User talk:Mccready/Archive 3

Hello

{{Smile}}

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! BTW, I saw you on the page of SlimVirgin.

--Bhadani 15:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Maxwell Article

I respect your position, Mccready, but why do you feel this particular individual (G. Patrick Maxwell) is worthy of inclusion? Would you please explain?MollyBloom 04:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I added additional research, which supports my contention that while Dr. Maxwell may be a good surgeon, he is not notable in the encyclopedic sense. I think you might be interested in reading an updated history of the lattisimus flap, an overview of major achievements from 1897 to present. There is a rundown of the notable contributions in the last 30 years. Dr. Maxwell's name is not even among the many surgeons listed. I must say that this was an interesting article,. I would like to find out more about this procedure myself. But back to the issue of notability and encyclopedic merit, Dr. Maxwell simply does not qualify for this. There was one citation to his work on the lat flap in the 1978 journal, but no other citations, It is not that his work was bad, at all, It is just that in the context of the field, his work is no more notable than many many academics./clinicians, which I had been saying all along,

As to the 'moral judgment'....It is significant that the issue involved lack of informed consent regarding the use of silicone breast implants. It is more than a mere morals issue. But his legal (and other) problems aside, this doctor is simply not that notable in the field. I'm sure he is 'prominent' but not an 'internationally renowned expert' as many of the surgeons I found when I researched these areas.MollyBloom 06:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jumping in on Chiro

I found this whole discussion interesting. I honestly don't know what to think about chiros, and for many years was afraid to go to one, for fear of really screwing something up,. When I was sick a couple years ago, my stress level was very high, my muscles tense and back hurt. I went to a local chiro who did a lot of adjustments, some muscle exercises, heating pad (essentially) and then a massage. I have to admit I came out of there feeling like a million bucks. But the relief was short term, as is any good massage, heat etc. And it makes some sense that the benefit is relief of short term back pain. I also saw that article that was mentioned. But I don't disminimize the value of that kind of exercise, stretching, massage, and heat applications. For a long time when I was very ill (with MS and lupus flares) I found this to be a lifesaver. My stress level instantly reduced. I haven't followed all of the discussion, but I believe at least some type of Chiro has a place in conjunction with 'traditional med'. I wouldn't go to chiro for carpel tunnel, or herniated disk etc. Come to think of it, I wouldn't go to a surgeon for those either, unless it became utterly unbearable. I have the same concern that no surgery is often better than scrxymewed up surgery. MollyBloom 07:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)::

Saw your 'rules'. Anecdotal evidence is not an oxymoron. It may not be very good evidence, but it is evidence. Eg it should not affect the admission of evidence, but rather the weight it is given. It is often anecdotal reports that prompt closer study. I probably am looking at this as a lawyer, or maybe an engineer, I don't know, but I wouldn't discount this so readily.

You have a problem with creationsim? Don't you know that the very existance of geolgoical information is merely evidence that the devil is real and present? The devil just put those sedimentary and volcanic layers there to deceive us. The first time I heard this as a young engineer in Salt Lake City (NOT where I am from), I had to sit down. I was not working around high school dropouts, but PhD engineers. Having grown up the daughter of a geologist, I had some difficulty swallowing this. I had even more difficulty believing that anyone with a high school education would believe it. But life is strange, and the power of religion even stranger,MollyBloom 07:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As to UFOs -- you haven't seen my 3 month old black toy poodle puppy flying through one room to another. He frequently is an unidentified flying object.MollyBloom 07:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So a pox on your rigid rules. How could we exclude massage and good stretching, the comfort of knowing that we cannot rely on what we see and observe, and flying black hairballs? What a dreary life you must lead.MollyBloom 07:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

More on Chiro's

Presumably the previous chiro commenter has his tounge in his cheek, which is good for us, but I find that the university educated biologists who 'believe' in say 'horizontal evolution' changes, is a yes, (see English Moths changing colour) but speciation and advances in complexity such developing eyes from photo detectors is a no way. These poeple sometimes fail to see the tongue.

I too have been to a Chiro to get something fixed, and indeed he helped when the doctor had up to that time not. Massage and relaxation are wondefully effective in allowing things to move back into place. He moved all sorts of other stuff for other 'reasons' those things move around in my back all by themselves whenever I stretch. In fact the long term proactive cure has been to condition myself to stretch regularly during the day and let things slide back before the muscles spasm. The doctors correctly prescribed medication to relieve the spasm. The problem with that was the medication was non specific and nowhere near strong enough for the job and by comparisson massage was a much more targeted treatement(a magic bullet). That doctors in my experience seem unwilling to prescribe massage, a well proven targetted relaxation treatement, instead of a non specific drug, is either an economic imperative of the health system, a social imperative from the patient such as when antibiotics are overprescribed for viruses, or a potential problem for their own scientific status/bias. This last point if true would be pounced on by pseudo scientists as evidence of "we are as scientific as X" where it is only evidence that X is unscientific and hence may be headed for categorisation as pseudo science. Thus although his effect produced via a really good massage was what I needed, most of what he said and his use of magnets was scary pseudo science as was his false 'proof' to me of the magnets effectiveness. When I purposefully was not weakened by the presence of the magnet beside my deltoid he seemed genuinely perplexed and rather than distress him further on the repeated demonstration I was compliant with the socially engineered trick. If I had not been, the extra suddeness of vigor with which the downward force was applied to my arm when the magnet was present would have hurt. In the time since I have discovered a methodology for applying heat and support to achieve the same ends without either the mumbo jumbo or the risk he would move the wrong thing as well as fix my back. As is probably apparent I fully endorse your views of labelling things pseudo science and will refer to it as a resource, to guide me. Delete some or all of this comment as space requires. AccurateOne 04:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks. I agree with you about western medicine too. People often mistakenly accuse me of supporting it and supporting drug companies. Far from it. I apply the same principles to it as to pseudoscience. (I took a space out of your post. A line beginning with a space creates a box. Mccready 11:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment left on SlimVirgin's talk

Hello Mccready, I removed the comment that you left on SlimVirgin's talk page. I did it for two reasons. First, it was rude. Telling someone that you are glad that they are leaving is uncivil. (Also it is wrong to add back comments left by another editor that break WP:AGF.) The second reason is that you were recently given a short block from editing Wikipedia web site for wikistalking SlimVirgin. It was discussed on AN/I and agreed that the block was the correct action based on your behavior. The comment left on SV talk page is another example of tendentious editing.

Mccready, I am concerned that you are not responding well to the many editors that leave you good, fair suggestions. You need to take their advice. I fear that the people that are reaching out to help you will give up, thinking that it is a lost cause. Take care, FloNight ^talk 13:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Flo, accuracy is important when creating an encyclopedia and you have demonstrated your lack in this respect. I DID NOT say I was glad she left. The other comments were added back in after discussion with Bish and Henry Flower (who did not delete them again as he had done previoulsy). You are in error in assuming my editing and communication has not changed from the time of the block (which roughtly 20% of users opposed in fact). I am concerned that inaccurate comments like yours are unhelpful. Please show me an example of what you would consider a bad edit since the contentious block made under the new definition of wikistalking (ie sans harassment). Let me make it clear again. At NO stage did I harass SV. The material you removed was legitimate criticsm and every piece of it was true - as the record shows. Mccready 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, it is probably best to agree to disagree for now. Through no fault of yours, I don't have the emotional stamina to discuss this with you today. From our email discussion I think you understand why. I'll be in touch in a couple of day. Take care, FloNight ^talk 21:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

FloNight, I am at this point with McCready as well. He consistently leaves abusive posts for editors that he disagrees with on the article which I work on, Chiropractic. I find him uncooperative, rude and egocentric. He has a "my way or the highway" approach and in his eyes can never be wrong. I have tried to help him, but that only seems to motivate him to get nastier. I fear the retribution he will have for me just for leaving this post, but I feel this needs to be said. McCready, we are trying to help you to help make Wikipedia friendlier. Please help us help you. Levine2112 17:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The notion of consistent abuse is hyperbole in the extreme to coin a tautology. To illustrate your claim Levine 2112 I think you'd have to post at least three examples of ABUSIVE posts. I doubt if you could find one. I don't go in for abuse. The challenge is there for you to meet or to apologise. Happy editing. Mccready 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You doubt that I could find one? Really? Most recently, here is one:#1 Even out of context this one is incredibley inciteful and condescending. Here's the main point, McCready. There are a lot of editors who have a beef with your bully-tactics and know-it-all-ism, as evidenced by your talk pages which are full of complaints relating to such. My advice to you: Take a hint. Levine2112 22:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Levine2112, you jumped on Flo's erroneous comments like the greek chorus entering stage right, squeak squeak. And this is the only evidence of abusive comments??? If my rigorous logic is interpreted as bullying and know it all - welcome to the joys of editing an encyclopedia cooperatively. After 6 requests and after your consistent (that's consistent) inability to provide evidence asked for on the chiropractic page and after your consistently (that's consistenly) reverting without evidence, this is what I wrote:

::Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear Levine2112, all I'm asking is for ONE study. You CLAIM all support you. Well, please, pretty please, give one. One would be enough, only one, not ten, not twenty, not a hundred, not hundreds. Just one. Why is that hard for you? And also, the problem with the Cooperstein link remains (this is the seventh time now - has anybody got a copy of the study - if that is indeed THE one that Levine2112 wants to rely on. I might add that even the category listing for it in pubmed is erroneous – it is not randomized or controlled. Meantime I'm placing disputed in or perhpaps a big big tag at the top might be more appropriate? We've come a long way here, dear Levine2112. Don't blow it.Mccready 04:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And you call that abusive. Well I'm not sure abusive is quite the right term but I can see how it might upset you and I'll try harder not to hurt your feelings in the heat of the kitchen in future. But I do notice you have now changed the charge to one of being "inciteful" (a word I do not understand) and "condescending". Given the altered nature of your accusation, may I take that as an apology? .... Happy editing. Mccready 01:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you really this oblivious to your rudeness? How many people need to tell you this before you believe it? There have been enough users who have complained about you to have a scientific consensus that you are rude, and yet your defense mechanism is on high to protect your ego. Please be more considerate and less egotistical.

Oh, and the fact that you have made one request six times and I have given you the same answer each time (and you still don't get it) is more evidence of your stubbornness. Levine2112 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Legitimate debate over the boundaries of pseudoscience

Hi Kevin, this is copied from my comments on the Reiki talk page with minor modifications...

"Pseudoscience" means "something misrepresented as being scientific" (i.e., as being in compliance with the scientific method). Some have pointed to Reiki proponents' use of the term "science" as evidence of such misrepresentation, but that logic fails to take into account that the term has a generic meaning beyond the scientific method. It can mean simply an "Organized body of knowledge; any particular art or discipline"[1]. (Variations on this definition appear in other dictionaries; e.g. Merriam-Webster has "knowledge obtained through study or practice".) Thus, a Reiki practitioner may legitimately refer to Reiki as a "science" and simply mean that it is systematic. Similarly, TCM uses the term "theory" (which like "science" has a generic sense) and is systematic, but is widely regarded as being a different paradigm than science. The issue of misrepresentation has a wide variety of ramifications; these are a couple more obvious ones.

