User talk:2over0/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello 2over0. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with drive-by reverts

Hello 2/0, long time to talk! Hope everything is running splendidly for you. I'm writing to ask that you consider helping discourage a pernicious form of reverting at Acupuncture. It's "drive-by reverting", i.e. reverting with meaningless ES's left and no meaningful participation (if any) on the talk page. We have some good editors there, and the drive-by's are a distraction from good WP:DR and a form of harassment. Please see my comments toward the end of this section, starting with the phrase "thanks for the tweak". Am letting Brangifer know as well. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear - that good, is it. I had been meaning to go visit that old friend since I saw that asthma/lung volume study a few months back. I try to stay out of any discussion of tagging as a matter of personal sanity, but perhaps there is something I can add. I was "compromise-happy" with the lead last time I read it, but that has been a good long while. If I were not COI I would consider protecting the article for a longish while, but I tend to be more liberal with that on large basically stable controversial articles and I doubt RFPP would be accepted. A rough consensus on the talkpage to stick with "this version" during discussion should be enough to prevent edit warring; you know, "should".

Do you think that the decline in editorship will ever give us a reverse Eternal September effect, or are we doomed always to make the same points anew? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You blocked me ...

Hi 2/0, you blocked me on 19th May 2012 for 24 hours for edit warring on plasma cosmology on the 18th May. I can't figure out the reason. Could you explain why you blocked me? Thanks. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking back at the edit history and the state of the article talkpage at that point, it looks like you were repeatedly making contentious edits against the objections of other editors. Generally speaking, the burden is on the editor inserting material to gather consensus once another contributor has voiced a reasonable objection. Continuing to insist on your preferred presentation is disruptive, as described at the edit warring policy.

Looking at the more recent edit history and discussion, I am not sure that you understand the policy. Please read it and apply the principles of reaching consensus for your proposed edits and respecting the reasonable points made by your fellow volunteers. You may also wish to review the policies regarding decorum and personal attacks. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi 2/0, Thanks for your reply. There was just one section in dispute, 'Joining of space plasma filaments'. Art Carlson had removed that section three times, and I had put it back three times. That was all that was contentious and there were only the two of us involved, so no editors (plural). I had already addressed some of the the points he had made, and was in the process of addressing others. He was simply reverting. I don't understand your reference to personal attacks, as looking back I can't make out any (except Art Carlson erroneously accusing me of using a sockpuppet). The discussion was fairly civilized and there was nothing to flag; if anything I think the balance would be against Art Carlson, but as I say it was civilized. I have no complaints and I can't think that Art Carlson would have any complaints, so I don't understand your reference to decorum?

As I understand Wiki policy, there should usually be a warning before someone is blocked. Reviewing the edit history I can see no tangible difference between the actions of Art Carlson and me. In conclusion I don't understand the grounds on which you blocked me in the first place, but since you did, I don't understand why you didn't block Art Carlson at the same time? Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please help block disruptive editing

I noticed some improper behaviors happened to United Nations page and Penis page recently. You can find more evidence on: Talk:United_Nations#Subsections, User_talk:Chipmunkdavis#Do_you_have_difficuty_communicating_in_English.3F, User_talk:Pontmarcheur. Please kindly help take necessary actions in order to protect Wikipedia and its users. Thank you. --Pontmarcheur (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your interest in Wikipedia, I hope you enjoy editing here. I am not able to take action on this matter at the present time, but you may be interested in the edit warring noticeboard; please read the instructions there before posting. Also, just in case it is relevant, please be aware of the site policy on sock puppetry. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 04:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Your information is very helpful, thanks a lot. --PontMarcheur (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Pontmarcheur has been following me around several articles reverting mostly uncontroversial edits, on articles he's never edited before which i think falls under wikihounding/stalking rules. I would like to propose an interaction ban between Pontmarcheur and myself please. Thanks Pass a Method talk 04:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

All the articles I edited are ones that I care for a long time. All my edits are per good faith, not against anyone specified. Meanwhile, I do see several articles/editors affected by aggressive editing and rude messages left on their talk pages, such behaviors should be restricted. The one who received so many criticisms and triggered so many arguments with others, should definitely self-review why this happens. --PontMarcheur (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Measles/Vaccine Chart

Could you possibly add a key to this? It is very difficult to understand without looking at the parent page for it. Impossible to interpret data is useless to readers. Amber Workman aka Ambiesushi (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing, I have been meaning to get around to adding the last few years of data anyway. Would a little box in the upper right with a line "[square] vaccination coverage" and a line [diamond] reported cases" work (using the actual symbols, of course)? While I have someone here and thinking about it - are the symbols sufficiently visually distinct? Should I make them larger or the lines smaller, or even eliminate the lines? I want to avoid color coding for accessibility reasons since the plot is so simple. Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 17:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/2over0

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Oral Candidiasis. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain and if interested, please visit my Talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your support 2over0!!! I am new to Wikipedia so any tips are very welcome! Nuša Hydra Rain (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Still-24-45-42-125

Putting aside the spelling error, do you find this disturbing?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw it, but decided it was not worth extending a closed discussion just to say that I considered the productive comments an argument against blocking and the other comments were part of the warning. That comment is certainly consistent with an editor on the short path to being blocked, but is not in itself worrisome. Do you see something I am missing? - 2/0 (cont.) 02:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I hate those kinds of comments that dance around the edges of WP:NLT but are so incoherent they are impossible to analyze. Independently of my noticing it, another user brought it to WP:ANI, where, after a short discussion, it was dismissed as not being a legal threat and possibly being some sort of inside "joke" ([1]).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I see it as flippant rather than realistically approaching NLT. The kind of skirting edit that bothers me more is when someone just casually drops into the conversation that libel law exists, with the evident intent and desire to stifle discussion. Still-24-45-42-125, on another hand, has been getting good advice from several sources (including some from editors who disagree with their edits), and I read that comment as reflecting that advice. It remains to be seen whether it will be followed.

