing_on_alternative_medicine

4573: 4488: 4384: 4075: 3830: 3615: 3594: 3557: 3415: 3352: 3262: 3227: 3183: 4822: 4806: 4640:

Hello, I'clast. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at

3432: 1807:

be an "admin interested" User to mediate, so a clear admin advisory on the User page is helpful).

1804:

defy an admin who does his utmost to keep editors calm and reasonable and out of each other's hair

972: 278:

you might thank/encourage him also. I suspect that he may be able to source more, similar links.--

4340: 4200: 4148: 4088:

Your editing really could use an overhaul or magic clean up tool, lots of difs to support that.--

3023:

COI accusations again? And you are "Bombarded by POV", as if you were innocent. This is rich. --

1216: 1033: 1011: 986: 963: 953: 836:

Thanks for the cleanup after IR's attack on my talk page. Now if we could get her to cleanup her

726:

Like I thought. Sorry that you don't like my interpretations of wiki guidelines and policies. --

4557: 4545: 4061:

other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the

3542: 3406: 3124:

other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the

2746: 2707: 822: 812: 808:

WIll you add "agree" or "disagree" where others have, under Curtis' statement under "Protected"

761: 176: 4258:

The other two sources I primarily turn to in order to find further examples of systematic bias.

4105:

Excuse me, but did you just say that QG's editing is worse than vandalism? If so, please read

3802: 2952: 2924: 2883: 2585: 2552: 1483:

It's not enabled. You need to go to the top of the page and do that in your "preferences". --

1294: 1255:. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, 4818: 4810: 4718:), or adding redirects to help others realize that the separate accounts are the same person? 4686: 4541: 4279: 4171: 3964: 3931: 3545:. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article must include proper 3428: 1543: 549:

to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Knowledge (XXG). Thank you.

57: 4675: 4620: 4602: 4597:

Hi I'clast, I've added a note to the probation page about this highly dubious notification.

4440: 3098: 3032: 2834: 2793: 2764: 2732: 2419: 2349: 2224: 1267: 1170: 658: 4821:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4814: 4553: 4549: 4499:

I have already discussed this. I do not wish to be harrassed or harangued by you further.--

3402: 3398: 3394: 3165: 3153: 3109: 2892:

current pharma marketing literature that is not scientifically current but widely believed.

2498: 2448: 1991: 1629: 1162: 1148: 1054: 1045: 4649: 4275: 4163: 4130: 3307: 2979: 775: 322:. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. 303: 4565: 4028: 3401:

has been directly involved in. It has been noted that you have been edit warring using a

2556: 2452: 1996: 1512: 744: 1876:

I literally have never seen that amount of verbiage churned out at WP, very impressive.

4569: 4484: 4302: 4287: 4219: 4186: 4170:

is a controversial article with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow

4070: 3825: 3589: 3552: 3410: 3347: 3257: 3222: 3178: 3130: 2939:

On footnote #30 you misspell available, I corrected it. I hope this is ok with you. --

2692: 1520: 909: 154: 33: 3890:

Ilena did. The point is not that someone else could have done that; the point is that

2970: 1166: 4780: 4758: 4753:

It is just the beltline treatment common on "skeptic" targeted editors and articles.

4742: 4584: 4500: 4470: 4417: 4356: 4336: 4196: 4144: 4110: 4089: 4032: 3979: 3947: 3920: 3900: 3877: 3866: 3847: 3811: 3780: 3756: 3747: 3737: 3679: 3663: 3633: 3620: 3577: 3496: 3483: 3380: 3335: 3292: 3240: 3195: 3143: 3073: 3044: 3011: 2899: 2710: 2679: 2465:

There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

2431: 2407: 2236: 2195: 2177: 2165: 2153: 2125: 1743: 1690: 1637: 1597: 1555: 1463: 1416: 1343: 1304: 1230: 1120: 1108: 1078: 1058: 995: 976: 879: 789: 751: 718: 671:

I'm looking forward to the reviews. I'll have to look through the book again too. --

663: 634: 588: 346: 279: 269: 221: 202: 37: 3393:

that has lead to administrators protecting a small set of articles. You are using a

4231:...sources I primarily turn to in order to find further examples of systematic bias 4069:

Please refrain from making a personal attack against me as you did. Happy editing.

3790: 3770: 3568:

My edit draws directly on V RS articles, quoting specific text and words, from the

3495:

Are you saying this about QG or yourselves? If QG, it was both rude and incorrect.

3282: 2940: 2912: 2871: 2805: 2528: 2357: 929:

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

1195:

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits , as you are doing in

29: 4583:

I haven't edited at "Homeopathy", etc. I consider this abusive and harrassing.--

291:

I am glad to do so and have posted a message to that effect on his talk page :-)

4613: 4598: 4436: 3091: 3025: 2827: 2786: 2757: 2725: 2402:

It seems you have overwritten RalphLender's responses on the Barrett talk page.

2217: 1485: 1436: 1383: 994:

Doc, I don't mind careful article edits but try to avoid entanglement with GB.--

892: 863: 849: 473: 455: 337: 4211: 3769:

Are you in communicating with Ilena Rosenthal regarding Knowledge (XXG) users?

4533: 4167: 3698:

How does that make me a non-neutral party with respect to Levine (the editor)?

1724:

other's hair. You are, however, not addressing his criticism of your behavior.

1196: 490: 459: 409: 389: 372: 333: 307: 292: 256: 239: 2752:

Please avoid misusing Knowledge (XXG) to make a point by disruptive editing:

4298: 4283: 4278:. I believe it's time for admin intervention if you're unwilling to follow 4182: 4006: 3997: 3988: 3968: 3389: 3343: 2856: 2709:, subtlely sponsored with the Pfizer ad. This is still not a settled edit.-- 2653: 2644: 2632: 2612: 2387: 2323:

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via

2268: 2259: 1611: 1586: 1576: 1564: 1547: 1352: 1334: 1320: 1077:

or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Welcome to Knowledge (XXG).--

727: 693: 672: 647: 623: 605: 578: 553: 531: 4536:

and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be

4776: 4738: 3628:

I think I'clast has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to accept

3482:

Jimbo doesn't know yet what a soul sucking, waste of time he is in for.--

3211:

comments made by TheNautilus who originally posted interesting commentary

3000: 2652:"Can you say the same?" Really, stop this type of questioning, please! -- 2559:

to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please

2403: 2191: 2149: 2121: 1739: 1633: 704: 217: 4215: 4053: 3530: 3160: 3116: 1191: 1098:

You are not editing the material. You are censoring it. You removed it.