It's clear enough, then, why someone might object to the term pseudoscience being applied to their practice. Who likes to be falsely accused of misrepresentation?

This issue serves as another reminder of why Wikipedia's three pillars of NPOV, verifiability and NOR are important. Legitimate debate can exist as to whether something is really misprepresented as being scientific, even though some cases are more obvious than others. I still firmly believe that classifying something as a pseudoscience requires NPOV wording and a citation, no matter how obvious the classification may appear to be, and no matter how much the alleged pseudoscience reeks of bullshit. Remember, if it's that obvious or noteworthy, someone will have said so already.... thx, Jim Butler 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" means "something misrepresented as being scientific" (i.e., as being in compliance with the scientific method). This doesn't go far enough. Misrepresenting the scientific method isn't included here. Also, while "Science" might be a generic term, "scientific" is hardly generic. -- Newhoggy | Talk 01:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice try but you fall into error and here's some reasons why. 1) Yes there are multiple defn's of science, but the one that's relevant here refers to that of the scientific method which boils down to ‘knowledge’ as opposed to ‘belief’ or ‘opinion’. 2) Many reiki believers try very hard to explain their beliefs in terms of the modern meaning of science, NOT the ancient meaning (art, practice). My hypothesis is that they try this for exactly the same reason that most religionists accept evolution - they don't like to be seen by the rest of society to be wrong. Let's face it, we are in the middle of an historic struggle, which began with the enlightenment, to see the world for what it is, not for what our myths, misconceptions, old wives tales and ancestors might have thought or hoped it was. 3) you are mistaken Jim to think that scientists will spend their time whacking each new pseudoscience on the head (as we know such beliefs crop up all the time) - see my Editing principles for pseudoscience articles. Therefore the fact that some authority has yet to make a pronouncement doesn't not preclude us as writers of an encyclopedia from using the word pseudoscience. Newhoggy I didn't understand your point but if it regards whether the misrepresentation is deliberate or not, then that is not the point. jim, whether people making the misrepresentation feel hurt that we point it out is not the point. Our duty is to the readers, not to the feelings of those who hold mistaken beliefs. Newhoggy, the misrepresentation is not OF the scientific method, it's OF reiki as meeting the definition of a science. I can't quite see what you're driving at re scientifc/science. Mccready 01:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: scientific/science, I was pointing out that even if Jim's view on the generic meaning of the word 'science' was adopted, Reiki would fail to be excluded from pseudoscience because more specific words like 'scientific' are used in the Reiki community. -- Newhoggy | Talk 03:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Newhoggy, yes, excellent point; I agree that misrepresenting the scientific method is an important aspect of PS. One sees it a great deal, e.g., from creationists who misrepresent the nature of disagreement and debate as part of science. It's pretty endemic, unfortunately. See "Teach the controversy". I imagine you're correct about Reiki; my point was about getting past the labels used and examining the substance of the assertions. TCM is a better example that I'm much more familar with. More on the general issue of misrepresentation, and the use of the PS label, below in my reply to Kevin. cheers, Jim Butler 08:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a common theme that many users over the past few months have been stressing that is seemingly going above your head, Kevin, is that a scientific point of view is exactly that: scientific, not neutral. It's great that you have such a firm belief in science and the scientific method, which has afterall come such a long way over the past 100 years or so. But you have to remember that science doesn't have an answer for everything yet, there are many things which are not even nearly close to fully explained by science because the theories and testing methods aren't comprehensive enough yet. But that doesn't mean that what we can't test doesn't exist, it just means that science isn't there yet. It is always important to recognise the limitations of any system that we use to evaluate our surroundings and our experience of the world. You have chosen to adopt "science" as your way of understanding the world. That's great, but you need to acknowledge the limitations of such a perspective, and you also need to acknowledge that it's not neutral, nor is it a comprehensive way of describing the world, nor is it appropriate to edit this encyclopedia to reflect your bias. It is quite a statement that you make when you say (implicitly - by adopting a scientific world view) that anything that can't be explained by science doesn't exist. This is the message that you put across to other people with your language and your editing style - whether that is your intention or not. You've rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way in the past (including me), but I have noticed a change in your editing style over the past month - which I certainly welcome. I can see that you're wanting to build some bridges here, but you are sending very strong mixed messages (your pseudoscience section on your userpage for example). This is just a piece of friendly advice to chew over and hopefully help you to get a better understanding of some of the "anti-mccready" hype that is going on - take it or leave it. Most of the criticisms seems justified, afterall you have quite a strong personality. Maybe you enjoy creating scandal and controversy, in which case you probably won't want to change too much anyhow.

Your pseudoscience section on your userpage has some spelling mistakes and is hypocritical in places. I'm willing to give some feedback on this if you're interested. Happy editing, hope you enjoy your long weekend. Piekarnia 06:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, this is in reply to your post above dated 01:51, 6 June 2006. The point I'm making is that the issue of misrepresentation is not always trivial. Courts of law and expert witnesses are sometimes needed to resolve allegations of misrepresentation. Not all skeptics, or all scientists, agree on the list of things that are pseudoscientific. Robert Todd Carroll calls acupuncture (TCM) theory pseudoscientific because it "confuse(s) metaphysical claims with empirical claims", but many would disagree that TCM theory is represented as being scientific. So who's "right" in that case? Take your pick, but on Wikipedia the solution is, AFAIK, simply to use NPOV language and source our claims.

I have quite a bit of sympathy with your staunch defense of rationality as opposed to superstition. I live in a country where Flying Spaghetti Monsterism isn't just a joke, but a pointed satirical commmentary on the thinking of millions of people and their attempts to control public education. This is also why I believe it's particularly important not to stoop to the level of the other side. (As the saying goes, "Never argue with a moron: first he'll drag you down to his level, then beat you with experience.") If we foresake rational analysis, what have we got? Yet some of the more impassioned skeptical types (whose brains partake of the same potential physiological quirks as their opponents, and of us all) do seem to fall into the mood of a religious war and "take no prisoners" among the heretics, rhetorically speaking.

I did read your essay. Your failure to distinguish between the propositions "the moon is made of blue cheese" and "acupuncture is more than a placebo" suggests to me that you've become so impassioned by the rationality-vs-belief struggle that you are overlooking fundamental distinctions, such as evidence-of-absence not being the same as absence-of-evidence. No one debates or researches whether the moon is made of blue cheese. Plenty of people do so with acupuncture. What can one say about people who lump the two in the same basket? Or who lump baraminology and trigger points in the same basket? They certainly seem uninfected by the germ of rational detachment that is the hallmark of good science.

You're intelligent enough to see that there exist shades of grey when it comes to the issue of misrepresentation. What are you going to do when you want to say "X is pseudoscience" and another editor disagrees and requests NPOV wording and a source? Engage in edit warring? Or defer to what Wikipedia says quite clearly? best regards, Jim Butler 09:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

ChiroTalk

I noticed recently that Chirotalk has started its own self-promoting article on WP. I nominated it for deletion. I thought you might want to chime in with your thoughts here. TheDoctorIsIn 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

anecdotal evidence

Is not an oxymoron. It may be circumstantial, and weak, but it is still evidence, in the classic sense of the term. It is often what initiates further research.MollyBloom 06:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please watch

Will you please watch amygdala. Torri 01:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Manheimer?

Hi Kevin, hope all is well with you. What was the deal with Manheimer?[2][3]

cheers --Jim Butler^(talk) 04:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

copy of email correspondence with him:

At 21/03/2006, you wrote:

       Dear Kevin, 
       Thank you for your interest in this project; however, responding to you has taken up time that my employer has paid for, and I can no longer commit time to deal with your enquiries, which are not trivial to respond to. I would be willing to provide the dataset to a researcher in a university healthcare research department who has experience of conducting, analysing and interpreting systematic reviews. If you wish to pursue your enquiries, then I regret that I cannot respond to you unless you collaborate with a recognised expert in the field. 
       
       Best wishes, 
       Eric Manheimer 

---

       Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:53 PM 
       To: Eric Manheimer 
       Subject: RE: acupunture 
       
       thanks eric 
       I'm now much better informed 
      
       I'd be very grateful if you could send me the dataset, I'd like to run it taking out the poor quality studies. 
      
       cheers 
       Kevin 

---

       From: Eric Manheimer 
       Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:05 AM 
       To: Kevin McCready 
       Subject: RE: acupunture 
       
      
       Greetings, 
       
       We included this article because it met our pre-specified eligibility criteria.  In systematic reviews, it is standard to set an a priori inclusion criteria and include all articles that meet it.  Incidentally this article did not use a standard pain measure and was not included in our primary analysis on pain.  This article had little if any effect on our overall conclusions.  Regards, Eric Manheimer 

---

Sent: Wed 3/1/2006 4:22 PM

       To: Eric Manheimer 
       Subject: RE: acupunture 
      
       hi Eric 
      
       I haven't heard back from you on this one. I'm keen at least to 
       understand your links to Cochrane. 
      
       Cheers 
       Kevin 

---

From: Eric Manheimer

       Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:05 AM 
       To: Kevin McCready 
       Subject: RE: acupunture 
       
      
       Greetings, 
       
       We included this article because it met our pre-specified eligibility criteria.  In systematic reviews, it is standard to set an a priori inclusion criteria and include all articles that meet it.  Incidentally this article did not use a standard pain measure and was not included in our primary analysis on pain.  This article had little if any effect on our overall conclusions.  Regards, Eric Manheimer

       ----------------- 
       I wrote 17 Feb 2006 
       ---------------- 
       thanks Eric 
      
       much appreciated 
      
       table 4 was hard to read (being split they way it was). do you have 
       an html link for it? 
      
       I couldn't work out, given you've included poor quality stuff like 
       (Zhang et al 2002) how you could conclude "Acupuncture effectively 
       relieves chronic low back pain." 
      
       Could Zhang's work be fairly described as properly randomised and 
       properly controlled? 
      