It probably goes without saying, but you will not be stepping on my toes if you step in with this or any related matter. I do not recall having seen you around before, but you made good calls at AN3 the other day. It is silly season in American politics, and based on what I observed of the last cycle, the encyclopedia is in for quite a ride. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, good thing I don't suffer from motion sickness.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy

Your protection of the page Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy leaves in place the last edits by IP 209.6.69.227 . I would suggest that the edit goes against consensus or at least where the consensus is leaning. I feel that you are awarding someone that has done massive edits to put POV into the article by providing protection without reverting their last edit.Casprings (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see m:The Wrong Version. If you demonstrate a rough consensus on the talk page, I would be happy to revert to a prior version. You may also use {{editprotected}}. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say that there is a rough concensus for the background section developed here and here . The only editor that is fighting the version is the IP editor. One editor suggests that two sentences should be shorter but agrees with the basic edits. On the RfC, the one person that commentmented agreed with the edit that I provided. Casprings (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Geocentric model

What was wrong with the edits i made on the geocentric page?Decrypt Mystic (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion works better at the article talk page where all concerned editors will see it. Please see Talk:Geocentric model/Archive 1#Numbers, and in future remember to start a talkpage discussion rather than edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Lynton Crosby page

2over0 you have locked and blocked users on the 'Lynton Crosby' page.

The below paragraph is an added paraphrased statement by the users Ericoides and 109.154.241.164 every addition by those users have been to defame the person 'Lynton Crosby' with citations that have no right of reply or hard evidence to support the supposition. Therefore it should not be published on the wikipedia page. Many users have stated this yet you have blocked two users who have explained this in their RV.

In July 2013, following the government's rejection of a plan to remove branding from cigarette packets, British prime minister David Cameron was urged by Liberal Democrat members of the governing Coalition to sack Crosby as his chief election strategist because of Crosby's connection to the tobacco industry.[13] Liberal Democrat MP Paul Burstow was quoted as saying: "Lynton Crosby cannot remain at the heart of government while he is also serving the interests of the tobacco industry. If he does not go the prime minister should sack him."[13]

And the following paragraph has citations to stories that are incorrect. These are stories about Lynton Crosby but in one verbatim sentence the hyperbole is denied. See insert quote "Did Lynton control the government's reaction to Tampa - the simple answer is no," says Bush.

.[14] Crosby is said to run a tight ship, focus on simple messages, target marginal constituencies and use lots of polls.[3] <-There citation here is also incorrect.

His tactics have included: During the 2001 Australian federal elections, Howard government ministers falsely claimed that seafaring asylum seekers had thrown children overboard in a presumed ploy to secure rescue and passage to Australia, and Howard, in the final days of the campaign, launched a slogan that later grew notorious: "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come".[15] <- the citation here is also incorrect

^ Lees-Marshment, Jennifer (2009). Political marketing: principles and applications (1. publ. ed.). London: Routledge. p. 240. ISBN 041543128X. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctaustralia (talk • contribs) 05:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello 2/0. You might be interested to learn that User:Carringtonb/User:88RIK/User:Cobber27, User:Ctaustralia, all of whom I take it to be a single person with an interest in only pushing the interests of right-wing Australian politicians on Wikipedia (this editor has not made any other edits), has also been adding unreferenced WP:PEACOCK passages to the Mark Textor page (Textor is closely associated with Crosby). Update: I now note he has referenced these with a citation from the completely non-RS source of the Crosby/Textor site.

I note that in the passage above this editor, despite removing the WP:RS Guardian passage about Crosby, his tobacco COI and the Lib Dems, has made no effort to refute it. Yet the story has been widely reported, even by the right-wing media. Perhaps an IP range block of all these sockpuppets might be appropriate. Ericoides (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi 2/0. User Ericoides is more experienced in the uses of Wikipedia. I am happy to be fair. However Ericoides is deliberating defaming these two figures on Wikipedia. While stories may be 'widely reported' Journalists provide a range of views. Ericoides is cherry picking these stories to defame these figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctaustralia (talk • contribs) 07:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ctaustralia, thanks for your response. In reply, I'm simply adding details of a story that has been widely reported in the British media. If you look at my edits, you'll see that all I have done is add the story about Crosby, tobacco and the Lib Dems (apart from reverting your deletions). Please look at this link before you accuse anyone of "cherry picking". With regard to Textor, I am purely removing text that has not been referenced from a reliable source (it's incidental that the text is what one might call 'hagiographic'; it's quite possible you might find an RS that says he's great, but his own site is obviously not the place to look!). So there is no defamation here, a quite absurd suggestion! Ericoides (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi 2over0, I'd lodged an SPI report in regards to 88RIK and Carringtonb at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carringtonb yesterday, and I've just blocked Ctaustralia for user name issues and repeatedly accusing other editors of defaming someone related to that user name (in this context I think that constituted an actionable legal threat in Wiki terms) and have added them to the SPI. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

@Ericoides: I do not have access to the IP addresses of named editors, but your assessment of socking has been borne out anyway. Let me know or make a post to WP:RFPP if the Textor article flares up even with the sockpuppeteer blocked.

OK, will do. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Thank you for that. There was definitely some ducking going on, but I am lazy and decided to see if locking would resolve the problem. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back

... to this alternate-reality madhouse. :) MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you (I think :P). I have managed so far to avoid loading Wikipedia:HAPPYPLACE (other than just now to find another amusing redirect since WP:DRAMA has been more usefully repurposed), but I am woefully out of the habit of setting aside interesting potential sources as I read them. At least my fingers still remember the well used incantation for invoking WP:EpistemicHygiene - backwards, forwards, anagrammatized. Oh, wait, why am I typing out a personalized thanks when I could just click a button? (I am actually cautiously optimistic on that - anything that builds a sense of community and all that). - 2/0 (cont.) 00:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Herbxue

Hi 2over0. Glad to see you are active again! You indicated that Acupuncture is covered by standard discretionary sanctions. Which ones? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see you still hanging out in The Asylum, too! WP:ARBPS covers Acupuncture; I am pretty sure it was on the talkpage at some point, but my memory can be fallible. That case subsumes the Fringe Science case, the Homeopathy case (linked at the main alternative medicine page; someone should update that), the Chiropractic brouhaha, the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case, and all similar and sundry, broadly construed. What categories the article should belong to and how the topic should be characterized are of course contentious editorial decisions, but the overlap in editors and how they too often treat each other makes the need to apply AC/DS clear. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my edit, not sure how that happened.Herbxue (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have done similar by looking at the wrong side of a diff page, by miscounting a series of reverts, and probably more that I never even noticed. Your edit summary was clear and the text clearly did not belong - keep editing long enough and it will happen again. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hope you don't disappoint