1053:"Tampering" implies a lack of good faith editing. I advise you to read 4842: 4809:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)

4746: 4657: 4625: 4577: 4402: 4348: 4306: 4291: 4204: 4190: 4152: 4133: 4080: 4035: 4009: 4000: 3987:

Sorry, I disagree. How would you like to proceed with this dispute? --

3971: 3950: 3903: 3869: 3773: 3759: 3750: 3740: 3666: 3562: 3516: 3476: 3443: 3357: 3326: 3285: 3232: 3188: 3136: 3103: 3076: 3003: 2954: 2885: 2859: 2839: 2813: 2798: 2769: 2682: 2656: 2647: 2635: 2615: 2594: 2475: 2424: 2412: 2392: 2293: 2271: 2262: 2229: 2158: 2130: 1642: 1589: 1579: 1523: 1396: 1337: 1323: 1297: 1275: 1219: 1173: 1155: 1014: 966: 956: 912: 866: 852: 825: 815: 778: 764: 743:

Please add {{citation needed}} or somesuch instead of deleting text. —

696: 626: 581: 556: 534: 493: 476: 462: 412: 392: 375: 340: 326: 295: 259: 242: 179: 157: 89: 3843:...as I have with Fyslee and other editors vigorously opposed to her. 2489: 1839:

generally trying to wind me up and push me into inappropriate behavior

1261:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop

1257:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence

942: 713:. If we need to talk with the admins, I suspect that there will be an 268:

You're welcome. Since these links originated among several with AEL,

4698:

Knowledge (XXG):Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses_of_alternative_accounts

2317:- to which you are listed as a party. Mediation has commenced at the 523:

Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

4297:

Again, I think your remarks are inappropriate. This is tiresome. --

1165:

could be construed as an insult (much like informing Jimmy Wales of

952:

If I broke any rules then I challenge you to report me immediately.

848:

lumped together with others one doesn't even know. Thanks again. --

195: 2079:

not being OR (in my eyes, some particular policy quotes that apply

1878:

In fact I feel you are implicitly criticizing the arbitrators here.

469: 175:

from editing Knowledge (XXG). Please don't vandalize the essays.

75:, but please keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki! 319: 311: 4065:

to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

3733:"IMHO harrassment". Who is harassing whom in your humble opinion? 3221:. I am doing my best to understand. I am still learning. Thanks. 3172:

to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

1374:

Now you've really raised my curiosity about their real identity.

1259:. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, 2360: 2328: 232:

Edit about the retraction and 50K in Mercola and Barrett article

4274:

I've repeatedly warned you about your inappropriate remarks in

4162:

Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the discussions in

502:

Your comments on Talk:The National Council Against Health Fraud

4729:

If you are not TheNautilus, could you explain these two edits

4408:

Adding such an aggressive expansion shopping of a POV on edits

2611:

rather than exasperating an already bad situation. Thanks. --

2364: 2301: 1066:

Do not remove quotes made by Kauffman in his own words. stop.

598:"you have pushed your point of view very hard here, let it go" 434:

Fyslee has replied in my place to your message on my talk page

102: 3895:

have an off-WP history in favor of Stephen Barrett). You are

3217:. I do not understand this. Why oh why. Why did you, I'cast, 1253:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

1243:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

1251:

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened:

3865:

not answered Joshua's question at the top of this section.

1366:

Wow! Threatening to out someone (no, practically doing it!)

345:

All three articles were retained due to legal structure.--

3710:

please remove it from your statement on the VP/abuse page

3168:

while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the

1303:

Done, thank you for your participation and cooperation.--

336:. I guess it was decided that they didn't need articles? 36:

article. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your

4562:

Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans

3696:

here on Knowledge (XXG) over the last six months or so.

3239:

familiar with the concerns about privacy and stalking.--

2383:

Don't you think you're exaggerating at least a bit here

1660:

limited, so I left them alone to focus on other matters.

4772: 4754: 4734: 4730: 4466: 4462: 4458: 4413: 4411: 4409: 4179: 4066: 3961: 3910: 3820: 3692:

Yes, I have criticized certain aspects of Levine2112's

3654: 3617: 3613: 3611: 3586: 3550: 3465: 3375: 3281:

As an uninvolved admin, I'd also like an explanation.

3253: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3175: 3173: 3086: 2853: 2753: 2704: 2702: 2700: 2698: 2674: 2641: 2629: 2605: 2384: 2256: 2254: 2214: 2115: 2080: 1980: 1977: 1540: 1537: 1415:

totally refraining from such a trojan horse presence.--

1404: 1371: 1103: 1024: 575: 550: 528: 276: 273: 199: 191: 187: 2503:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett

2457:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett

1073:. To quote, "...If you don't want your material to be 468:

My reply to NATTO's comments and accusation are found

4642:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

2662:

Repeat of important questions you seem to have missed

845:

ideas are prominent. It's irritating to find oneself

32:, I'clast! Thanks for the contributions over on the 1285:Please discuss your removals of Quackwatch refs at 1026:do not tamper with the quotes everyone is watching 4178:even when you think others are not. Thanks again! 2075:article's mention was notable and relevant to the 545:in dealing with other editors. Please stop being 4801:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current 4225:, pretty strongly criticizes both Quackwatch and 3464:18:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)== Ohhhhhhh, SNAP! == 2572:This message delivered: 08:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC) 2029:In fact you are a better debater than me any day, 1351:That's perfectly understandable. Thanks again. -- 3722:please amend your statement on the VP/abuse page 1228:Nice to see how much better you sign now ;-: --> 4327:is disqualified to say anything critical of QW. 2865:I hope my asking you a question is ok with you. 1333:because you havent been editing much lately. -- 739:Please add tags rather than deleting statements 427:Kauffman's article assessed as a critical view 1874:Heroic effort? I just unofficially assisted... 1211:, even if they do not technically violate the 3539:biographical information about living persons 8: 2604:Please consider refactoring your comments: 917: 539:Knowledge (XXG) guidelines dictate that you 4696:If so, do you have a legitimate reason per 4380:Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents 3712:. It may damage my reputation as an editor. 2625:Please consider refactoring your comments: 2555:, an automated bot account operated by the 489:and enjoy what is left of your week-end :-) 60:, you can always post your question at the 3052:Agreed. Very poor comment from Fyslee. -- 2978:according to the reverts you have made on 2484: 1973:...a kind of spin doctor or even a nutcase 943:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Alan2012 4525:Homeopathy article probation notification 4248:" THE "OBJECTIVITY" OR FAIRNESS LIMIT"... 2974:You currently appear to be engaged in an 1378:collaborate, and I hope he's redeemable. 3960:We've been over this far too many times 3840:You have taken my words out of context. 2561:contact the Mediation Committee directly 2321:, where you are invited to participate. 1266:On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, 971:You misapply the term. Please (re-)read 1776:Great. I'll respond interspersed below: 1995:available in reliable sources so it's 1069:At Wikipeida, editors edit; also read 646:discusses evidenced-based medicine? -- 4540:mindful of content policies, such as 3570:Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 3313: 1544:WP:TALK#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable 1281:Other Barrett related removals at GLA 1071:Knowledge (XXG):Ownership_of_articles 962:The rule does not apply to vandlism. 216:the reason we are here, supposedly. 40:into the Knowledge (XXG) experience: 7: 4544:, and interaction policies, such as 4251:"Example 3: The anti-CAM literature" 1381:Please enlighten me by my email. -- 429:User talk:I'clast/As-criticism-of-QW 3431:, but QuackGuru, you are violating 1462:AFAIK, I should receive WP email.-- 517:Solicit feedback and ask questions. 88:your perspective on the meaning of 69:The five pillars of Knowledge (XXG) 4674:Are you the same person as editor 4031:request. This simply can't go on. 1811:useless in the areas where I edit. 1203:from editing Knowledge (XXG). The 1161:I should add that informing SA of 1107:. Also please sign your posts.-- 784:Biologically, chemically accurate 78:Always be mindful of striving for 67:When you have time, please peruse 14: 4827:review the candidates' statements 4048:personal attack against QuackGuru 3317: 1057:. My edits are not "tampering".-- 1019: 4052: 3731:Please explain your edit summary 3529: 3159: 3115: 2969: 2673:Regarding your accusations made 2488: 2292: 1272:Acting as Assistant to the Clerk 1190: 918:I'Clast, please send me an email 167:Please stop. If you continue to 4731:Original comment by TheNautilus 4241:J of Law, Medicine & Ethics 3946:editors. Time to stop. Please. 3585:Here is the current discussion. 3254:replaced it with your signature 2288: 574:with your comments. Thanks! 4833:. For the Election committee, 4803:Arbitration Committee election 4794:ArbCom elections are now open! 4134:17:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 4114:00:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 4093:11:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 4081:16:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 4036:00:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 4010:15:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 4001:16:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 3992:04:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 3983:03:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 3972:03:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 3951:11:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC) 3924:09:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC) 3904:23:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 3881:22:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 3870:13:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 3851:11:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 3836:16:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 3815:13:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 3805:11:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 3784:03:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 3774:01:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 3760:14:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 3751:13:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 3741:13:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 3637:00:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 3525:re the Stephen Barrett article 3512:Check out CAB's page, please. 3500:00:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 3077:00:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 3010:really unreasonable "stuff".-- 2991:. If you continue, you may be 1199:. If you continue, you may be 413:08:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 393:08:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 376:08:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 327:00:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 296:11:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC) 283:19:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 260:09:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 243:04:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 198:. Another editor's assessment: 17:Welcome to the Knowledge (XXG) 1: 4843:13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC) 4564:, and may be appealed to the 4365:00:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 4349:20:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC) 4307:16:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 4292:18:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC) 4205:22:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 3718:Is my interpretation correct? 