       I gained the impression from your website that you were part of the 
       Cochrane Collaboration. Could you tell me how? 
      
       thanks again 
      
       Kevin

Hmmmm, too bad he wouldn't share the dataset with you, although his conditions for sharing it are within accepted ethical boundaries for scientists. Thanks - Jim Butler^(talk) 00:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that if we can't examine the data, we can't take his word for it. And since this is THE study Ernst quotes, .... Mccready 12:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered trying to collaborate with university-affiliated researchers on this? I understand that since you believe this is an extraordinary claim, you believe it requires extraordinary evidence. Certainly the review meets the standards of WP:RS, as does Cochrane's meta-analysis (2006). Bandolier doesn't seem to have looked at acu for back pain since 1998. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 22:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:DR

Hi Kevin, please don't revert without discussion as on acupressure; it's contrary to WP:DR. Happy to discuss substantively. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There's been lots of discussion. I don't revert without discussion unless there is good reason, which, given Hugh's and Fyslees reversion, exists in this case. As to Manheimmer, yes I've asked other academics - they don't want to get involved. Disgusting. Mccready 08:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And more discussion may yet be needed. As Warren noted below, there is never a good reason to revert without discussion unless it's simple vandalism. On acupressure, I see no edits from "Hugh" or "Fyslee", and believe you have confused this with another page.

Please read WP:DR carefully. Your edit-warring behavior is escalating and not helping reach consensus. The choice is yours whether to comply with WP policy and discuss as other editors are willing, or escalate and possibly force editors to pursue further mechanisms as described in WP:DR. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 17:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kev, I noticed recent changes to the Chiropractic article you have been making lately. Regarding the NACM, I have been seeking information regarding their legitimacy. Talk/RfC Do you have some new information that would qualify them as a legitmate "association"? You know, like the list of members, officers, something about elections, seminars, or official recognition. I have been trying to locate this information, but have been unsuccessful in this endeavour. If you have this information, please share it with us so we can evaluate it. Thanks Steth 11:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I see someone else has already been here today to request that you don't revert without discussion. You did the same thing on Bill Gates, today, and I've reverted your edit. The important thing here is that if you're going to use Popups to do reversion, you should only use it in cases of clear vandalism. What's occuring on this page is a content dispute, not vandalism, and as such the positions of interested editors needs to be worked out on the talk page, not simply reverted without explanation. Please participate in the process per what's required of us by Wikipedia:Consensus. Thanks. -/- Warren 16:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Warren. My mistake. But don't you make the mistake of assuming someone else's lies are fact.Mccready 16:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal attack in regards to my revert of your revert(et al). I really appreciated being called a liar. I was reverting because your deletion did not have any justification in the summary(just a revert via pop-ups) I back checked edit summaries to make sure.

As a kindness I'm asking you to please not attack me personally, as it was really unkind, and include an edit summary with reverts not related to vandalism. Thanks. i kan reed 16:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You accused me of not explaining a revert. The explanation was there in the earlier edit summary. It is you who owe me an apology for the untrue accusation. Mccready 16:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because you explained a revert once doesn't mean that your argument forever trumps any response someone might make. If someone addresses your revert with a reason, which was the case here, then under WP:DR you need to respond. It's inappropriate to just revert w/o comment, which in effect says "your reasons are not worthy of any comment whatsoever". That doesn't move things forward and can appear hostile. i kan reed is right, and it's quite uncivil to say that his legimitate objections to improper WP:DR are "stupid lies". Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 16:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, you're still using popups to revert good-faith edits and not giving reasons: First you added cat:pseudosci for acu w/ explanation that mention in article suffices for categorization. Then I removed it, arguing that cat should not endorse one POV over other arg's for acu being scientific. (Another editor then improperly used rollback, and I reverted, addressing his most recent objections asking for RCT's.) Then you just used popups to revert, without addressing my overall point that not all topics with elements of both pseudoscience and science should be in category:pseudoscience. Same dynamic on acupressure, too. I'm reverting both and look forward to your discussing, which is a basic foundational aspect of WP:DR. Have you read WP:CG and Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people, and do you disagree with their application of NPOV to categories? Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 16:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerns

Mccready, I'm concerned that you're causing unneccessary strife with some of your edits. I've not been watching much, but here is an example of a recent edit with a needlessly rude edit summary. Others have expressed concerns about excessive reverts. I remember trying to defend you from blocks a few months back, saying we needed to relax, assume good faith, and give you some time to learn more about how things get done here. For the record, I don't doubt your good faith- I think you're trying to make the encyclopedia more accurate, which is certainly a desirable goal. However I am doubting that you're going about it the right way. I just wanted to ask you again to be extra nice- especially to people you disagree with. If a situation were to come up where someone blocked you for incivility, I'd be far less inclined to speak in your defense now than I was previously. You'll do more good for the project if you manage to edit without pissing so many people off. Friday (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The histories for acupressure and acupuncture show a string of edits and reverts that violate Help:Edit summary, [[WP:CIV] and WP:DR. I have been more than happy to discuss these issues substantively, but Kevin has largely disregarded my attempts at conversation. Reverting without discussion is never appropriate except in cases of simple vandalism. I asked Kevin to stop above and he's only escalated. Jim Butler^(talk) 20:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is ruder then neccessary also. Really, if you don't change your approach, I'd be not at all surprised to you being blocked for repeated uncivility. Friday (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. HawkerTyphoon 16:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And please discuss any further reverts to Naturopathic medicine on that page's talk page, thank you. --apers0n 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please could you say here why you refuse to discuss your recent controversial changes to the Naturopathic medicine article on that article's talk page (or anywhere else)? Thank you. --apers0n 16:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Pls stop wikistalking me. There is nothing controversial about applying the lable pseudoscience when supported by sources. There are plenty of sources, so do your reading. Mccready 13:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of apers0n wikistalking. It is generally accepted WP policy to discuss edits on talk pages, per WP:DR, and this editor's attempts to engage discussion appear completely appropriate, unless there's something I've missed. In general, as noted before, popups aren't appropriate for reverting good-faith edits. There are legitimate objections to the use of category:pseudoscience, mentioned on Category Talk:Pseudoscience, in the above section on WP:DR here on your talk page, and on Talk:Acupuncture. The latter two were responses by me to an earlier series of edits you made, and you never responded to them. If you're not willing to discuss edits, then you probably shouldn't be making them, since civil dicussion is a foundational principle here. Kevin, you have a lot to offer to WP, and it would be much better for all if you'd engage the same dispute-resolution process that all editors are expected to. Best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture Jim. You know I hate repeating myself. anyone suggesting i haven't addressed the issue properly obvioulsy can't read. The issue has been extensively covered on PS talk. I was talking about travisthurston the wikistalker. he even an abusive email to me. the guy is a fanatical beleiver in altmed and also has the cheek to conclude, illogically, that I don't understand altmed. Mccready 17:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; there was no way to tell that you were referring to travisthurston above.

On use of the pseudoscience category: your saying "anyone suggesting i haven't addressed the issue properly obvioulsy can't read" is not civil or helpful. Friend Kevin, I both can read and have not seen you address my objections to the use of this category on certain pages, cf. WP's categorization guidelines at WP:CG. I haven't seen you post at Talk:Pseudoscience about it either, and it's not clear what specific discussion you're referring to there. Perhaps you could answer specifically? Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not Travisthurston. Please give references for your sources on the talk page of the article before making edits such as this. --apers0n 06:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As requested many times on this page please do not use Popups to revert good-faith edits such as this to Alternative medicine. --apers0n 18:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit in Abdominal thrusts

I had changed the description of the process name from "previously known as the Heimlich Maneuver" to "also known as" and you have reverted it without any discussion that I can see. As I tried to note, the fact that one organization has decided to reference this process by the more general term does not change the fact that lots of people STILL know it as "Heimlich." That is not a name that has fallen out of use and so should be decsribed as "also known as". Please discuss.

For now I am setting it back to "also."

Pzavon 19:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Prescientific system

Why do you keep deleting all my hard work? -- Fyslee 21:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why he's doing that either, but I've been reverting, you can thank me later. :)--Hughgr 04:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed, and thanks very much! -- Fyslee 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason as i do on chiro. I'm not the only one with responsibility to see that good edits aren't deleted. Prescience label as dictionary should be discussed, not reverted. My chiro edits are also sensible and should be defended by the community, not just me. Work for the good of the project and your edits .... Mccready 16:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, McCready. You are "the only one with responsibility to see that good edits aren't deleted." Rejoice Hughgr and Fyslee. Rejoice everyone. Our Wikisaviour has finally arrived! Levine2112 17:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeatedly reverting good-faith edits without comment using popups

Kevin, given extensive negative editorial feedback on this conduct, do you really think that continuing it is appropriate? Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 19:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You believers are a pathetic bunch. Chiros and acus.

Dear Acupuncture Jim the great believer in acupuncture and other hocus pocus and other defenders of your favorite altmed

I am getting sick and tired or reverting your removal of pseudoscience cat.

I am getting sick and tired of your accusations that I do not discuss.

The arguments have been covered ad nauseum if not by me then by my reference to them.

Allow me to plagiarise The pseudoscience cat applies to notable pseudoscientific subjects. Categories are used in Wikipedia to help readers search related subjects. When comparing pseudoscientific subjects, it will help to place notable pseudoscientific subjects together. Just about every part of acupunture is pseudoscientific. It is useful for the reader to read about it in terms of pseudoscientific elements. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. It is not a soapbox. Science comes first, and any dismissal of science in favor of pseudoscience is tantamount to evangelising. The research should focus on reviews, and on what reliable experts have said about the overall reasearch. OR is not necessary at all. If an expert states that the research shows acupunture to be pseudoscientific then it can go in the pseudoscience cat. This does not require any time to iron out. There are many sources stating the overall research shows acupunture is pseudoscientific. You yourself try to fudge it by calling it pre-science or some such other nonsense.

I've just read some of your stupidity on Butler's usertalk. The point is that people DIE from believing in altmed. A friend of mine was almost killed last year. Another friend, an intelligent person, did not quite have the science background to understand that a promised new scientific cure was complete and utter bullshit (but christ their pseudoscience jargon was good). He suffers from a life threatening disease but at least had the good sense to ask me for help. I suggested he ask the bastards trying to rip him off for some proof. And you have the stupidity to say altmed is harmless???? Mccready 19:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. First, I think your ad hominem arguments ("pathetic", "stupid") speak for themselves. Obviously I didn't say on my talk page that all alt-med was safe. "Alt-med" by definition means "outside conventional medicine", and that includes a huge range of things, so one should generalize with care. I did say that to the extent it doesn't hurt, people should be allowed great latitude to choose it. e.g., I said: "Governments, in this regard, imo should regulate that which does harm and educate about the rest".

Acupuncture is strong enough to withstand criticism. (I am too, even though it's entirely gratuitous in this case.) Valid criticism does everyone a favor, but dubious criticism like yours only serves to undermine your so-called "skeptical" position. "Shouting" isn't flattering, especially since you're attempting to claim the logical high ground.

Some critics do call acupuncture pseudoscientific to the extent that it relies Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) theory, which uses terms like "yin" and "yang" and "qi", but the point is that TCM theory still makes useful clinical predictions. Those predictions are testable, and are taken seriously enough to be tested by mainstream scholars, and some have found evidence to support acupuncture's use. Those facts are not consistent with the pseudoscience appellation, unless you want to go out on a limb and say Cochrane is pseudoscientific, in which case you're simply pushing an extreme minority POV.