I recall that we've crossed paths a few times. I don't know if you intend to just be involved in alternative medicine or whether you're hoping to be impartial and take administrative action. If you take the latter, that's fine, but I hope you and I will be able to stay in the same 'reality zone'. I know you're pretty sharp so my suspicion is that you noticed exactly what I called out over at ANI a little while ago, but declined to say anything. I hope I'm wrong. II | (t - c)

My recollection without bothering to check is that we have butted heads a few times over how to weight various sources (fluoride, maybe?), but that we have always agreed that this is an encyclopedia and that we should strive for a fair representation of any topic. I can live with that. I smiled to see you pop up at the recent Genetically Modified Food Controversies RFC, though I confess that I did not feel up to wading further into a discussion that seemed to be rapidly devolving so I never said hello. Allow me to rectify that now: hello, good to see you.

I am very definitely, clearly, and for all time WP:INVOLVED in anything related to alternative medicine, broadly construed. I hope my terse comment at AN/I did not give any other impression, and I hope that if ever I do make a comment that could be seen as mixing my hats you will call me out on it. One of my favorite aspects of this project is that admin abuse is much rarer than on certain other sites; a widespread perceived inability to disagree with an admin wearing an editor hat would be absolutely toxic to our core mission.

As for the Acupuncture article - yeah, what it actually needs is fewer partisans and more high quality sources, not more bickering, gaming, and point scoring. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come on - right after I say all those nice things about you you jump in to the ongoing edit war at Alternative medicine? You seem to like finding sources, how about you and I start a table listing quotes and the general sense for how usable sources discuss the topic? - 2/0 (cont.) 13:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe I made that comment after getting into the altmed definition debate. I'm sorry my hello was pretty curt, and I am happy to see you back around, certainly. When I made that comment I was frankly more than a little irritated with what I had seen a very short while before at that ANI discussion. What happened and is continuing to happen there goes far beyond partisan bickering and into the most blatant and deliberate misconduct (lying about sources) I have seen on Wikipedia since the Jagged 85 situation. I've been floating around here for six years in a lot of areas and I've never seen such brazen lying. Bans are warranted. What's more discouraging is that I had figured that you might take a more mature approach rather than feeding the petty approach, and try to set an example for some of the newer and more aggressive guys. Regardless of your statement above, I'm not convinced that you're being reasonable at all over at alternative medicine. My second principle in encyclopedia editing (after no lying about sources) is that an encyclopedia describes the world as it is, not as a particular person or group would like it to be, and you seem to be bent on ignoring that principle. I saw your argument and you seem to say that there's only two options: use the NSF (2002) to define alternative medicine rather than the definition used by NHS, Cochrane, NRC, etc or people will be confused because the predominate definition doesn't make clear that alt med is generally unscientific. That's a classic false dilemma of extremes (the lead can be plenty clear about the science issues without using a fringe definition). As you spend your time arguing that the NSF (which, as I believe you know, is not an umbrella over the NIH) trumps all these other organizations in the medical context, you might try stepping back to reflect on what the point is. Do you think that's a winning argument in the long-run? Is that not bickering in a petty manner? Do you really find that spending hours debating something like this is a fulfilling use of your time? What's worse, the editors who were confronted with this very legitimate objection immediately turned the conversation towards topic banning the objector. This area is really hitting a low point in terms of a sense of propriety and shame right now. II | (t - c) 08:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure you are not conflating me with someone else? I accept the rebuke that I could do more to reign in the more aggressive editors and refocus discussion more narrowly and dispassionately on the sources; that takes time, and is a good reason to remind myself that that discussion has several redflags for being a waste of time. I agree with you that alternative medicine is one of our more frustrating topic areas, prone to partisan bickering and gamesmanship. A little more liberal application of AC/DS might help, but this is probably the topic area where I have made the plurality of my edits so we would need to find someone else willing to sort through the noise.

I used that NSF source a bit over at the list of pseudosciences a number of years ago, but I have never been particularly fond of it at the alternative medicine article. For starters, it is way too old. The argument I am trying (and apparently failing: "an encyclopedia describes the world as it is, not as a particular person or group would like it to be" is precisely my meaning in saying we are a "descriptive" encyclopedia") to make is that when NHS, IOM, &c. say that something is not part of "conventional medicine", it is not a value-neutral statement like a statement of color preference. In addition to wanting people to think I have the good sense not to jump into an already raging edit war, the reason I forbore from reverting in the recent brouhaha that led to the article being locked is that the versions were within the margin of compromise for me.

Gross misuse of sources merits immediate unilateral indefinite blocking in my book (check my blocking log). The case made at AN/I was pretty weak, so I did not look further. Prove it to me? - 2/0 (cont.) 17:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well perhaps I have overreacted a little, particularly given the extreme situation I saw at acupuncture (which I still think is egregious). And perhaps I'm using you as punching bag a little because I think you can handle it. How exactly do you know if something is weak if you haven't looked at it? The fact is that the editors involved over there are not willing, over a period of weeks, to stipulate to basic facts, and cited references which contradicted what they purported to say. In any case, this stuff shouldn't be so difficult. There's no reason for endless debate and I frankly don't have time for it. Compromise is not that hard. No Request for Comment should be necessary. But it's never going to be easy when everyone is basically fighting a battle, and especially when there's outright dishonesty.