3683:23:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC) 3667:22:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC) 3624:07:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC) 3600:07:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC) 3581:06:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC) 3563:06:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC) 3314: 2640:This is just getting absurd: 2253:I've refactored your remarks 1524:11:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 1499:22:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1467:15:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1450:11:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 1420:16:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 1397:16:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 1356:21:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1347:21:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1338:21:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1324:16:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 779:04:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC) 765:03:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC) 755:19:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 731:15:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 722:12:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 697:01:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 676:23:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 667:21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 651:21:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 638:10:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 627:00:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 609:23:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 592:22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 582:22:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 557:16:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 535:02:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC) 350:22:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 341:22:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 4191:19:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC) 4153:19:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC) 3956:Please stop with the attacks 2570: 2523:For the Mediation Committee, 2062:And you can't unlink the two 1945:You may well be right there. 1663:2. We all interpret history. 1308:11:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC) 1298:14:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 1276:00:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 1234:02:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1220:02:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1174:07:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1156:00:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1124:01:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1112:00:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1082:00:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1062:23:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 1046:23:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 1015:23:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 999:23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 990:23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 980:23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 967:23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 957:22:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 913:22:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 127:How to write a great article 101:, and, above all else, have 56:, and If you still need any 4829:and submit your choices on 4566:Administrators' noticeboard 3517:18:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 3487:13:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 3477:02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 3444:16:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC) 3421:16:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC) 3384:10:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC) 3358:22:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 3327:13:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 3308: 3296:11:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 3286:18:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 3268:16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 3244:13:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 3233:17:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 3199:01:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 3189:00:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 3147:12:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 3137:08:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 3104:21:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 3061:22:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 3048:11:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 3038:08:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 3015:11:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 3004:12:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 2955:12:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 2927:11:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 2903:11:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 2886:20:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 2817:--11:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 896:23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 883:15:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 867:09:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 853:02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 826:00:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC) 816:00:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC) 494:23:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 477:19:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 463:15:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 192:arguing with several admins 82:, be respectful of others' 46:New contributors' help page 4858: 4835:MediaWiki message delivery 4210:Prior Hufford discussions 2551:This message delivered by 2240:06:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 2230:06:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 2201:14:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 2181:12:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 2169:11:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 2159:10:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 2131:14:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 1749:09:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 1734:disrupting the discussion. 1694:06:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 1643:01:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 1615:00:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 1601:00:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 1596:editing is like Ilena's.-- 1590:16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC) 1580:15:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC) 1568:16:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 1559:03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 1119:?? No answer, posted yet-- 975:. You are well over 3RR.