The above-mentioned research is presented at acupuncture with impeccably verified sources, and is hardly consistent with the broad-brush use of category:pseudoscience. WP:CG and other guidelines and policies comment on the NPOV problems presented by using categories, e.g. here. I still haven't seen you address that specific issue. You've in effect just been saying "see earlier comments", and getting ruder each time you say it. Not helpful to anyone's cause.

Kevin, you need to chill out. I haven't intended to offend you, and am sorry if I have. You're an intelligent person, and so are many fellow editors here. We're your collaborators, and if you'd stick closer to NPOV we could continue to improve WP as we have with acupuncture, which is much better thanks to our mutual efforts, even if we have butted heads at times. Consider taking a page from User:Fyslee, who seems to share your worldview but is a paragon of civility and NPOV collaboration. I edit here because I like writing for WP and enjoy good, spirited debate. But the above, and your recent rampage of edits adding category:pseudoscience to a bunch of TCM pages (see Special:Contributions/Mccready) without addressing the specific concerns I've raised, are over the top. It's not fun or informative to others to go down this path. Not only have you taken the wrong fork in the road, you're barrelling down it at full tilt. Please step back and take a deep breath. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Dream on Jim. You haven't addressed your sneaky behaviour and are wrong on so many counts it's not funny. Here are a few. 1. Fyslee and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum. He's a chiro like you're an acu. Believers. 2. Cochrane has within it, at high level, acu believer. You know that. If they don't share data then they are deceptive quacks IMHO - what have they got to hide? 3. telling me i've taken the wrong fork ...??? saint acujim all knowing now are we? Bit of pot and kettle eh? Mccready 12:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sneaky behavior"? Let's look at this dubious assertion. The MedCab case you're referring to was brought by me and generally found in my favor, in part because the other party refused to cooperate. It had nothing to do with you, and was about Wikiquette process more than content. It didn't concern you, and there is no bad faith on my part for not involving you. Readers who check out that page will see for themselves what was going on, which was far more than your selection suggests. My response to the assertion that I edited without consensus is on that case's talk page.

So where is the evidence of hypocrisy and bad faith? There isn't any. However, your attacks above are over the top, and I feel you are transparently seeking to portray me in the worst possible light in order to gain a rhetorical advantage. Alert editors won't buy into this for a second. Your comments are far outside WP:CIV and are inappropriate.

On your assertions above: (1) Wrong. User:Fyslee is a PT of the scientific-skeptical bent, and an outspoken blogger about subjects he regards as quackery; read his user page. Perhaps you just assumed he was a chiro because he's so NPOV in his edits. Need I say more? 2. You're starting to sounding like a crank on Cochrane. Their reputation is sterling, and are professionally obliged to share data with other recognized researchers, not just anyone who contacts them. They're not obliged to share data with you. 3. It does seem like the wrong fork in the road when I express concerns about NPOV as raised in WP:NPOVT#Categorisation, and your response is to ignore them and stick the cat on a half-dozen more TCM pages.

Now, Kevin, you know that a majority of editors at chiropractic and a significant number at pseudoscience don't agree with your broad-brush use of category:pseudoscience. So consensus hardly exists for your side. If you want to advance your side, try making good arguments instead of edit-warring and personal attacks. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk)

Your continued repeated careless editing using popups is not only contravening Wiquette, it is destructive and could be interpreted as vandalism: see this edit, which (apart from giving your desired intention of adding the controversial categorisation of pseudoscience without adequate discussion) adds a superfluous [ on line 229 and removes the link to the Hungarian Wikipedia page on this article. --apers0n 05:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded (or is it thirded or fourthed or tenthed at this point?). I also equate his mass reversions using popups and not providing comments or talk with vandalism. It is careless and destructive to a lot of people hard work at contributing to Wikipedia. Even those editors who side with McCready's views are distancing themeselves from him out of embarrassment and frustration. McCready, please drinks some tea and chill out, man. Try some editting without popups and by all means please engage yourself on the discussion pages before you do anything else destructive.

Here is some activity of his from the last 24 hours:

• popup revert on Pseudoscience
• popup revert on Protoscience
• popup revert on Protscience
• popup revert on Glossary of alternative medicine terms
• popup revert on Alternative Medicine
• popup revert on Naturopathic Medicine
• popup revert on Andrew Weil
• popup revert on Vertebral Subluxation
• popup revert on universal Intelligence
• popup revert on Acupuncture
• popup revert on Alternative Medicine
• popup revert on Andrew Weil

Note that the above includes only some of the popup reverts that he did yesterday. Not all of them. Some which I have not included, to his credit, were done to remove spam external links.

McCready, I hope that me laying this out like this for you gives you a better idea of why we are so frustrated with you. In one fell swoop you revert a lot of hard work without any discussion. Please reform your ways.

Levine2112 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This sanctimony from a coordinated group of pseudoscientists objecting to the legitimate use of popups is not surprising. Here's some context.

However, that chiropractic is also commonly thought of as a preventative medicine is a fact. Levine2112 22:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jim Butler says Acupuncture is strong enough to withstand criticism.

Dematt says Jim, Keep up the good work on Pseudoscience. I am by no means an expert, but neither is anyone else. Your contention that the category needs to be more specific seems accurate. The way it is written, most of medicine is pseudoscience as well.

Demattt is part of the tag team of chiropractors who defend this pseudoscience whenever they can

I am an editor that is part of an ever changing team of various editiors of different POVs. I am also a chiropractor. What are you? --Dematt

This is truebelieverland. No matter what evidence is put up, they will act against it and will not change their minds. Their minds are closed and they operate on wikipedia with religious zeal to prevent criticism of their beliefs. They are gaming the system to do so and unfortunatley inexperienced admins are falling for it. Wikipedia really needs to take a stand on pseudoscience. Mccready 15:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Check it out

Check it out. Kevin McCready added this to my talk page. Allow me to plagiarize (yes, it's with a "Z") I emailed him once USING THE "EMAIL THIS USER" LINK. Kevin, I can hear you crying from here! "I am sick and tired" Then stop calling our career, our passion pseudoscience. If you have any idea of the beautiful things ND's and LAc's do, you wouldn't be so stuck in all the negativity. Think about it. All of this work for what? In the name of pseudoscience?--Travisthurston 21:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
"wikistalking and home email
I have reported you. The pseudoscience issues are discussed on the psuedoscience talk page. There is good authority for placing the labels. Pls do not wikistalk me or contact me again at my home email. Mccready 16:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
pseudoscience
leave the category where it belongs. It takes more time than it's worth to protect your good edits otherwise. And let me repeat: DON'T send me any email or any abusive email. Your veiled attempts to bring my personal details into this are AGAINST wikipedia policy and people have been banned for it. Mccready 17:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)"

Protobullshit

I do not care for your hostile attitude or the reasons behind it. I would very much like to help with cleaning up and sourcing the article, but harassing contributors and aggressively removing information only makes you seem like an absolute asshole. There is a difference between lending pseudoscientific tripe credibility and politely pointing the way to neutral coverage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You attribute motive and are in error. You don't know my attitude. You interpret my drive for efficiency as hostility. Like I said. Provide the facts or stop reverting.Mccready 11:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I apologize for the defensive nature of my comment. I'm going to do some research to follow up on the continental drift assertion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Odum & Ecology pseudoscience??

Hello. My question would be whether you are throwing around the “pseudoscience” label too cavalierly. In the case of H.T. Odum, the man earned a B.S. in zoology (Phi Beta Kappa) at the University of North Carolina, worked in the Air Force as a tropical meteorologist, and earned a Ph.D. in zoology at Yale University. He then entered into the field that his brother Eugene Odum was pioneering: systems ecology. Howard Odum later founded the Center for Wetlands at the University of Florida, and by the end of his life had written some 300 scientific papers.

Odum got his degrees in the science departments of solid, respectable universities, one of them being Yale.

As to ecology itself, it is accepted as a science and taught in countless university biology departments around the world. That it is a young science, barely over 50 years old, does not make it a pseudoscience.

Please let me know what the thinking might be behind your choice to label the Howard T. Odum biographical article as a pseudoscience article. Joel Russ 14:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

comment: He's looking for anything to label pseudoscience. Just look at his contributions (if you can call them that). Also notice how he keeps reverting pages back to include pseudoscience without discussing it in the talk page. --66.213.198.226 19:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

you make the fundamental error of "appeal to authority". PhD or whatever the stuff is junk. Lots of PhD's publish and promote junk. Linus Pauling on Vit C is a perfect example. Our task is to write an encyclopedia not be awed by professors. Please address the real arguments. Mccready 00:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In reference to a biographical article, your criticism of "appeal to authority" (in the sense in which you meant it - a classic criticism in debates over scientific validity) is not too relevant. But I suppose you were not disputing the information about Odum, but meant that his theory is "pseudoscience". I imagine you are now searching for references to establish that Odum has been largely discredited within the scientific community of biologists. We'll see what you can come up with.

Apart from matters of biography, though, can we not agree that sciences must all be seen as processes? Greater understanding of facts and principles is not gained all at once in any field. Take a look at the recently updated article on the planet Pluto. Many men (and I'd think, women) of science with legitimate standing and education have been involved in the discovery of, and acquisition of understanding about, this "dwarf planet". That it was believed for many decades to be a true planet was not a mark of "pseudoscience", but rather it was a contention and belief of scientifically minded and trained people recognized as scientists. Their understanding represented a stage in the development of the astronomy of our solar system. I don't say that Odum's theory is a misunderstanding, such as was the case with Pluto, but that some underastandings are retained, some discarded (some trheories are discarded and "vindicated" later, after further observations have been made). In legitimate sciences, there are always debates and usually there are rivalrous schools of thought. Just as in the case of astronomy, ecology, as a science (not a pseudoscience) is going to evolve over time. Odum's theory will no doubt continue to be part of all that. Joel Russ 15:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Get a grip. Linus Pauling is a perfect example of what makes this world so great! what kind of junk are you promoting? Pseudoscience!? get a real life. spend more time hanging out with friends and family and less time attacking real professionals life work. http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminC/index.html --67.170.168.68 02:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Mcready, could you please make your case for why H.T.Odum, Energy systems language, EMergy, maximum power principle are all classed as psuedoscience. Sholto Maud 21:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You haven't given any reasons for the H.T.Odum & Systems Ecology pseudoscience classifications. Sholto Maud 11:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems I may be wrong on Odum. My research did not find substantial reason to apply the label. Always happy to be corrected, unlike others commenting on this page. Mccready 12:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be less disruptive if editors would find sources and discuss NPOV issues on talk pages before making contentious edits, including adding categories like pseudoscience. WP:NPOV and WP:VER are supposed to solve problems like this before they happen. Specifically, see WP:NPOVT#Categorisation and WP:RS#Physical_sciences.2C_mathematics_and_medicine. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 20:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Mccready like Jim Butler, I'd like to suggest that you begin the categorising of an article in the discussion section. I would be very interested in seeing a discussion about the status of the emergy paradigm qua science/non-science etc. I believe it would be useful and educative to put the theory through the mincer. You may be right in the categorisation, however broad spectrum labeling without discussion can create more work and disruption than we need to get to a useful outcome. I encourage you to continue, but perhaps at about 50% power efficiency. :) Sholto Maud 11:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the copyvio