In terms of the definition of alternative medicine, I agree that this is quite complicated and it would be fair for the lead to note that alternative medicine are often characterized by a lack of reliance on scientific evidence. The predominate definition is not perfect, as alternative practices are now sometimes taught in universities, as you noted. However, when you approach alternative medicine it's not clear to me why you think you're approaching it descriptively. I've noticed on the talkpage that you make frequent references to the mystical basis in alternative medicine, and point to Reiki, even though alternative medicine is presumably a broad tent which has much mystical as well as non-mystical theories. Your more sophisticated definition is "various [apparently all??] alternative medicine treatments are based on unobservable putative energies, are promoted to the public before sufficient evidence has been gathered, or otherwise operate outside this standard". Since mystical basis is clearly insufficient (given herbs and various other 'real' interventions with a variety of theories ranging from odd to plausible), the key there is sufficient or insufficient evidence. This is basically incoherent. You tacitly admit that as much when you note that there is a major exception in that "while it has been reliably reported to be true that a somewhat scary percentage of interventions by medical professionals have insufficient evidence, nobody calls these alternative medicine because they are not part of that network of cultures". So the definition doesn't quite fit. The major sources generally discuss lack of evidence but don't use it to define. So it is incomprehensible to me that you would accept as a 'compromise' something which rejects all the major sources and doesn't seem like a compromise at all for you. I don't really want to go hashing through the examples of insufficiently proven modern medicine (both legacy and new, for a whole host of reasons) or the range of ambiguity in altmed interventions. Whether or not something is 'sufficiently' proven is a continuous debate where all sorts have different opinions. I found the results from the recent AIM-HIGH study kind of interesting in that it shows what can really happen with legacy treatment. II | (t - c) 21:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, in case it isn't already clear: when you present the definition of alternative medicine as "various alternative medicine treatments are based on unobservable putative energies, are promoted to the public before sufficient evidence has been gathered, or otherwise operate outside this standard", I don't disagree. My quick reading of the talkpage suggests that none of the editors at the alternative medicine talkpage are arguing that alternative medicine is generally scientifically-supported (although again, speculative treatment is not unique to alternative medicine, as off-label use of prescriptions is a common practice in the United States). I can't think of an 'altmed' treatment which doesn't ultimately meet this criteria, even though I hear a lot of contradictory conclusions especially with things like chiropractic and acupuncture. The point I'm trying to make is that whether or not I personally agree with a definition is irrelevant because the sources are what should determine what's in the article, not our personal opinions. To accept that takes a Zen-like perspective where you just have to let go a little bit. II | (t - c) 23:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed, this here above is what it looks like when someone tries to reach out to you, extending the hand of collaboration rather than dismissing you as just another partisan more interested in scoring points off "the opposition" than in efficiently advancing the project. I acknowledge I could do better, you acknowledge you could do better, then we both go do better together with an improved mutual understanding - this is how human beings interact with each other when not playing games on the internet. You are better than this, and you should accept your obligation to behave in accord. If you stay your present course, you will see fewer and fewer people willing to reach out to you like this and editing will become progressively more stressful. As it is, Zen-like calm is not a state of mind I would associate with how you come across. You might consider getting involved at WP:CCI to see the community reward your self-righteous anger; our ability to deal with gross and rampant copyright infringement is invaluable to the long term viability of this project.

My actual opinion of "real existing modern medicine" is significantly informed by Ben Goldacre and similar; if you have not gathered this from my postings to the altmed page, then I have succeeded in maintaining a properly dispassionate editorial distance. If I had my druthers, you might refrain from construing me in your strawman constructions.

Meanwhile - you are not reading what I have actually written and you are not showing any particular deep understanding of the subtleties of the topic area, so what is the end goal for this conversation? You remain welcome to comment here. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the forest article; it was surprisingly long and detailed. Yes, we could both do better. And indeed, I could and should write more calmly, although it runs against my Irish heritage and probably my genetic heritage (if I understand 23andMe correctly, my rs907094 genotype may be tied to anger). As far as a Zen attitude, I'm better at keeping my identity small than most. That doesn't mean I waive my right to righteous indignation. I'm not really clear as to what offended or what you consider to be a strawman characterization. Perhaps the most sensitive point is that I gathered that you view this change as a reasonable compromise and I just don't understand that. I respect you and that's why I'm appealing to you. Written words are easily misinterpreted.

I'm not accusing you of thinking that modern medicine is perfect, and nor am I saying that failings in modern medicine excuse the significantly greater problems in alternative medicine. I actually don't have that much interest in alternative medicine articles, nor have I spent much time on them in the past few years. I would much rather be doing research and working on a number of other topics, including: equities, important laws and regulations in the pipeline, a couple programming projects, or any number of other topics which I know less about and find inherently more interesting (which I currently largely document in my personal Evernote database) than tired old debates. That's partly why I have limited patience, as I view this as pretty damn simple. I don't like to see Wikipedia articles blowing up in unnecessary controversies because of a refusal to compromise. My involvement in altmed articles lately is because there is an education aspect for newer or aggressive editors which seems to be neglected right now. Sometimes stern words are appropriate. I believe in the dispassionate Wikipedia attitude of NPOV, and I do believe some people can adopt a scholarly attitude over time, especially if they are mentored appropriately rather than encouraged to grind the axe. Probably I'm doing a bad job of mentoring in that I'm doing more angry ranting.

CAs far as other work that could be done: one wrong doesn't excuse another. Certainly, there are any number of things which I could do to enhance Wikipedia's integrity and hunting down copyright violations is one of them. That's not my comparative advantage nor is it my interest. If I was going to do that I would probably write a computer program to help me, but there are a few other programs I'd write before that. In any case, I'm not on Wikipedia for reputation. I get more than enough kudos in the real world to keep me happy. I'm here because this is the #1 source of information for the world, and I use it all the time (though almost never for medical information; my personal notes are more detailed and reliable on the medical topics which matter to me). II | (t - c) 05:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I like that article, thank you for sharing. I have been developing a pet please referring to that type of issue as a "tribal signifier", but not tying identity to an issue or substituting vociferousness for reasoned discussion sounds like an excellent idea. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Your 2 reverts of longstanding content at Rosemary wiki

You wrote "the burden is on you to justify this text, especially when multiple other editors disagree as to its relevance to this article". There are currently 3 user which agree to keep longstanding content in the rosemary wikipedia page, the user AfadsBad is responsible for what you call "speculative results do not belong in an encyclopedia article: WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, WP:MEDASSESS." I ask you another time for input on the talk page as requested by AfadsBad, rather than just reverting. The Request can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rosemary#Third_opinion_request Prokaryotes (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Already replied at that talkpage, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your claim

You posted this on my talk page "Copying without attribution between articles breaks our license." i asked you what you mean by that, as you replied to the page without addressing this claim of you, i ask you now another time for a clarification of your allegation. Provide the related policy, thanks. Prokaryotes (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for not addressing your query more directly; your writing is often unclear. This particular point is covered by the license under which all of your contributions are released, as I linked earlier at your talkpage and appears under every edit window. When you made this edit, you were making the assertion that the text was yours to release under the above linked license. This is a false assertion, as the text actually belongs to the editors who originally placed it at Geosphere. By copying the text without noting that it is not yours, you violated the attribution rights of those editors. This is not acceptable.