-- 438:I'Clast please see below: 4771:I have commented further 4735:you replace the signature 4626:23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 4607:23:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 4593:21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 4578:21:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 4509:21:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 4493:21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 4479:20:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 4445:20:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 4426:18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 4403:07:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 2860:18:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 2840:15:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 2799:09:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 2781:Orthomolecular psychiatry 2770:21:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 2738:21:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 2714:11:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 2683:10:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 2616:22:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 2595:02:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC) 2476:23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC) 2461:Knowledge (XXG):Mediation 2435:01:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC) 2425:19:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC) 2413:17:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC) 2393:01:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC) 2304:time); I have accepted a 2272:15:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 2263:15:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 1020:re: I'clast's recent edit 224:19:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC) 206:19:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC) 180:17:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) 158:11:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC) 4785:15:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC) 4767:14:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC) 4762: 4747:20:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC) 4685:If so, are you aware of 4658:18:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 4588: 4504: 4474: 4421: 4360: 3897:simply trying to stir up 3716:long outside WP, shot". 2657:16:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2648:15:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2636:21:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 2451:has been filed with the 798:21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 793: 249:Independent review of QW 109:And some odds and ends: 50:Knowledge (XXG) Tutorial 3963:. Please refactor per 3574:New York Times Magazine 904:Off the air for a while 485:I'Clast, Sound advice. 196:interaction with others 131:Pages needing attention 3819:I'clast said in part: 2898:remove or modify it.-- 2690:...actions similar to 1116:Yes pls see my answer 4807:Arbitration Committee 4229:, excepted below, as 3688:That is not enough. 3388:Sorry, but there are 2499:Request for Mediation 2481:Request for Mediation 2449:request for mediation 1542:) off talk pages per 1032:comment was added by 4663:Sock puppet account? 4374:Homeopathy probation 4172:talk page guidelines 3649:Explanation required 2668:Talk:Stephen Barrett 2378:Talk:Stephen Barrett 2248:Talk:Stephen Barrett 1531:Talk:Stephen Barrett 1287:Gamma-Linolenic acid 842:interpretations and 596:To me, your writing 454:I have indicated to 4811:arbitration process 4713:Alternative account 2557:Mediation Committee 2453:Mediation Committee 2443:RfM Stephen Barrett 567:disruptive comments 171:pages, you will be 119:Conflict resolution 44:Take a look at the 4823:arbitration policy 4227:Sci Review Alt Med 3657:. Please explain. 3072:Good call by THF. 2588: 2564: 2213:Much appreciated. 1511:For your info per 1075:edited mercilessly 839:sites, where many 600:comes across as a 510:Remain polite per 302:Proposal to merge 123:How to edit a page 99:be bold in editing 4351: 4335:comment added by 4325:that he (hufford) 4317:You said on QWTP 4270:Even more Talk:QW 3324: 3166:assume good faith 3087:Much appreciated. 2989:three-revert rule 2984:three-revert rule 2666:(Moved here from 2593: 2586: 2569: 2568: 2565: 2550: 2410: 2373: 2372: 2198: 2156: 2128: 1746: 1640: 1406:in your statement 1372:quite the charge. 1213:three-revert rule 1205:three-revert rule 1049: 847: 844: 841: 838: 707:was known as the 542:assume good faith 358:/NCAHF_lg_archive 111:Cite your sources 73:Assume good faith 4849: 4755:Answered further 4717: 4711: 4401: 4399: 4393: 4387: 4330: 4176:keep a cool head 4078: 4073: 4056: 3909:This statement, 3833: 3828: 3800: 3795: 3597: 3592: 3560: 3555: 3533: 3418: 3413: 3390:important issues 3355: 3350: 3323: 3320: 3319: 3316: 3310: 3265: 3260: 3230: 3225: 3186: 3181: 3163: 3133: 3119: 2999:among editors. 2982:. Note that the 2973: 2950: 2945: 2922: 2917: 2881: 2876: 2621:If I may suggest 2583: 2549: 2531: 2527: 2492: 2485: 2422: 2408: 2390: 2354: 2352: 2300:Good afternoon ( 2296: 2289: 2196: 2154: 2126: 1744: 1638: 1194: 1153:ScienceApologist 1027: 846: 843: 840: 837: 563:Personal attacks 4857: 4856: 4852: 4851: 4850: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4831:the voting page 4797: 4715: 4709: 4665: 4638: 4527: 4397: 4391: 4385: 4383: 4376: 4321:dose this mean 4315: 4276:Talk:Quackwatch 4272: 4164:Talk:Quackwatch 4160: 4158:Talk:Quackwatch 4141: 4126: 4076: 4071: 4050: 3958: 3831: 3826: 3796: 3791: 3767: 3706:Please email me 3651: 3595: 3590: 3558: 3553: 3527: 3510: 3416: 3411: 3353: 3348: 3263: 3258: 3228: 3223: 3207: 3184: 3179: 3157: 3131: 3113: 3084: 2980:Stephen Barrett 2967: 2946: 2941: 2918: 2913: 2877: 2872: 2867: 2850: 2777: 2750: 2664: 2623: 2602: 2600:Please consider 2580: 2575: 2529: 2525: 2483: 2445: 2420: 2400: 2388: 2381: 2369: 2356:08:34, Tuesday 2350: 2348: 2313:- requested by 2306:Mediation Cabal 2287: 2279:Mediation Cabal 2251: 2211: 1534: 1516: 1368: 1316: 1283: 1246: 1185:To be specific: 1182: 1144: 1028:—The preceding 1022: 950: 920: 906: 834: 806: 772: 741: 690: 619: 504: 436: 365: 316: 304:Stephen Barrett 251: 234: 188:Agenda proposal 165: 86:, and remember 54:Manual of Style 30:Knowledge (XXG) 22: 12: 11: 5: 4855: 4853: 4800: 4796: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4787: 4750: 4749: 4726: 4725: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4702: 4701: 4691: 4690: 4680: 4679: 4664: 4661: 4637: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4630: 4629: 4628: 4526: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4511: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4429: 4428: 4375: 4372: 4370: 4368: 4367: 4314: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4271: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4262: 4261: 4253: 4252: 4249: 4245: 4244: 4243:, Summer, 2003 4235: 4234: 4159: 4156: 4140: 4137: 4125: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4049: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4003: 3957: 3954: 3927: 3926: 3915: 3914: 3884: 3883: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3766: 3763: 3735: 3734: 3726: 3713: 3702: 3686: 3685: 