You inserted a copyright violation tag on the UI page with no explanation. Fyslee removed and asked for an explanation, you gave none. Yet you put it back up...I removed and again asked what is being considered copyvio, and again, you revert using popups with no explanation. Do you plan on continuing with this course of action? I'll ask here, which shouldn't be necessary, what is the copyright violation you are claiming so it can be corrected.--Hughgr 04:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Huge slabs of the page are a direct copy and paste from the first sourced article. Mccready 12:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

sorting paranormal from pseudoscience

JREF motivated me to help Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Paranormal. I started with a failing combination of paranormal and pseudoscience. Even though most articles seem to be both, not all paranormal articles/categories are pseudoscience and not all pseudoscience articles/categories are paranormal. Now sorting through Category:Paranormal, Category:Pseudoscience and their subcategories. It's a vague dump of uncited POV articles full of vandalism. I am desperately searching for simple self-evident and cited definitions. please comment Category_talk:Paranormal. I need a clear line in between Categories.Funtamental.Society.Paranormal.Spirituality and Category.Funtamental.Nature.Science.Pseudoscience for articles about Category:Alternative medicine, Category:Forteana, Category:Religion and many pseudoscience articles that might as well be paranormal (or the other way around). --Ollj 19:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for disruption

You have previously been blocked a couple times for 3RR violations. After that, you have been asked many many times, by many many editors, to cut down on reverting. A casual glance at your contributions shows that you've done no such thing. You're reverting way too frequently, apparently using a tool that leaves a non-useful edit summary. It's one thing to perform such a revert on obvious vandalism, but you appear to be using such reverts as your normal editting habit in simple content disputes, and this is not acceptable. Add to this your recurring NPOV and civility issues, and it means your editing here is quite disruptive. You absolutely have to be polite and stop with the brute-force editing. I have blocked you for one week for exhibiting a pattern of disruptive behavior. I realize a one week block for disruption may seem harsh, but your behavior is a serious problem and apparently the numerous messages you've been left have failed to make an impression on you. If any admin disagrees with this block, I invite them to adjust it in any way they see fit. If you wish to continue editing after this block expires, I strongly implore you to change your approach, or you're only likely to be blocked again. Friday (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, although many of your (Mcready's) edits are accurate, I concur with the block. You are being unnecessarily argumentative and not adequately explaining your actions in the edit summaries and talk pages. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't win either way can I. By one version I revert without discussion, by the other I'm argumentative. Mccready 12:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sadly concur with Arthur. It's frustrating keeping nonsense out of Wikipedia, but there has to be one standard for all. You've had to interact with some quite unpleasant editors during your time who crusade to twist Wikipedia into a propaganda piece. In the past I myself have acted other than I should have in responce to such behaviour. I now feel that it is imperative that we do not sink to such a level, and instead insist on calm and rational discussion to build consensus from other editors, even if it means leaving an article page with slight POV for a day or two. I think you have an oppertunity to become a better editor. Personally, I feel confident you will take it and I would be very disappointed if Wikipedia lost anouther voice of reason. Jefffire 17:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jefffire but do you not think a week is excessive? Mccready 12:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

which edit? a week is excessive. I have given reasons. Friday please ask other admins to review this. you are too close to the action, given your past involvement. You are also wrong in that I have not been blocked a couple of times for 3RR Mccready 11:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Friday, Given my record of good edits this is obviously in the category of controversial block. There is no evidence you have followed the procedures for this case. Also my reverting does not meet the standards of excessive. The fact that I use the pop up tool does not in and of itself in any way mean so. Also as you know I do explain my reverts quite often. re my alleged NPOV violation, in fact in the case of the acupuncture alleged NPOV it is people like Butler who are pursuing NPOV (he has been told this by a mediator who he appealed to) and the same mediator pointed out the bulk of editors agreed with me not him. So you are wrong on this. Please note that Bulter is now wikistalking me to Chiropractic and reverting my edits within minutes [4] with spurious edit summaries (when he is not getting his way on acupuncture). You also fail to note that most messages you refer to are from true believers in their favourite altmed - that alone should ring bells and alert you to the fact that this may be a campaign against a strong editor who is trying, with others to prevent them using wikipedia as a promotional tool. On the third ground of incivility. You are wrong as pointed out above. Brevity and clarity of expression is not necessarily uncivil and one editor has even apologised to me for making that mistake. Please pass this to other admins for review according to wiki policy under controversial blocks. Mccready 12:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to respond in defense of user Jim Butler. I'm not sure how he arrived at the chiropractic article, but since then he has done an excellent job adding to our discussions. He is polite and puts together well-formed, intelligble comments. He hasn't done any kind of vandalism there and he hasn't made any blanket edits with pop-up tools. His input is certainly valued on the Chiropractic article... and this is not about his POV on the subject. This is about the manner in which he presents it. Levine2112 17:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I second Levine2112's remarks. I find Mccready's uncollaborative editing to be counterproductive. Although I sometimes agree with his skeptical edits, I cannot defend him or his edits, simply because of the way he does it. He needs to learn to participate in the discussions and to cease misusing pop-up tools. -- Fyslee 20:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I third (if that's a proper word to use in this case) Levine2112's comments. •Jim62sch• 21:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sincere thanks, Levine, Fyslee and Jim. Although I often disagree with Mccready, I do my best to express that per Wikiquette. I don't think Mccready's approach of slapping on labels like "pseudoscience" without sourcing or discussion is helpful. It's better to further unpack these ideas both in the article body and the talk pages.

The wikistalking accusation is without merit. I've been editing Chiropractic for awhile. Occasionally, when Mccready goes on a tear, I have checked and changed some of his edits. I don't mean anything personal by that; it's been because of my NPOV concerns over his uncollaborative, hit-and-run approach (wholesale changes to lead sections, affixing contentious labels). Incivility? "You believers are a pathetic bunch", "Dear Acupuncture Jim the great believer in acupuncture and other hocus pocus", "I've just read some of your stupidity"[5] - speaks for itself. There is no reason to make this personal. I've actually enjoyed working with Mccready on acupuncture -- the article is a lot better -- and hope he sticks around and gets back to a more collaborative approach. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This is old news, since you've been unblocked, but if it makes you feel better, I did invite others to review/adjust this block. Only two people commented, but they both supported the block. I assume more than those two read it, had no objection, and thus did not comment. I realize that a week is substantial but to me it looks like there's still a substantial problem here to deal with. And yeah, I know that a significant part of the opposition you're getting is from POV pushers. Like I said a while back, I'm glad to have people trying to counter pro-psuedoscience bias, I just wish you'd go about it differently. There's no reason to call other editors stupid or ridicule their beliefs- you can edit most productively by commenting on edits rather than editors. Friday (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your email

Mccready, writing here to answer your email. My contact with Jim Butler has been limited but he has always been polite. Never felt he was a difficult user. I've noted his edits on other controversial topics and always felt that he edited collaboratively. Honestly do not think that he is the problem. Please do not extend your conflict with him after your block.

Be clear that I fully support Friday's block and do not think that it is controversial. Irrespective of this I've unblocked you with the hope that you will understand this to be an act of kindness and you will try your best to be kinder and gentler toward other users. Take care, FloNight 18:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Flo. I don't think this block, or the behavior that caused it, are about my conduct as an editor. Nor do I count myself among pseudoscience POV-pushers, despite being called "stupid"; I've been pretty specific in expressing my concerns about NPOV and categorization. If any editors disagree with my reasoning or my editorial approach, please let me know. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Flo, Butler has been found during mediation to be pushing POV in removing pseudoscience label. His views, as found by the mediator, are contrary to those of most editors on acupuncture. I'd be grateful if you could try to prevent him removing the label. He is an acupuncturist who followed me to the chiropractic page and reverted my well sourced intelligent edit within minutes with a spurious edit summary. I would be grateful if you could monitor this too. For the record at least two of the above editors who had made the usual sanctimonious comments are extreme chiros who have publically stated their intention to remove material critical of chiro. BTW both you and Friday have not addressed my arguments on the block. However since that is now water under the bridge I suggest all our time is better spent making this site an encylopedia, not a haven for mealy mouthed trolls who "obey" the rules while pushing extremist POVs.Mccready 13:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There are some misunderstandings here that I've addressed before, and will again. It's very difficult collaborating when one party refuses to listen. I've addressed the MedCab case above, and again further below. I was not found to be POV-pushing.

Mccready: He is an acupuncturist who followed me to the chiropractic page and reverted my well sourced intelligent edit within minutes with a spurious edit summary. I didn't "follow"; we happened to be editing at the same time and I've edited chiropractic before. My edit summary[6] echoed Dematt's earlier comments[7] and was adequate, and a whole lot more informative than "Revert to revision 72597237 dated 2006-08-29 12:52:41 by Mccready using popups", which you just did again[8]. You still appear impervious to feedback and that's not good for collaboration.

Mccready: For the record at least two of the above editors who had made the usual sanctimonious comments are extreme chiros who have publically stated their intention to remove material critical of chiro. Who? Not Levine2112, who is a chiropractor, and also civil and collaborative and hardly "extreme". Not Fyslee, who is a PT and outspoken anti-quackery blogger, and a paragon of NPOV, collaborativeness and civility. Not Jim62sch, who is a scholar and a skeptic, and likewise highly civil, perceptive and well-informed.

Now that the block is removed, I see you've resumed your old pattern of slapping on labels[9][10][11][12][13] and reverting without discussion[14][15]. I don't think that bodes well. - Jim Butler^(talk) 18:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Advice

I strongly suggest that if you intend to avoid anouther ban then slapping category pseudoscience around isn't the approach. You can hardly defend an edit if you are banned, now can you? Jefffire 13:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Butler's mediator said the label belonged. What am I to do?Mccready 13:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I just read your edit summary on Chiropractic. Don't expect me to argue in you favour again. A very long block is quite likely now. Jefffire 13:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You reverted in whole based on edit summary???? Pls check the quality of the edits and discuss before reverting. The words were Friday's, not mine.Mccready 13:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye, Mccready. Jefffire 13:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

- Your passion for the pseudosciences will cost you the privilege of editing pages here. I thought you would have learned. The defenders of these pages have repeatedly asked you to discuss controversial edits in the talk pages. Instead, a day after your block is released, you tag again... Is the subject of pseudoscience that important to you? Just because you now list your "pseudosciences" in order on your user page doesn't make you an authority on the subject. --Travisthurston 16:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Or in other words, if a group of editors fond of a particular pseudoscientific ideas (such as sticking pins in your bum in order to magic you better) work together they can violate WP:NPOV. — Dunc|☺ 13:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the chiro page with about six chiro editors plus one to two others.