You may further be interested in the site policy regarding sockpuppetry. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Keeping calm and AGF

Please avoid misreading my civil remarks at Talk:Alternative medicine[2] and try reflecting upon whether the remarks inappropriately addressed to me [3] show that they could be more applicable as an admonishment to their author. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, 2/0 comment could be applicable to pretty much any editor on alt med, myself included, and Q is prob one of the more civil contributors. Complaining about the editing on alt med is like complaining an asylum is full of nutters Aspheric (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

r → User talk:Qexigator. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Alt Med

Nice work on rewrite. Sorry if comments / soapboxing / whingeing get a bit much, the page is a diplomatic minefield.Aspheric (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Aspheric...thanks for taking the time, despite it being such a gauntlet. Puhlaa (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, gentle-editors. The refs are up, so go fix it! - 2/0 (cont.) 13:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, very impressive and well above and beyond what could reasonably be expected. Any break proposed is certainly well deserved. Aspheric (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hear hear. My only complaint is that it is quite difficult to come up with any improvement suggestions! II | (t - c) 17:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference format

Greetings and thank you for your contributions to WP. I have proposed a format for references on Alternative medicine. I wanted to let you know and give you an opportunity to comment here. Good day! - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

My Other Account

Hey. I just created an account, today. But I'm not old to the wiki stuff. I have another account, which of course I do not use. I forgot the name of the account, but I was wondering if there is someone who can track down the other account using my I.P, and just delete it. Because I'll be using this account, now, rather than the one I intended to use, a long time ago. If you could send someone to delete the account, I would be much obliged!

Fatal Disease (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There is really no need to worry about it; the site policy on multiple accounts is at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, but it mainly concerns using multiple accounts deceptively to create an appearance of broad support or evade a ban or similar. If you simply registered an account a while ago and abandoned it, it is not hurting anything to leave it be. Happy editing, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Janet Hunter listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Janet Hunter. Since you had some involvement with the Janet Hunter redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Addressed there, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

I tried resurrecting your intro on alt med with little success. Shame really as it's the closest anyone's got to a decent bit of writing on that page. Ah well. Aspheric (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That page has been a bit of a cesspit for as long as I can remember. Despite the poor organization, the current article is much better than I have seen it at times, but ... well, good luck. Even more than decent writing I would like to see the lead actually summarize the article like it ought. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Need help from admin : User Name

Hey. I signed up for wikipedia back in 2009. I used to use Orwill as my online alias back then. In time, I forgot I have a wiki account, and rediscovered it today. The problem is, I no longer want my username to say Orwill. Is there a workaroud to this? Can an admin change my username? Or can I make another account from the same email ID?

Hoping for a reply.

Yours Sincerely

Orwill (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Complaint of my edits being reverted.

Respected sir. Sir from the last few days i am observing that my edits get reverted each and every time. Specially sir, i want to complain about my recent edit of Ra.One. Sir, i just want to make a change to the language part of the film which is English too. Ra.One has liberal but use of English. But the page is being reverted everytime. Sir, i am not vandalising it but i want to edit that part only. Sir neither i am active but a dedicated Wikipedian. And sir i am not in blacklisted Wikipedians so why they do not let me to edit that part. Sir at least they should understand that Ra.One is no doubt an Indian film but it has a librral use of English language. And i am thankful to all that Wikipedia has given me a great oppurtunity. Hope you understand my problem. And thank you so much TekkenJinKazama (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for edit of Ra.One's language

Good Evening sir. Sir thank you so much for protecting Ra.One's page. But, I have a small request to you. Sir please edit the language of Ra.One as Hindi and English. Because you protected the page and that page can be edited by Administrators. A small request to you. I will be really obliged. Thank You. TekkenJinKazama (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Love Yoou Soniye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism TekkenJinKazama (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the ratio of bad edits to good is currently not high enough to meet my threshold for not leaving the article open for everybody to edit. Requests for Page Protection can give a second opinion, and in general will give you a swift and accurate response for this sort of request. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Viraj Dobriyal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection: Over the past few days, a user kept reverting the page violating Three revert rule. This user User:Chanderforyou is violating the editing policy. mall (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for putting this up for AfD. That would have been my approach had I seen this sooner. Keep up the good work. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

User:CleanerCurry (talk)

Hi again (it's Davykamanzi; I'm using my public account). I reported the user Miraclehr1 for edit warring a few days ago and you blocked him for 48 hours (the block is still in place at the moment). However, a new user, CleanerCurry (first edit at 04:40, 5 May 2014 according to user analysis) has began making the same unconstructive edits to Ligi Ndogo S.C. and 2014 Ligi Ndogo S.C. season, and I'm suspecting sock puppetry. Could you please look into these two users and see if they have a matching IP address or something? I don't want to get dragged into another pointless edit war. Regards, DAVYK17 (talk to me • what I've done • alter ego) 10:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Only the checkusers get to see IP addresses (I am anonymous to the foundation, and there are fairly significant privacy concerns involved), but the pattern of edits is plenty to indicate that this is the same person. Thank you for pointing it out and for providing context for your notification. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

New message

Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at Davykamanzi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello 2over0, thank you for helping me, I am learning the ropes as an older citizen and now understand more about what does and doesn't constitute vandalism. I have also since learnt how to find the user's talk page (it wasn't at all obvious, or spelled out for a neophyte like me!), but at the time I couldn't even send the user a warning, which is why I reported it. I felt that my efforts in restoring the page to normalcy were in vain. So pardon me if I missed it, but on the help pages I didn't notice clear instructions for learners on how to access another user's talk page. I realised by myself later that the word 'talk' after their IP address in the edit history was a hypertext link to it, but before that, I didn't know it was the 'appropriate link'. Probably very obvious to someone that is computer savvy but not for a newcomer. Most of the info I found was for a registered user's talk page (which I could access through the search bar using their moniker?). Sorry if I am being long-winded and using up your valuable time, but my humble suggestion is that help for learners for things like finding a user's page could perhaps be spelled out more slowly, not assuming anything. There is of course the argument that if it has to be spelled out, then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia ;-) Thanks, Sam Samsbanned (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Jose Antonio Vargas