3650: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3526: 3523: 3521: 3509: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3490: 3489: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3247: 3246: 3206: 3205:please help me 3203: 3202: 3201: 3156: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3112: 3107: 3083: 3080: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3018: 3017: 2966: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2906: 2905: 2894: 2893: 2866: 2863: 2849: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2819: 2818: 2776: 2773: 2749: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2717: 2716: 2693:forum shopping 2663: 2660: 2622: 2619: 2601: 2598: 2579: 2576: 2567: 2566: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2495: 2493: 2482: 2479: 2444: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2399: 2396: 2380: 2374: 2371: 2370: 2355: 2299: 2297: 2286: 2275: 2250: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2210: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2184: 2183: 2172: 2171: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1735: 1731: 1728: 1725: 1716: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1661: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1604: 1603: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1533: 1527: 1515: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1423: 1422: 1411: 1410: 1367: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1315: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1282: 1279: 1245: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1223: 1222: 1187: 1186: 1181: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1143: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1021: 1018: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 949: 946: 919: 916: 905: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 886: 885: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 833: 830: 829: 828: 805: 802: 801: 800: 788:are helpful.-- 771: 768: 758: 757: 740: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 689: 688:Re: Talk:Ilena 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 643: 618: 615: 614: 613: 612: 611: 525: 524: 521: 518: 515: 503: 500: 498: 480: 479: 453: 435: 432: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 416: 415: 400: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 381: 380: 379: 378: 364: 361: 355: 354: 353: 352: 315: 300: 299: 298: 288: 287: 286: 285: 263: 262: 250: 247: 246: 245: 233: 230: 229: 228: 227: 226: 164: 161: 139:Policy Library 107: 106: 95: 76: 65: 34:Joseph Mercola 21: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4854: 4845: 4844: 4840: 4836: 4832: 4828: 4824: 4820: 4816: 4812: 4808: 4804: 4795: 4792: 4786: 4782: 4778: 4774: 4770: 4769: 4768: 4764: 4760: 4756: 4752: 4751: 4748: 4744: 4740: 4736: 4732: 4728: 4727: 4714: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4699: 4695: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4688: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4677: 4673: 4672: 4671: 4668: 4662: 4660: 4659: 4655: 4651: 4648:. Yours, -- 4647: 4643: 4635: 4627: 4624: 4623: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4604: 4600: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4590: 4586: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4575: 4571: 4567: 4563: 4559: 4555: 4551: 4547: 4543: 4539: 4535: 4530: 4524: 4510: 4506: 4502: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4490: 4486: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4476: 4472: 4468: 4464: 4460: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4446: 4442: 4438: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4427: 4423: 4419: 4414: 4412: 4410: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4400: 4394: 4388: 4381: 4373: 4371: 4366: 4362: 4358: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4350: 4346: 4342: 4338: 4334: 4328: 4326: 4320: 4312: 4308: 4304: 4300: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4289: 4285: 4281: 4277: 4269: 4264: 4263: 4259: 4255: 4254: 4250: 4247: 4246: 4242: 4237: 4236: 4232: 4228: 4224: 4221: 4217: 4213: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4202: 4198: 4193: 4192: 4188: 4184: 4180: 4177: 4173: 4169: 4165: 4157: 4155: 4154: 4150: 4146: 4138: 4136: 4135: 4132: 4123: 4115: 4112: 4108: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4094: 4091: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4079: 4074: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4055: 4047: 4037: 4034: 4030: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4011: 4008: 4004: 4002: 3999: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3990: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3981: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3955: 3953: 3952: 3949: 3945: 3941: 3940:tabulae rasae 3935: 3933: 3925: 3922: 3917: 3916: 3912: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3902: 3898: 3893: 3889: 3882: 3879: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3868: 3852: 3849: 3845: 3844: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3834: 3829: 3823: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3813: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3803: 3801: 3799: 3794: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3782: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3772: 3764: 3762: 3761: 3758: 3753: 3752: 3749: 3743: 3742: 3739: 3732: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3714: 3711: 3707: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3684: 3681: 3676: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3665: 3661: 3658: 3656: 3648: 3638: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3622: 3618: 3616: 3614: 3612: 3608: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3598: 3593: 3587: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3579: 3575: 3571: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3561: 3556: 3551: 3548: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3532: 3524: 3522: 3519: 3518: 3515: 3507: 3501: 3498: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3488: 3485: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3475: 3473: 3472: 3467: 3463: 3445: 3442: 3440: 3439: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3419: 3414: 3408: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3391: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3382: 3377: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3359: 3356: 3351: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3325: 3321: 3311: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3297: 3294: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3284: 3280: 3279: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3266: 3261: 3255: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3245: 3242: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3231: 3226: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3204: 3200: 3197: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3187: 3182: 3176: 3174: 3171: 3167: 3162: 3155: 3152: 3148: 3145: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3135: 3134: 3127: 3123: 3118: 3111: 3108: 3106: 3105: 3102: 3101: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3088: 3081: 3079: 3078: 3075: 3062: 3059: 3057: 