Oh yeah, tickling someone's feet to magic them better would count aswell. In fact alternative medicine should probably be renamed to magic pseudomedicine. But anyway, one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that the pseudoscientists react to any criticism of "their career, their passion" with personal attacks, rather than any scientific refutation, but it is nevertheless important that you mustn't react back. — Dunc|☺ 15:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

careful Dunc, they'll get you for "highly uncivil/PA" for stating the facts that POV pushers inhabit chiro. Mccready 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

MedCab case not gospel on consensus

Kevin, above you wrote: "Flo, Butler has been found during mediation to be pushing POV in removing pseudoscience label. His views, as found by the mediator, are contrary to those of most editors on acupuncture." and "Butler's mediator said the label belonged."

Please stop misrepresenting the nature of that MedCab case. First, findings of MedCab cases by definition aren't binding. Second, the mediator, physicq210, probably bit off a little more than he could chew with this one (check his user page and edit history). As I said earlier, I believe he erred in saying that I edited against consensus. The articles mentioned in that case were Acupuncture, Acupressure, Acupuncture point, Category:Alternative_medicine, and Category:Quackery. Take a look at the respective histories and talk pages for those articles and judge for yourself. The first two are divided. The third and fifth talk pages contain only a couple comments from yours truly. The fourth, Category Talk:Alternative medicine, is sharply divided. Consensus is still being hammered out as to the best way to handle the pseudoscience category.

Also relevant to this issue are Talk:Pseudoscience and Category Talk:Pseudoscience. Opinion there is divided too, but a significant number of editors are dubious about using Category:pseudoscience on certain articles that have a mixture of PS and scientific aspects, e.g. Chiropractic and Acupuncture. The important thing is to pursue consensus, not assert it already exists when it plainly doesn't. I have yet to see you address the concerns I've raised about NPOV and categories; cf. the section "Representative and unquestioned examples" at Category talk:Pseudoscience. There are better ways to improve some "grey-area" articles than by slapping labels on them. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 18:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Reblocked

Mccready, I have reinstated the block because you immediately started the same highly uncivil and disruptive behavior. You are blocked for 5 days. When you return you need to follow the policies and guidelines set out to resolve edits disputes. This means you must discuss, discuss, and then discuss some more until consensus is reached. Any further attacks or highly uncivil comments will not be tolerated. If your editing pattern does not change then I plan to start a RFAr and ask for article bans for pseudoscience topics. FloNight 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean using the word POV Pusher in an edit summary? The phrase was from another administrator and we all know it's true. Do you mean placing the pseudoscience label as per mediator's finding? Convenient now how Butler disputes the result. If not then you need to explain yourself. You will note on ChiroTALK that I did indeed discuss discuss discuss. Mccready 12:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I disputed that particular finding from the beginning, as I've said (and linked to) twice now (most recently here). MedCab mediators don't have the authority to declare what consensus is, and the article talk pages imo show that this mediator erred. Why attempt to argue from nonexistent authority here? Try pursuing said consensus instead. Jim Butler^(talk) 19:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Self serving, revenge, controversial block

Interesting that the following comments weren't made on my page but on acupuncturist Butler's page.

Flonight said this about me

Do you remember that Mccready started an email campaign against me during my RFA? Then when he was blocked for wikistalking SlimVirgin, he emailed me and asked me to unblock him as a way of showing that I could work with him! Blah! FloNight 23:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The SlimVirgin incident broke new ground in wikipedia on the allegation that because I edited the same page after she had I had wikistalked. All admitted there was absolutely no element of harrassment and many administrators supported me.

Given her motive and her stated comments her block should be reviewed.

Butler posted this on Flonight's page.

Cross-posting from my talk page: Hi Flo, I agree with your reblocking Mccready and your plan (as stated on his talk page) to pursue RFAr if he continues as he has. Having worked with him for several months off and on at acupuncture, I sense that he's an intelligent and well-intentioned guy, but so certain he's right that he's alienating others. Refusal to collaborate is a big no-no, and not everyone who opposes his edits is an extremist as he'd like to believe. Lately he seems impervious to the requests of numerous editors to change his approach, so I think you've done the right thing. (I also strongly applaud your compassionate initial response of unblocking him, and you were right to then draw the line once he blew the chance.) Thanks and all the best to you, Jim Butler(talk) 23:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Until wikipedia has a process in place to deal with admins pursuing grudges and to deal with true believers protecting their favourite pseudosciences ..... Mccready 13:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'm not surprised that you're insisting this block is wrong too. Haven't you said the same of most or all of your previous blocks? There are problem editors out there. There are POV pushers out there. Nobody's arguing with this. However, what is also clear is that you're one of the problem editors. You cannot effectively help make articles more neutral if you're blocked all the time- it's as simple as that. You've been given good advice by many editors over a period of months on how to avoid causing trouble, but you're unwilling or unable to use the advice. You should ask yourself whether you're trying to become some martyr in your own mind, or whether you want to be an editor. Friday (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks don't substitute for addressing the issues. What was wrong about my edits which Flo objected to? Don't you agree that anyone expressing the views she has is of questionable objectivity? And you still haven't addressed the questions I raised after your initial block of me. Naturally you shouldn't be surprised because proper reasons and links have not been given. Smear has been made and the vast majority of editors objecting to me are defending their pseudosciences. Mccready 14:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Mccready I realize that you are upset about being blocked. But please try to be reasonable. I do not have a grudge against you. Not part of my belief system to continue a dispute with someone. I have been supportive towards you in the past and I will be in the future. That was the reason that I shortened your block. Then I felt that I had a responsibility to reblock you after you continued your same problematic behavior.

Regarding my RFA. Facts will easily show that I have not pursued a grudge against you. I ignored your negative vote stacking campaign during my RFA because you were relatively new to the site and I did not want you to have that as an albatross around your neck going forward. Remember that you emailed me after you were blocked for wikistalking SlimVirgin. Nothing wrong with you contacting me. The reason that you gave that I should unblock you was strange as I pointed out at the time. That was the only issue I had with your email to me.

To satisfy your concerns, I'll post a link to your talk page on AN/I so other admins can review. Take care, FloNight 14:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Error upon error. You make the false assumption that I'm upset. I'm not. If there is no grudge why express yourself the way you did, and followed by the word blah? Respectful? I at least respect persons even if I am scathing about their opinions and lack of logic. I just want you to give reasons other than the general smear. Please do so by answering the questions I posed above. There is no evidence whatsover that my use of popups has been done without discussion. You seem to object to an edit summary also which used the words POV pusher quoted from another admin. You have not denied that I did indeed discuss at length on chiro before you blocked. You have some explaining to do. Mccready 15:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there probably are editors out there who hold a grudge against you. It's not a good thing, but it's a human thing. However, I don't see any indication that FloNight is one of them. Do you think you'd have been unblocked by a grudge-holder? Do you think a grudge holder would bother trying to engage you in discussion about why your behavior is seen as problematic? Do you think a grudge-holder would ask other admins to review this latest block and change it if neccessary? Anyway, as FloNight pointed out, the next step may well be a request for arbitration. It's possible (perhaps even likely, IMO) that they would pass an injunction restricting or removing your right to edit pseudoscience articles. I still think you can do good work here- if I didn't think that, I'd probably be leaning toward an indefinite "exhausting the community's patience" block. If you want to continue to do good work here, you absolutely need to change your approach. The problem as I see it is that you're so into your anti-pseudoscience crusade that you're disregarding the established norms of behavior we have here. You can help us remove undue weight given to pseudosciences, but not if you're not allowed to edit those articles. If you continue to insist on viewing any criticism of your editing as being part of a pro-pseduoscience conspiracy, tho, this will not help you. Friday (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind criticism and there is no need to prove a grudge element to show the block is unwarranted. I used the phrase "POV pusher" in an edit summary. It was a statement of fact. It was your phrase, not mine. Flo says it's "highly uncivil/PA" (excessive and adjectively emotional) and blocks for five days for that and the smear that I am disruptive (no links provided to demonstrate the smear). It says something about wiki culture that you blithely prejudge any arb consideration. But I'm learning about wikipower aren't I? Can you seriously defend flo's block? She hasn't bothered to do so. You also err in your conspiracy accusation. I have said and it is true that certain pseudoscience articles are dominated by true believers. No conspiracy. Fact. But please address the substantive reasons for flo's block. Mccready 15:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're in luck- Duncharris apparently agrees that your block can be over now, as he's unblocked. For what it's worth, yes, I would like to see any further block messages include a diff or two demonstrating exactly which edits were considered problematic. I plan to do this myself. Friday (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above (last paragraph in section), I think these examples of reverting without discussion[16][17] would qualify. Unfortunately, you did the same thing again today[18]. I see your other edits so far today have had substantive edit summaries, which is the way to go. You can't refuse to engage with editors just because you say they are "pseudoscience advocates", and it's fallacious to lump, e.g., chiropractic and intelligent design in the same categorical basket. There are other skeptically-minded editors who agree with me on that. WP isn't paper -- pseudoscientific aspects of "grey" topics can be fleshed out the body of articles without slapping on unqualified, categorical labels. That's straight out of NPOV.

Again, I have no personal grudge here, but I do believe editors should follow WP:DR, and be held to it, without exception. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 19:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I say, I don't mind admitting I'm wrong when I'm wrong. What I despise are tag team efforts, poor research and lies. If you'd bothered to check beyond the end of your nose Jim you will see my revert was preceded by discussion on the talkpage and the popups is a useful tool to save me FIVE minutes or more of time. I am on a dialup connection (here in Australia we have a fascist government regime not concerned to extend broadband to remote communities and not concerned to make sure we have decent broadband even in the cities). So the use of popups is efficient as I've said again and again. It is a LIE to say I do not discuss and you know it. On chiro as pseudoscienc try reading Lilienfeld, Williams (Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience), Beyerstein, Eisner, Homola. How many well referenced sources do you want. But each time it's put up, you and tag teams like you operate in remove it. On acupuncture and pseudoscience the list is even longer. Your sanctimony wears thinner and thinner the more you reject well referenced sources, refuse to read my posts, accuse me of not discussing and then don't do your research and accuse me of using popups without discussion. It takes a lot of time to undo your lies - it only takes a second for you to make careless self-serving accusations that support your religious fervour. Remember it was you who said acupuncture was strong enough to withstand criticism. yeah sure. Mccready 13:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My sympathies about the bandwidth problem. I have a decent connection, but limited time to edit because I care for a kid with severe disabilities. We all have crosses to bear, but that doesn't excuse any of us from following the rules. Time to stop scapegoating me about your own behavior.