I'm afraid your prediction at WP:AN3 was quickly validated. The editor is back using a different IP address.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

And one tries so hard to think the best of people. Thanks for the heads up. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the IP's edit to the talk page based on block evasion. There's now another IP involved on the talk page (reverted my reversion). I'm not keen on semi-protecting the talk page, particularly because I'm WP:INVOLVED. I'll leave it up to you to do whatever you think is warranted. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Too bad. I wonder if I will get to figure out how to range block IPv6. Let me know if they come back and I might try a day or so for the talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

You've been (clumsily) mentioned here.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Just saw it, thanks :). I am now trying to remember where I have seen that particular error regarding my username before. There is entirely too much socking going on in this topic area. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably not any of these [4] but those are the ones that linked it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC) See also User:Thegoodlocust and User:Off2riorob (Youreallycan) at [5] and [6] and User:EMP at [7]. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

hm, unlikely to be connected and utterly stale for CU anyway. Ah well, thanks for doing the legwork there Adjwilley :). - 2/0 (cont.) 19:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at Talk:Chiropractic#Kshilts' edits 15-18 July 2014.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jim1138 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

2/0, you gave him a warning for editing at the chiropractic article but now he claims I[8] gave him that warning. Jayaguru-Shishya is complaining about the comment I made on a talk page. See User talk:Kww#Editor has no learning curve and is unintentionally being destructive. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru, Why does it matter who left the edit warring template? As far as I can tell, everybody participated in that edit war (assuming you're referring to this one where you, 2/0, Jayaguru, Jmh649, and Jim1138 all reverted once, BullRangifer reverted twice, and KStilts reverted 4 times). ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Adjwilley: yeah, not my proudest moment there. There is a discussion on the talkpage now that hopefully will get us through. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I never thought it mattered who left the edit warring template. I'm not sure why he thought I left the message on his talk page. I started the discussion at Talk:Chiropractic#Controversial changes for the undueweight and original research concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I see. At this point it's probably best to ignore their error and focus on reaching a consensus on the talk page. Perhaps a compromise can be found that includes a part of the material in a concise manner without original research? (Apologies to 2/0 for butting in on your talk page.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for watching over HIV vaccine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Coffee for afternoon tea! All coffee, all the time! - 2/0 (cont.) 19:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are the Admin who blocked Damián80, I need a little help

Pardon my limited understanding of Wiki editing. I see user Damián80 has been blocked, apparantly by you, is that correct? Yesterday he displayed similar behavior on edits I made to Jaime Camil's English page. See my last message on Damián80's talk page, from the night of July 29, for a summary. It's in both English and Spanish for clarity. Short version: he removed 10 shows from the Jaime Camil filmography. When I contacted him, he said it was because there were no references. I sent him references. He said he was too busy to put the shows back in. I did it myself, with references. Then he went in and removed the references, saying they were unnecessary.

I have two questions for you:

A. May I revert Damián80's July 29 changes to the Jaime Camil page? I don't want to be guilty of edit warring, but I want to undo the kind of behavior that got him blocked because of other pages. B. How do I link to an article on a Spanish Wikipedia page? Many of the links I provided are in Spanish wiki pages, and they are red links because I don't know how to do them. Thank you for your help. Paulah88 (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That was me. The policy regarding edit warring gives more detail, but generally speaking it sounds like you should be fine to make the proposed edit. Start a section on the relevant talkpage (press "Talk" at the top of the article) if there is any disagreement so that consensus can be reached amicably.

You can link an article in the Spanish Wikipedia using [[es:Jaime Camil]], but this should never be done in an article. The different languages are separate projects, albeit all under the Wikimedia umbrella. We have no control over their content, and most of our readers do not speak Spanish. A better solution would be to translate the articles here (with a note in the edit history giving the source). - 2/0 (cont.) 21:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

178.79.149.253

You recently gave this user a 24 hour block because of their edits on List of current pretenders. As 178.79.189.222 they are editing around the block.[9] Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That is without a doubt the same person, though the range looks too big to block. I semi-protected the article but not the talkpage - come back if I can do anything else. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Help request - vandalism

The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_death is being vandalized by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.223.130.218.

At first I thought the person was simply misguided, but now - after talking to him/her - it's clear to me his/her disruptive activity on that article is nothing but malicious, and that s/he is not planning to stop.

Here's a short rundown of the situation: the vandal keeps re-adding a game to the list of games that feature permanent death that, even by his/her own admission (!), does not feature permanent death as defined by the article.

The game in question is Path of Exile, a game in which there are two leagues: softcore and (so-called) hardcore. Dying in hardcore does not delete the character from the game under any circumstances (which would be the prerequisite for permanent death as defined in the article); rather, a dead character is either (1) allowed to stay in the hardcore league (if the death occured in player vs. player combat) or (2) moved to the softcore league (if the death occured in player vs. monster combat). The softcore league, to which "dead" characters are moved, allows the player to play his/her "dead" hardcore characters as if nothing happened which defies the very definition of permanent death as put forward by the Wikipedia article being vandalized.

For a more detailed explanation, please read my recent posts on the article's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Permanent_death

I did my best to stop the vandalism, but after a dozen reverts, I'm just about out of steam.

I'd be much obliged if you could please do something about this unpleasant situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PathOfExile (talk • contribs) 21:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The IP and the named account were flagrantly edit-warring. I semi-protected the page, and because of the user name violation, I indeffed the named account. I didn't feel comfortable blocking the IP for violating 3RR as they had never been warned. My protection locked in, at least for the moment, the IP's version. The IP's edit was obviously not vandalism. Although I know nothing about the game or the death page, it sounded to me like the named account had the better argument as to why the game doesn't belong on the page, but I'm not going to weigh in on the content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look, Bbb23. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, Bbb23 for locking in the obviously wrong version of the article, banning me for attempting to revert obvious vandalism, and letting the vandal get off scot-free. I wish we had more admins like you around.

Anyway, I started an RfC on the article's talk page, but there seems to be a problem. Would you mind taking a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APermanent_death&diff=620231025&oldid=620217719? It looks like one IP has removed another IP's signature which I don't really know how to interpret, and I don't want to revert that change myself - I already got banned once for trying to fix vandalism to the corresponding article.