3056: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3046: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3036: 3035: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3016: 3013: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2972: 2964: 2956: 2953: 2951: 2949: 2944: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2928: 2925: 2923: 2921: 2916: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2904: 2901: 2896: 2895: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2884: 2882: 2880: 2875: 2864: 2862: 2861: 2858: 2854: 2847: 2841: 2838: 2837: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2797: 2796: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2782: 2774: 2772: 2771: 2768: 2767: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2754: 2748: 2745: 2739: 2736: 2735: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2715: 2712: 2708: 2705: 2703: 2701: 2699: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2681: 2676: 2671: 2669: 2661: 2659: 2658: 2655: 2650: 2649: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2637: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2620: 2618: 2617: 2614: 2610: 2607:. Let's all 2606: 2599: 2597: 2596: 2592: 2591: 2589: 2577: 2573: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2532: 2524: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2494: 2491: 2487: 2486: 2480: 2478: 2477: 2474: 2472: 2471: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2442: 2436: 2433: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2423: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2411: 2405: 2398:Please review 2397: 2395: 2394: 2391: 2385: 2379: 2375: 2368: 2366: 2362: 2359: 2353: 2346: 2344: 2340: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2320: 2319:case talkpage 2316: 2312: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2298: 2295: 2291: 2290: 2285: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2274: 2273: 2270: 2265: 2264: 2261: 2257: 2255: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2238: 2235:No problem.-- 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2228: 2227: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2215: 2208: 2202: 2199: 2193: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2182: 2179: 2174: 2173: 2170: 2167: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2157: 2151: 2132: 2129: 2123: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2084: 2083: 2081: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2069: 2063: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2033: 2032: 2030: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 1998: 1993: 1988: 1987: 1985: 1984: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1944: 1943: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1914: 1913: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1883: 1882: 1879: 1875: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1844: 1843: 1840: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1809: 1808: 1805: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1775: 1774: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1750: 1747: 1741: 1736: 1732: 1729: 1726: 1722: 1717: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1695: 1692: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1669: 1665: 1662: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1644: 1641: 1635: 1631: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1616: 1613: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1602: 1599: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1588: 1582: 1581: 1578: 1569: 1566: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1557: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1538: 1532: 1528: 1526: 1525: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1500: 1496: 1495: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1468: 1465: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1451: 1447: 1446: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1432: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1421: 1418: 1413: 1412: 1408: 1407: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1394: 1393: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1379: 1375: 1373: 1365: 1357: 1354: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1345: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1322: 1313: 1309: 1306: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1280: 1278: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1264: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1249: 1244: 1241: 1235: 1232: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1221: 1218: 1217:GigiButterfly 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1193: 1189: 1188: 1184: 1183: 1180:3+ RR Warning 1179: 1175: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1154: 1150: 1141: 1125: 1122: 1118: 1117: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1110: 1106: 1105: 1104:this response 1100: 1099: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1083: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1067: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1034:GigiButterfly 1031: 1025: 1017: 1016: 1013: 1012:GigiButterfly 1000: 997: 993: 992: 991: 988: 987:TheDoctorIsIn 983: 982: 981: 978: 974: 970: 969: 968: 965: 964:GigiButterfly 961: 960: 959: 958: 955: 954:GigiButterfly 948:3+ RR Warning 947: 945: 944: 939: 936: 933: 930: 927: 923: 915: 914: 911: 903: 897: 894: 890: 889: 888: 887: 884: 881: 876: 875: 868: 865: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 851: 831: 827: 824: 820: 819: 818: 817: 814: 810: 803: 799: 795: 791: 787: 783: 782: 781: 780: 777: 769: 767: 766: 763: 756: 753: 749: 748: 747: 746: 738: 732: 729: 725: 724: 723: 720: 716: 712: 711: 710:Happy Warrior 706: 701: 700: 699: 698: 695: 687: 677: 674: 670: 669: 668: 665: 661: 660: 654: 653: 652: 649: 644: 641: 640: 639: 636: 631: 630: 629: 628: 625: 616: 610: 607: 603: 599: 595: 594: 593: 590: 586: 585: 584: 583: 580: 576: 573: 568: 564: 559: 558: 555: 551: 548: 544: 543: 537: 536: 533: 529: 522: 519: 516: 513: 509: 508: 507: 501: 499: 496: 495: 492: 488: 483: 478: 475: 471: 467: 466: 465: 464: 461: 457: 451: 447: 443: 439: 433: 431: 430: 418: 417: 414: 411: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 394: 391: 387: 386: 385: 384: 383: 382: 377: 374: 369: 368: 367: 366: 362: 360: 359: 351: 348: 344: 343: 342: 339: 335: 331: 330: 329: 328: 325: 321: 313: 309: 305: 301: 297: 294: 290: 289: 284: 281: 277: 274: 271: 270:User:Alan2012 267: 266: 265: 264: 261: 258: 253: 252: 248: 244: 241: 236: 235: 231: 225: 222: 219: 215: 214: 209: 208: 207: 204: 200: 197: 193: 189: 184: 183: 182: 181: 178: 174: 170: 162: 160: 159: 156: 152: 148: 144: 143:Verifiability 140: 136: 132: 128: 124: 120: 116: 112: 104: 100: 96: 93: 92:is invaluable 91: 85: 81: 77: 74: 70: 66: 63: 59: 55: 51: 47: 43: 42: 41: 39: 38:acculturation 35: 31: 27: 20: 16: 4798: 4737:? Thanks, 4669: 4666: 4639: 4621: 4614: 4612: 4611:I agree. -- 4537: 4531: 4528: 4377: 4369: 4324: 4322: 4318: 4316: 4313:QW talk page 4273: 4257: 4240: 4230: 4226: 4220:SJB archives 4194: 4161: 4142: 4127: 4107:WP:Vandalism 4063:welcome page 4051: 4005:Or RFC/U? -- 3959: 3943: 3939: 3936: 3928: 3896: 3891: 3887: 3885: 3863: 3842: 3841: 3797: 3792: 3768: 3765:Outing users 3754: 3744: 3736: 3730: 3725:Wikipedians. 