Using popups and (in the case of admins) rollbacks to revert anything other than simple vandalism is against policy (see WP:DR, bolded text, first paragraph). Your edit history is rife with e.g.'s of that, and it's never OK, even if you believe you've already addressed the issue at hand. Yeah, sometimes you do discuss, but the point is you're always supposed to. How much clearer can it be? WP would fall into edit-warring hell if everyone behaved as you often have. Simple rules of the road.

If you can't find time to discuss on talk pages, let alone type a simple edit summary, than I suggest you cut back on your editing and only focus on those articles to which you can give adequate attention. The same obligation applies to all editors, whatever circumstances limit our participation here. Why should you receive special dispensation that exempts you from adhering to dispute resolution 101? Obviously, you manage to find ample time to type multiple paragraphs in protest when you've been sanctioned. So you can muster substantive discussion all the time if you just slow down a little. Will address the PS-specific issues later on Talk:Pseudoscience. thanks and no harm meant, Jim Butler^(talk) 02:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Friday, Dunc and Flo. I am aware of your good wishes and we can all, even me, be mistaken at times. Please spend a bit of time with this to battle against some POV. Mccready 16:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Category: "inefficient crap" or "efficient comedy"?

"I don't go in for abuse." "haven for mealy mouthed trolls" "This is truebelieverland" "they operate on wikipedia with religious zeal" "And you have the stupidity..." "I am getting sick and tired" "the bastards trying to rip him off" "They are gaming the system" "the great believer in acupuncture and other hocus pocus and other defenders of your favorite altmed" "anyone suggesting i haven't addressed the issue properly obvioulsy can't read" "Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear..." "Well, please, pretty please..." "We've come a long way here, dear Levine2112. Don't blow it." "this crap needs rewrite" "Andrew Still stuff is bullshit" "...we'll track you down" "remove altmeder's favourite crap"

:P

Sholto Maud 07:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, I'm not giving up on you

Mccready, I'm not giving up on you yet. I do not want to take you to arbitration now. Instead I'm suggesting a one month ban from you editing all pseudoscience articles. I want you to edit the talk pages of the articles to gain better experience with consensus editing. Now you make a comment then insert (or reinsert) your edits. That is not consensus editing. You need to discuss the changes and work to find ways to stay NPOV and reach consensus. Other editors of these articles are doing it now. Your changes are disrupting their work. Please read the other comments and make your thoughts known. [19] Take care, FloNight 16:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Mccready is issued a 30 day community ban from editing all articles related to Pseudoscience

Cross post from AN [20]

Based on this discussion on AN/I [21] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is issued a 30 day community ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 22:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, an editor asked me to review your 11 Sep 2006 edits. After looking through your edits from that day I saw that you continued to make multiple reverts without a meaningful edit summary, your comments on talk pages were pronouncements rather than discussion toward consensus, and you made several strong statements about other editors that many editors found unhelpful. Instead of opening an arbitration case against you, I suggested on AN/I that the community enforce on topic article ban for all Pseudoscience articles for the next 30 days. There was strong agreement among the community for the ban. I strongly encourage you to read the comments on AN/I at the following link [22] A few editors want to be done with you all together, but most want you to continue to participate in a more collaborative manner. If you have questions or comments about the the article ban, you can contact me on my talk page or on AN. Take care, --FloNight 22:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Take out the self confessed chiros and acus and how many supports have you left? This is an organised attack from the usual suspects. I'm surprised that you are so gullible. My edits on the pseudoscience page itself have been good and no one has said otherwise. In fact I've been congratulated - even by the usual suspects. My use of popups has been explained many times, but once again - I'm on a very slow dialup connection and it saves several minutes. To make it clear again: How many supports are not chiros or acus? This says a lot about the immaturity of WP. I await your response. Mccready 13:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

McCready, I don't understand. You claim that your Internet connection is too slow for you to make the courtesy of engaging in discussion of your edits and not overuse the pop-up revert tool, yet you have the bandwidth to make these long arguments on your talk page. Please help us understand your Internet connection issue and which kind of comments it affords you to make and which discussions it prevents you from participating in. Levine2112 16:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, you have just been banned from editing articles related to Pseudoscience, and as you believe that chiropractic falls into this category, you are in breach of the ban, and your edit was therefore provocative. I worked through your complex multiple edit, as I expect everyone else reading it would feel obliged to do given your habits of making controversial edits directly before discussing them On one point I saw that the edit you had made was controversial as it removed an intended meaning, specifically the qualification that medical subluxation was not conventionally regarded as affecting "general" health; this might not be well worded (indeed it isn't), but nevertheless the distinction in meaning is one that is valuable to preserve. The ban is precisely to put the burden upon you to gain support for potentially controversial edits before inclusion, rather than continually force us to argue for reversion of changes that have no support. Your remark to FloNight ofn her page is I think a good example of why editors are so frustrated with you. You persist in assuming a) that because editors are for instance chiropractors, then they cannot edit objectively on chiropractic and comment fairly on others; and 2) in assuming that editors like myself are "ganging up" with others, or in a conspiracy, if we accept that on many occasions the insertions made by chiropractors (and acupuncturists and whoever) are sometimes well made and well supported by V RS, whereas insertions made by pro-scientists are sometimes very poorly researched, badly phrased, and weakly supported if at all by V RS. This is a collective slur on editors of integrity from many backgrounds.Gleng 14:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that my recent edits on chiro have been fine. You want it to have your cake and eat it to. Chiro is not regarded as a PS therefore your argument has no merit. Your bullying removal of edits which you now say had good basis is not helpful. You are paranoid if you thought my comments above referred to you. They did not and I did not name you. Please assume good faith. Despite repeated requested you have yet to provide the words of V RS which you regard as supporting your chiro edits. Please do so. And please stop reverting my edits without discussion. This is hypocrisy in the extreme because that is what you accuse me, wrongly, of doing. Mccready 15:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Good grief; this is something so excessively trawled over, but I reproduce gere a segment of the discussion from my Talk page wher Fyslee commented on my reponse on the Chiropractic Talk page to your edit. I quote:

Mccready accuses me of anti-science here. [2] So let me spell this out very clearly. The statement as made in the lead at present is “Chiropractic's premise is that spinal joint misalignments, which chiropractors call vertebral subluxations, can interfere with the nervous system and result in diminished health.” This seems an unobjectionable and wholly accurate statement. However if Mccready wants a V RS for it then can someone please like to point him to any statement of chiropractic philosophy and beliefs. The statement does not assert that the premise is in fact true. However, the statement as posed is not only true it is tautologically true. Reduce the sentence by eliminating subsidiary clauses and it becomes: “spinal joint misalignments can interfere with the nervous system and result in diminished health.” As it happens, although the truth of this is not asserted, it is obviously true. This statement can be criticised, as it has been (and see ongoing discussion), on the grounds that in fact chiropractors believe more than this, and believe that subluxations are the cause of many diseases. In some of these additional claims chiropractic indeed is in dispute with many in conventional medicine. However, this is not what the sentence says or appears to say at present.Gleng 16:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In that statement I have highlighted the problematic part:

"The statement does not assert that the premise is in fact true. However, the statement as posed is not only true it is tautologically true." So far so good....but:

"Reduce the sentence by eliminating subsidiary clauses and it becomes: “spinal joint misalignments can interfere with the nervous system and result in diminished health.” As it happens, although the truth of this is not asserted, it is obviously true." This last part is what blows me away. Do you really mean that? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. Please help me understand this. It sounds like you are supporting the VS claims. -- Fyslee 19:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not supporting the VS claims, in fact I'm just pointing out the weakness of the statement; obviously a spinal misalignment will cause symptoms; don't see how you could call it a misalignment otherwise. I.e. If there is nerve compression through misalignment, and that's my understanding of a misalignment, then clearly it will cause symtoms. This much seems uncontroversial. Whether such misalignments are a common cause of disease and especially of diseases not obviously related to the spine is clearly controversial, and of this I'm skeptical as you'd expect. However, the statement as phrased, as I had previously discussed on the Talk page, is uncontroversial but is essentially empty, and I had proposed modifying it to give it content. But as a bland statement I didn't consider it particularly objectionable per se. The sentence as phrased intoduces the term VS as purely a definition of spinal misalignment, so omitting it doesn't change the meaning. I objected to Mccready's edit as it introduced an assertion with content but no V RS to counterpoint a rather bland and neutral statement. It seemed inappropriate Gleng 19:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Gleng was saying that sentence that starts with "Chiropractic's premise states that spinal joint misalignment causes nerve interference and diminished health." - is a perfectly unobjectionable sentence. -- Dematt 21:32, 11 September 2006

End quote

I commented, in honesty and fairness, that your copy editing is usually excellent. It is your insertion of POV that is controversial.Gleng 15:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask you again. Please quote the words of V RS. You don't need to cut and paste vast slabs of material. Just the words of V RS. And BTW the implication that spinal misalignment = vert sub is intellectually repugnant, is it not? We both know that the religious fervour linking disease and vert sub is the issue. This is not being faced. My edit today framed it much better. Mccready 15:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As stated, clearly and by other editors also, as phrased the statement stated what chiropractors believed to be the case; the V RS for the truth of this as a statement of what they believe was introduced by Dematt after I called (above) for someone to provide it. The statement did not affirm the truth of the belief, only that it was a belief.

The particular issue of the status of vertebral subluxation is not disguised, but addressed later in the article, and is I think explored in the article on vertebral subluxation, I haven't contributed to that.