Also, I'd like to inform you that I've found additional sources (other than common knowledge of anyone that ever played Path of Exile) to confirm that the game has no permanent death and doesn't belong on the list - even http://www.pathofexile.com/leagues - which is the official website of the game, makes a very clear statement on the matter which I will now quote. "Typically, “hardcore mode” in action RPGs involves permadeath. A character killed in this mode cannot be accessed any more. In Path of Exile, slain hardcore characters revert to the parent non-hardcore league. [emphasis added] This system encourages non-hardcore players to try the hardcore game mode, while still permanently removing hardcore characters from the economy [of the hardcore mode, rather than the whole game] when they die."

If even the official information supplied by the developer of the game is not sufficient grounds for removing Path of Exile from the aforementioned list, please advise me as to what would constitute such.

And yes, I understand it's just a little irrelevant article that's not worthy of having big-shot admins devote any of their precious time to, but still, maybe you could find it in you to take a look and fix your colleague's mistake? Pretty please? I really need that username (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• For some reason, when I first saw this account, I mistakenly was thinking of another user and didn't realize that PathOfExile was evading their block. Then when I saw this message, my brain still wasn't functioning well and I thought "I didn't ban (block) this account", and finally a lightbulb went on. The account is now indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Bullrangifer protection

How can I communicate with this user if I cannot post on his/her User:talk page? I will NOT disclose my personal e-mail to him/her since that violates my privacy.

He/she deleted my 3-4 different edits on the Cannabidiol page in one singular edit without first reading my edits. He/she only said that I had to read WP:MEDRS and that Wikipedia does not use primary sources as evidence. I had already read WP:MEDRS and it says WP "generally does not use primary sources". Basically, primary sources can be used but only in a proper way. I had mentioned the use of the primary source in my edit notes.

I re-posted much of it on the Cannabidiol:Talk page and justified my positions. Only one post used a primary source, but in an effective, non-biased that only suggests there is evidence that supports a conclusion, but more inquiry is necessary.

I feel the need to challenge him/her directly because his/her deletion edits are destructive, irresponsible and disrespectful to other users. It took 4 hours to construct and edit those separate posts and he/she deleted ALL of them, forcing me to have to sift through all the information instead of just reverting my posts individually and only the posts that violated some policy/rule.

So how do I contact this user without using e-mail to tell him/her if he/she wants to debate these topics that the discussions are available, and if he/she has nothing to say that I will re-add my edits?

DystoniaPatient (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I have a talk page, just like all other editors. You can post there, but since this is about the article, it should happen on the article's talk page, not here or by email. We're not at war here and we can work this out. We just need other editors to notice the conversation and add their opinions. When I get more time, I'll return to the page. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I did begin my response to you on the article's talk page, and agree in part, and have even deleted that section in the article. You haven't responded or continued to explain/defend the other parts of your edits. You need to keep a discussion going. There is no rush, and nothing is truly lost. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the semi-protection also blocks new editors, not just IPs. I'm going to ask 2/0 to go ahead and lift the semi-protection for a while. It may not be necessary right now, and it can always be reinstated if IP and sock harassment starts again. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)  Done - 2/0 (cont.) 14:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a tiff about a source

Hi 2/0, would you mind having a look at Talk:Acupuncture#Summarize, toward the end when RexxS comments? I've filed at WT:MEDRS, and discussion will be at Talk:Acupuncture#Arbitrary break for more input.

RexxS and QuackGuru are reading Ernst '11 (PMID 21440191) incorrectly, taking a sentence out of context: see User:Middle_8/Ernst-11 or just grab the paper (email me for a copy if you like). I'm 100% certain I'm right and this isn't personal. Nor is this to be see as canvassing, because it's simply about proper reading of a paper, and I know you're clueful, and are not going to support one or the other parties involved just based on whom you might like better. Sorry if I sound arrogant but after all there's only one right way to read the paper... Best regards, Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 17:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC) revised for tone 17:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh goody, a tiff about close reading - you must really love me. I should get a chance to sort through that lengthy and contentious thread this evening or possibly as late as tomorrow. In the meantime, WT:MED might get more eyes than WT:MEDRS. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I'm so dense it scares me -- it took me awhile to grasp the irony of your first sentence. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 07:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This should be simple: I will email Edzard and ask him if this is a correct representation of his meaning. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Great (both re Ernst and 2/0's eagerness to look at this). I improved my summary and discussion at User:Middle_8/Ernst-11 (and sorry for the hassle of reading the earlier version). It's really simple: "Should we cite Ernst's statement "real acupuncture was no better than sham" as being the conclusion of his review per se, or not?" Answer: No, we shouldn't, because from context he's talking about newer, recent trials, not the large number of reviews he's examining. However, he is predicting that these newer trials -- with their null results -- anticipate what future research holds: little or no specific effects. So far he's been proven correct.

In a poetic way, "real acupuncture was no better than sham" is an accurate statement of his opinion on where things are headed. And that may account for some of the indignant confusion we're seeing at talk. Still, I don't think it's that hard a call, and I perceive a degree of tendentiousness. But that's "non-specific" in the sense that we see tendentiousness there fairly predictably. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 09:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't find this dismissive comment encouraging -- this was my reply -- but with patience and multiple eyes we'll sort it. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 07:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment at WT:MEDRS! FYI -- as I just mentioned to another editor who commented there -- I made a small but important correction to the wording of the question at hand: here. It doesn't bear upon what the phrase "real acupuncture was no better than sham" refers to. But the difference between a statement being a conclusion of the paper vs. the conclusion of the paper is a difference worth noting, and may or may not impact how you choose to word your remarks at WT:MEDRS. cheers, Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 07:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Protection against moving

Hi, It seems you have protected Dersim Province against moving. But if you check the history, you'll see that the original title is Tunceli Province and it still is. (Please see[10]). The title should be Tunceli Province and not Dersim Province. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I protected both pages because people were disruptively moving them and copying the content back and forth without first coming to a consensus regarding the proper title. I strongly urge you to take part in the discussion now taking place at Talk:Dersim Province#It's officially called Tunceli not Dersim. Whenever that discussion resolves, a post to Wikipedia:Requested moves can take care of any page move that may be indicated. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Abortion/breast cancer