3721: 3717: 3709: 3705: 3697: 3693: 3687: 3674: 3662: 3659: 3652: 3630:WP:CONSENSUS 3606: 3573: 3569: 3549:. Thank you. 3541:must not be 3528: 3520: 3511: 3470: 3466:Check it out 3460: 3437: 3208: 3170:welcome page 3158: 3129: 3126:welcome page 3114: 3099: 3092: 3090: 3085: 3071: 3054: 3033: 3026: 3024: 2968: 2947: 2942: 2919: 2914: 2878: 2873: 2868: 2851: 2835: 2828: 2826: 2806:Abram Hoffer 2794: 2787: 2785: 2778: 2765: 2758: 2756: 2751: 2733: 2726: 2724: 2691: 2689: 2672: 2665: 2651: 2639: 2627: 2624: 2603: 2587:Metta Bubble 2584: 2581: 2571: 2553:MediationBot 2522: 2469: 2464: 2446: 2401: 2382: 2358:September 24 2347: 2343:Kind regards 2342: 2341: 2322: 2309: 2282: 2266: 2252: 2225: 2218: 2216: 2212: 2147: 2076: 2072: 2068:(sub)topic's 2067: 2066: 2061: 2028: 1972: 1877: 1873: 1838: 1803: 1720: 1583: 1574: 1535: 1517: 1493: 1486: 1484: 1444: 1437: 1435: 1430: 1405: 1391: 1384: 1382: 1380: 1376: 1370:Wow! That's 1369: 1317: 1314:BvR Evidence 1295:David.Throop 1284: 1271: 1265: 1250: 1247: 1209:edit warring 1145: 1102: 1101:No. Pls see 1074: 1023: 1009: 951: 940: 937: 934: 931: 928: 924: 921: 907: 835: 807: 786:descriptions 773: 759: 742: 717:-Al Smith.-- 714: 709: 708: 691: 657: 620: 597: 560: 540: 538: 526: 505: 497: 486: 484: 481: 452: 448: 444: 440: 437: 426: 356: 317: 212: 211: 166: 147:Village pump 108: 87: 23: 18: 4676:TheNautilus 4650:Tim Vickers 4636:AN/I notice 4331:—Preceding 4124:Shaken Baby 3610:conformance 3572:as well as 3215:TheNautilus 2965:August 2007 2848:Please stop 2609:WP:KEEPCOOL 2421:RalphLender 1983:paragraph. 1494:collaborate 1445:collaborate 1392:collaborate 1268:Newyorkbrad 1171:Philosophus 938:Alan Lewis 935:Sincerely, 512:WP:Civility 456:User:Fyslee 320:begins here 135:Peer review 24:Hello, and 4819:topic bans 4538:especially 4534:homeopathy 4168:Quackwatch 4131:The Stroll 3822:different. 3514:24.5.26.32 3471:Levine2112 3462:24.5.26.32 3438:Levine2112 3409:. Agreed? 3055:Levine2112 2870:advance,-- 2470:Levine2112 2376:Even more 2337:neutrality 2315:Levine2112 2077:(sub)topic 1721:once again 1197:Quackwatch 878:baggage.-- 776:True manna 334:quackwatch 324:Levine2112 308:Quackwatch 151:Wikiquette 90:neutrality 4815:site bans 4570:QuackGuru 4485:QuackGuru 3433:WP:HARASS 3291:trolls.-- 3132:Shot info 2997:consensus 2775:PJ Reiter 2333:talk page 1715:behavior. 1521:Shot info 1291:talk page 973:WP:VANDAL 910:Shot info 770:Mannaspam 527:Thanks! 487:Thank you 169:vandalize 155:Ombudsman 97:Explore, 62:Help Desk 4558:WP:POINT 4546:WP:CIVIL 4386:Lawrence 4345:contribs 4337:Anthon01 4333:unsigned 4197:Anthon01 4145:Anthon01 4072:Mr.Guru 3827:Mr.Guru 3694:behavior 3591:Mr.Guru 3554:Mr.Guru 3543:libelous 3412:Mr.Guru 3349:Mr.Guru 3259:Mr.Guru 3224:Mr.Guru 3180:Mr.Guru 3177:Agreed? 2976:edit war 2747:WP:POINT 1989:"--: --> 1981:original 1976:articles 1042:contribs 1030:unsigned 941:PS: Me: 705:Al Smith 617:Kauffman 218:User:Zoe 115:Civility 52:and the 4759:I'clast 4687:WP:SOCK 4585:I'clast 4542:WP:NPOV 4501:I'clast 4471:I'clast 4418:I'clast 4357:I'clast 4280:WP:TALK 4090:I'clast 3980:I'clast 3965:WP:TALK 3932:WP:SOUP 3921:I'clast 3878:I'clast 3848:I'clast 3812:I'clast 3793:Crohnie 3781:I'clast 3771:JoshuaZ 3720:If so, 3680:I'clast 3621:I'clast 3578:I'clast 3547:sources 3535:Welcome 3484:I'clast 3429:WP:SOCK 3407:blocked 3381:I'clast 3344:WP:SOCK 3336:I'clast 3293:I'clast 3283:JoshuaZ 3241:I'clast 3196:I'clast 3144:I'clast 3045:I'clast 3012:I'clast 2993:blocked 2943:Crohnie 2915:Crohnie 2900:I'clast 2874:Crohnie 2816:;-: --> 2814:Lipitor 2810:Zyprexa 2711:I'clast 2688:I said 2432:I'clast 2430:back.-- 2351:anthony 2237:I'clast 2209:Thanks. 2178:I'clast 2166:I'clast 2116:Redone. 1691:I'clast 1598:I'clast 1556:I'clast 1464:I'clast 1417:I'clast 1344:I'clast 1305:I'clast 1289:on its 1248:Hello, 1231:I'clast 1201:blocked 1121:I'clast 1109:I'clast 1079:I'clast 1059:I'clast 996:I'clast 977:I'clast 880:I'clast 832:Thanks! 790:I'clast 752:I'clast 745:Długosz 719:I'clast 664:I'clast 635:I'clast 602:povpush 589:I'clast 547:uncivil 347:I'clast 314:article 280:I'clast 272:, also 203:I'clast 173:blocked 28:to the 26:Welcome 4805:. The 4615:Fyslee 4599:Addhoc 4556:, and 4554:WP:3RR 4550:WP:NPA 4437:Addhoc 4059:attack 3888:before 3678:all.-- 3655:(diff) 3403:WP:SPA 3399:WP:SPA 3395:WP:SPA 3318:Jester 3154:WP:AGF 3122:attack 3110:WP:NPA 3093:Fyslee 3082:Thanks 3027:Fyslee 2829:Fyslee 2788:Fyslee 2759:Fyslee 2727:Fyslee 2578:Thanks 2331:or my 2219:Fyslee 2176:way.-- 1992:WP:SYN 1630:WP:POT 1487:Fyslee 1438:Fyslee 1385:Fyslee 1163:WP:3RR 1149:WP:POT 1055:WP:AGF 893:Fyslee 864:Fyslee 850:Fyslee 474:Fyslee 338:Tyciol 310:, and 163:WIACHR 149:, and 48:, the 4459:WP:AN 4077:talk 4029:WP:CN 3911:above 3832:talk 3607:voice 3596:talk 3559:talk 3468:. -- 3435:. -- 3417:talk 3354:talk 3264:talk 3229:talk 3185:talk 2530:demon 2389:Ronz 2325:email 2277:Your 2246:More 1997:WP:OR 1513:WP:AN 823:Jance 813:Jance 804:NCAHF 762:Jance 572:civil 491:NATTO 472:. -- 460:NATTO 410:NATTO 390:NATTO 373:NATTO 312:NCAHF 293:NATTO 257:NATTO 240:NATTO 177:Azmoc 4839:talk 4781:talk 4773:here 4763:talk 4743:talk 4733:and 4667:Hi, 4654:talk 4622:talk 4603:talk 4589:talk 4574:talk 4505:talk 4489:talk 4475:talk 4467:here 4465:and 4463:here 4441:talk 4422:talk 4361:talk 4341:talk 4303:talk 4299:Ronz 4288:talk 4284:Ronz 4282:. -- 4201:talk 4187:talk 4183:Ronz 4174:and 4149:talk 4007:Ronz 3998:Ronz 3989:Ronz 3969:Ronz 3967:. -- 3944:more 3315:SWAT 3100:talk 3034:talk 2857:Ronz 2836:talk 2795:talk 2766:talk 2734:talk 2675:here 2670:.) 2654:Ronz 2645:Ronz 2633:Ronz 2613:Ronz 2409:talk 2386:? -- 2361:2024 2310:case 2283:case 2269:Ronz 2260:Ronz 2226:talk 2197:talk 2155:talk 2127:talk 2073:Time 2065:the 1745:talk 1639:talk 1612:Ronz 1587:Ronz 1577:Ronz 1565:Ronz 1548:Ronz 1546:. -- 1431:have 1353:Ronz 1335:Ronz 1321:Ronz 1167:WP:V 1151:. -- 1038:talk 794:talk 728:Ronz 694:Ronz 673:Ronz 659:This 648:Ronz 624:Ronz 606:Ronz 579:Ronz 565:and 554:Ronz 532:Ronz 470:here 201:. -- 80:NPOV 71:and 58:help 4799:Hi, 4777:WLU 4739:WLU 4216:SJB 4111:Avb 4033:Avb 3948:Avb 3901:Avb 3892:you 3867:Avb 3798:Gal 3757:Avb 3748:Avb 3738:Avb 3664:Avb 3634:Avb 3619:.-- 3508:CAB 3497:Avb 3376:now 3074:Avb 3001:THF 2948:Gal 2920:Gal 2879:Gal 2812:or 2755:-- 2680:Avb 2467:-- 2404:AvB 2365:UTC 2329:IRC 2302:GMT 2192:AvB 2150:AvB 2122:AvB 2082:). 1740:AvB 1634:AvB 1529:re: 1293:. 1142:3RR 103:fun 84:POV 4841:) 4817:, 4783:) 4765:) 4757:-- 4745:) 4716:}} 4710:{{ 4656:) 4619:/ 4605:) 4591:) 4576:) 4568:. 4552:, 4548:, 4507:) 4491:) 4477:) 4461:, 4443:) 4424:) 4389:§ 4382:. 4363:) 4347:) 4343:• 4305:) 4290:) 4218:, 4214:; 4212:QW 4203:) 4189:) 4181:-- 4151:) 4139:QW 4109:. 3934:. 3846:-- 3789:-- 3675:my 2855:-- 2631:-- 2505:. 2497:A 2463:. 2447:A 2406:÷ 2367:) 2345:, 2339:. 2327:, 2194:÷ 2152:÷ 2124:÷ 1742:÷ 1636:÷ 1585:-- 1539:, 1519:] 1497:) 1448:) 1395:) 1319:-- 1274:) 1263:. 1229:-- 1044:) 1040:• 796:) 715:un 622:-- 577:-- 552:-- 530:-- 419:ok 363:QW 306:, 213:is 194:, 190:, 145:, 141:, 137:, 133:, 129:, 125:, 121:, 117:, 113:, 4837:( 4779:( 4761:( 4741:( 4700:? 4689:? 4678:? 4652:( 4601:( 4587:( 4572:( 4503:( 4487:( 4473:( 4439:( 4420:( 4398:e 4395:/ 4392:t 4359:( 4339:( 4301:( 4286:( 4260:" 4233:: 4199:( 4185:( 4147:( 3309:⇒ 3097:/ 3031:/ 2833:/ 2792:/ 2763:/ 2731:/ 2574:. 2563:. 2526:^ 2363:( 2223:/ 1491:( 1442:( 1389:( 1270:( 1048:. 1036:( 792:( 514:. 275:, 220:| 105:! 94:! 64:. 19:!

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index