Heads up! RoyBoy, the wiki editor responsible for most of the material you rightfully deleted from the "Abortion Breast Cancer Hypothesis" article, has left a long comment on that article's talk page, and may be planning to repost some of the materiel you deleted. Check the article frequently and stand by to take action! Goblinshark17 (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. Do please remember, though, that we editors are all in this project together to improve the encyclopedia despite our differences of opinion. We need to treat each other with collegiality and respect. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion–breast_cancer_hypothesis/Archive_4#Mixed_results_in_Lead

When you originally brought up primary sourcing objection, I replied with my position and a question mark... why didn't you reply? Just curious. - RoyBoy 18:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

At this late remove I really could not say, but at a guess either it was because the discussion had moved on before I saw your reply or because I try not to add to the general noise level once I have made my point. ::shrug:: - 2/0 (cont.) 19:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Froglich

You should take a look at User talk:Froglich where he's calling for you to be de-sysoped. Did you use the right blocking template? Your reason for the block wasn't 3RR but just edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops, my bad, he's accusing you of blocking for 3RR. And you saw that. He's pretty clueless, wants everyone blocked and banned. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That looks pretty much like I expected based on their editing and comments; ah well. Thank you for the heads up. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Loved this: "specifically calling me out by name at a time when you know that I cannot comment due to the block your comrade-in-arms has placed upon me -- a sneaky little shit Niedermeyer tactic if ever)". Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I had to look that one up - I think I have not seen that movie since college. Good times, good times. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I see you two (Hello, Dougweller!) are having fun here, despite proceeding on the basis of an absurd lie. What is edit-warring? Let's check and see: Vandalism? Nope; didn't do that. Overriding policies? Nope; didn't do that. ...and that pretty much leaves 3RR, in this case, my three edits on the 19th, 25th and 26th (a seven-day stretch) hardly qualify while Gaba was pushing WP:gaming the system with four in a two-day period. I consider your behavior in this matter to be poor.--Froglich (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Mass removal of sections containing anything relating to US official support of an FTO

Is there a reason you prefer to entirely censor any reference to national security officials whom have provided material support to an FTO? The articles were repeatedly revised to meet an impossible quality standard. How precisely can you propose WP as an objective entity when the only allowable reference to these peoples actions is to remove all references to it? Moreover, some of the instances you reverted back to are far far less objective, worded in a very leading manner, etc-- seriously, one of them references the group as a "terrorist" group, implying that they don't partake in terrorism or where not listed on the FTO. It's all going back in as soon as the lock expires. This isn't about being pro-Iran, this is about being anti-having another 11-sept or Libya embassy attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.3.190 (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please peruse the Biographies of living persons policy. We cannot have an article about a living person (or any other article, really) turned into a coatrack or attack piece.

I have, and while I can agree the initial creations of the sections were NNPOV; I repeatedly revised them until they were quite neutral in tone and the sources were reliable. However, what exists at present in some of the articles that is considered acceptable is absolutely not neutral and very leading and attempts to distance the people from their own actions. Throughout what is being deemed as acceptable is best termed as misleading and weasel-wording, "so and so was accused of supporting" when they pen articles in support. Or "person argued that only US and Iran", which is accurate that they said this, but implies that it was a truthful statement when it in fact was not. These articles were repeatedly revised to meet the standards, and then based on false political pretenses they were removed. They will be re-added, you might as well lock the pages forever. I've had my entire life destroyed over the past 3 years for being vocal about our leaders actions, this is unlikely to change on something as trivial as disingenous editing and censorship by tinpot wikipedia dictators.

172.56.2.36 (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You're turning biographies into coatracks for your views on MEK and misrepresenting sources to attack those individuals. It's not acceptable, nor is your declaration that you'll return for more once protection expires. I've blocked this latest block-evading IP. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

ABC draft

Hello's... been working on it here: User:RoyBoy/sandbox/ABC_history. The Early studies section is getting there (3rd draft); Current studies (2nd draft); Recall bias (untouched). Main query, as I've developed chronological narrative it seems necessary to merge Recall bias into the other sections. Do you agree? Also, I put Spontaneous section as close as I can to Rosenberg mention without interrupting the flow. If you're game :), you can comment on the notes... but for now its the likely merge which has held me up. - RoyBoy 02:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see you working on this. I look forward to reading it, though I may be a few days. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on noticeboard

2over0 Hi, I'm not sure if this is the correct way to request comment from another admin, but I'm not satisfied with the unfair & misleading manner in which an admin has evaluated my report on edit warring/enabled the reported user's behavior, and I'd like for another admin to give their input (please take note of the comments section, and the primary issue). I'd really appreciate it, and please let know the correct way to go about it if this isn't.--Lpdte77 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Bias in ABC rewrite

So, should I take this as a "yes" to merge? - RoyBoy 01:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Request to be a confirmed user

Dear 2over0,

Good day,

I kindly request to be added to the confirmed user group.

Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emadshoosh (talk • contribs) 13:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Neisha Pratt listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Neisha Pratt. Since you had some involvement with the Neisha Pratt redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Needle promo-poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Needle promo-poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

ABC diff

No you're wrong, "not saying anything other than "some personalities had a public discussion about a controversial topic"" it explicitly demonstrates bias in the treatment of the subject with basic journalistic principles being violated. - RoyBoy 23:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day meetup at University of Florida on January 15

Remember when you asked to be notified about the next Wikipedia meetup in Gainesville, Florida? Good news! I'm organizing a meetup to celebrate Wikipedia Day at the University of Florida Marston Science Library from 4pm to 7pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2019. You can find more about the event on its event page -- I hope you'll be able to join us!

If you wish to opt-out of future notifications, please remove yourself from the list of interested users. Alternatively, to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Thank you so much for your attention! -- Gaurav (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:YOUARENOTALAWYER listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:YOUARENOTALAWYER. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:YOUARENOTALAWYER redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Art+Feminism editathon in Gainesville this Saturday, March 16, 2019

The Harn Museum of Art in Gainesville, Florida is organizing an Art+Feminism editathon this Saturday, March 16 from 11am to 4:30pm. You can find out more on their Outreach Dashboard or on the Harn's website.

If you wish to opt-out of future notifications, please remove yourself from the list of interested users. Alternatively, to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. -- Gaurav (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)