Whether there is a religious fervour I don't know; I've never actually met a chiropractor. Are there good, honest chiropractors who make a coherent, intellectually honest case? I think there probably are, whether I agree with it or not, and theirs is the case that needs presenting, not a strawman caricature. The arguments of chiropractic are complex, sometimes confused and contradictory, sometimes phrased in ways that we would never phrase things. But phrased differently, many scientists might recognise many things as not even controversial. Does the body have intrinsic repair mechanisms? Certainly, a great many operating at many different levels, including DNA repair mechanisms and the immune system. Are these regulated by the nervous system? Some certainly are: neuroimmunology is a rapidly exploding field, and the power of the placebo effect itself testifies to the importance of mechanisms that we understand very poorly. Does chiropractic have a coherent scientific framework to explain these. No, not in my opinion; it has a body of empirical evidence from clinical practice, the reliability and interpretation of which is open to question. But exactly the same can be said about a very large part of conventional medicine. Often, the best we can do is evolve care systems from such an empirical basis while we develop a scientific understanding. In the meantime, we have "boxes" for things we don't fully understand, and give them names pro tem. Scientists use names like "stress" for instance; it's not meaningless, yet can't be pinned down in a wholly acceptable way. Gleng 15:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I will reply on chiro talk. But I will note AGAIN that you apparently refuse to provide the words of V RS you rely on to criticise me. Mccready 16:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The V RS for the claim was inserted by Dematt: it is [23] I'm not sure what better source there can be for a statement of what chiropractors believe than a statement from their leading professional organisation.Gleng 16:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you. Finally. That only took about 1500 words. Pity the article didn't quote the exact words eh? Can we please discuss this further, if needed, on chiro talk. Mccready 16:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Or you might have read the article and seen it there of course. Or read the extensive (exhaustive) discussion of this point. For someone who demands discussion, it might help occasionally to read it.Gleng 21:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How to leave an edit summary when using popups

I haven't tried the following myself because I find popups distracting, but it sounds like it should work. Duplicating comments archived here:

(begin quote)

Using popup for reverting non-vandalism isn't a good idea. But this hint is even missing from Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. --Pjacobi 16:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Reversion is clearly warned against in WP:DR, however, which Mccready has been made aware of repeatedly. --Jim Butler^(talk) 18:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. It's the question, whether popups reverting should be restricted to vandalism reverts, as are admin button reverts. --Pjacobi 18:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. My point is that reverting is generally discouraged except in the case of vandalism (see also Help:Reverting), so the specific case of popups is no different. Help:Edit summary talks about the need for leaving some sort of edit summary that's helpful to other editors. Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups describes an option that lets the user be prompted to add an edit summary under popupRevertSummaryPrompt. Mccready's edit history for 11 Sept. 2006 does show a number of reverts using popups, some (not all) of which closely follow discussion on the talk page; edit summaries in such cases would help casual readers understand that you are indeed discusssing. Mccready, if you adjust your monobook.js file you should be able to use popups and leave an informative edit summary, which will improve others' assumption of your good faith. --Jim Butler^(talk) 19:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

(end quote)

hope this helps, Jim Butler^(talk) 00:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your message

Hello Mcceady, I saw your message on my talk page and want to follow up with you about a few items you raised. Chiropractic and related articles are included for the purpose of the topical article ban. This is necessary because you approach chiropractic like it is a pseudoscience.

I'm not going to address the individual point of view of each editor that commented on AN/I about your community probation requiring your to stop editing pseudoscience articles for 30 days. This defeats the purpose of the longstanding wikipedia policy, WP:NPA that requires editors to comment on the content not the editor. It is against policy to use “someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.”

Mccready you need to edit more collaboratively. This the main complaint from all editors. Please review this entire Wikipedia:Resolving disputes policy paying close attention to the section below. ...talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast, sustained discussion and serious negotiation between the parties, even if not immediately successful, shows that you are interested in finding a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies.

Reminder: The sanction for editing a pseudoscience article is a 24 hour block. Please refrain from editing the articles. Instead discuss your suggested changes on the talk page until the page editors reach consensus with you. Then another editor can make the change in the article. If you have questions about this community probation topic ban you can leave them on my talk page, WP:AN/I or WP:AN. Take care, FloNight 01:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to heed Flo's message above. She's being far more patient with your recent edits to PS articles than a lot of those watching would be. So, don't waste the second chance that warning gives by jumping right back in there. FeloniousMonk 21:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You're Invited

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

Welcome back to editing

Welcome back, FloNight

Hello Mccready :-) Your 30 day community probation is up and you can resume editing articles related to PS topic. Please take care to engage in collaborative editing to prevent future problems. Take care, FloNight 12:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sept 30 - NPOV

Please review WP:NPOV. Many or your recent edits violate it. Further, you are making controversial edits against consensus to articles where there has been a great deal of discussion on the talk pages concerning the very issues you've changed with your edits. --Ronz 16:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to be specific. Have you read my principles of editing? Have you read the ArbCom decision on psuedoscience? Mccready 13:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, do you have a link to that Arbcom decision? Thanks, --Bradeos Graphon 20:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

3rr

You accused martinphi of violation of 3rr here. 3rr is when an editor makes 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. That didn't occur. See WP:3RR. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.sram.org. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

CAM

Perhaps you didn't read the text clearly. I'll post the text on the talk page. I am not trying to bypass three editors. In fact I agree with your concerns. Anthon01 (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackery

Elhector (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Just wanted to drop by and say good work on tightening the intro on the Quackery article. It reads much better now :-). Elhector (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Pseudosciences on Your User Page

Hi,

The list of pseudosciences on your user page is out of date. For example, there is no mention of Acupuncture in Wikipedia's pseudoscience category.

Perhaps you would like to take the time to update your list; or clarify that it's yours alone, or out of date; or simply link to the category page ... --pmj (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

CAM

Hi, Please clarify what "pls first explain on talk page why you object to balance at the top" is in regards to. Anthon01 (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

referr to your previous edit comment on the page Mccready (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please use QW at top of page section on CAM talk page to discuss. Several editors have rejected this proposal. Anthon01 (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for your accusation. Anthon01 (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethanol

Please stop. Methanol, ethylene glycol, carbon tetrachloride, benzene, etc., are all examples of simple organics that are highly toxic. In each case, a shot-glass full can be fatal. This is decidedly NOT the case with ethanol, where a shot-glass full consumed is easily tolerated, even by pregnant women. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 14:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

you need to do some research before you leap into print. alcohol consumption by pregnant women is strongly advised against by all responsible health authorities around the world. Mccready (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that. But the point of the sentence you keep changing is that ethanol's toxicity is low enough that it can be used in food-products, cosmetics, mouth-wash, etc. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 14:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

good. now read the sentence properly. it talks about consumption. hope we can now agree? Mccready (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We still don't agree. Methanol and benzene are also easy to produce. The sentence, as it stands, now implies that it would be ok to use them as solvents in products intended for human consumption -- that ease of production is the only criterion for using something as such. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 14:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

you are right on this point. I'm happy for you to reword as long as low toxicity claim for ethanol is not included. Mccready (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "mild toxicity"?? Karl Hahn (T) (C) 15:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

no. it's either toxic or not. how about "Medical authorities advise that pregnant women avoid consuming any alcohol and that other people consume no more than two standard drinks per day."Mccready (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything is toxic in some quantity -- even water. There are degrees of toxicity. "Mild toxicity" implies means that quantities like 50 ml can be tolerated without damaging effects. This is true with ethanol, even for pregnant women (although they ought not imbibe even that much). Yet there are millions of pregnant women who consumed such quantities and had normal babies. There is no way to express the concept that toxic effects are low without bringing in the concept of toxicity. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 15:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

yes your're right again - in part (50ml for pregnant women is very ill-advised). but you haven't said what's wrong with my proposal. and why isn't it easier to let the article stand as is? the use of toxicity discussion the way you want it here tends to exculpate the alcoholic beverage industry.Mccready (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's best to avoid subjective terms like low toxicity, without comparison to the toxicity of something else. You could include ethanol's LD₅₀ in the discussions.

Since you're both getting into a counterproductive edit war over this issue, why not ask others to comment on Talk:Ethanol or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals?

Ben (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

seems like discussion rather than edit warring is now going on Ben. thanks for suggestion. LD50 doesn't reflect non lethal damage to foetus.Mccready (talk)

How about a subsection on the teratogenicity of ethanol, or as part of Ethanol#Other_effects? You may want to consult the authors of the rather extensive series of articles grouped as alcohol and health. One article in the series is fetal alcohol syndrome, which is highly relevant.

Ben (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

sounds good. are we in agreement that the article should stand as is, with the ref in top to toxicity removed?Mccready (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience revisited

The ArbCom addressed this issue, and their ruling is now part of official WP policy. WP:NPOV is now clear about when to use Category:Pseudoscience. Per WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, attributable evidence of scientific consensus is necessary to use Category:Pseudoscience, while evidence of a sig POV that the topic is pseudoscientific is necessary to mention PS in the article. For many articles such as acupuncture, we do have sig POV's saying pseudoscience. However, to use the category, we need to show evidence of a scientific majority. (See WP:RS: "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.") An example of such consensus would be a statement by a group such as an Academy of Science. Please stay in line with what is now official WP policy and provide such a source if you wish to place the pseudoscience category on any article. Thanks. Jim Butler^(talk) 22:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean unanmimity. The arbcom decision does not support your view. Indeed it allows contradiction with its comment that the minority is sometimes pseudoscientific. Just because a few outliers deny global warming or believe in acupuncture does not make it so. Your views on acupuncture fit the description pseudoscience. Your belief that acupuncture on P6 is effective (that seems to be the only point (pun) of serious consideration) is not supported by the evidence or scientific consensus. The Done and Lee work has been thoroughly discredited. Mccready (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever your opinions are about acupuncture and those who study it, you need to source your claims. WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience sets a threshold for categorizing a topic as PS: "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". Source please? Jim Butler^(talk) 01:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job

We need more editors like you. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need editors who source their claims and attend to WP:WEIGHT. While some, like Dawkins and Angell, agree with your edits, others, like the Institute of Medicine, don't. See references in lead section in this version of CAM. Jim Butler^(talk) 09:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent CAM edits

We (myself and other editors) have discuss my changes on the talk page. Please check these sections of the CAM talk page.[24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

You ask for a discussion but I can't find one comment by you on the talk page. I notice you repeatedly make the same edit, but haven't chosen to participate on the talk page. Please consider letting you views about adding QW at the top of the CAM page be know in that section. I look forward to your comments. Thanks. And you recent edit summary

anthon your have been found guilty in the past of POV editing. you have refused to discuss your earlier changes, indeed you said you thought your edit was the same as mine.

is blatantly false. Perhaps your have mistaken me for another user. Cheers.Anthon01 (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch

You may not be aware that the Arbcom referred to Quackwatch as an unreliable and partisan source. Given that, you're unlikely to get much community support for using it as an indicator of "majority" view, let alone in lead sections. It's a very weak source. See also comments at Talk:CAM and Talk:Acupuncture. The latter were in response to your first attempt to add QW to the lead, so it's odd that you would again revert, not discuss on the talk page, and in your ES say "discuss if you wish to revert". Edit warring without discussion has not proven productive in the past, so you may wish to change course and swim in a better direction: Jim Butler^(talk) 01:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Whack!

The arbcom decision was split 6:3 so obviously some senior anonymous wikipedians disagree with you. As to partisan sources, they can be used if used appropriately. Is the fishy thing and indication of childishness on your behalf? Mccready (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:TROUT is some Wikipedia humor (ever seen the fish-slapping dance from Monty Python? Great stuff). BTW, I actually think Quackwatch can be useful in WP to counter vanity claims in fringe areas, where better scientific V RS's can't be found, per WP:INDY. But not otherwise. --Jim Butler^(talk) 05:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethanol

We are back to this again. Once again, the sentence as you have left it implies that any solvent, no matter how toxic, would be ok for this, provided it was cheap. This is clearly not the case. I have tried to come up with compromise language for this, but you object to that as well. Please fix the sentence so that it explains the full reason for use in human-consumable products. And note that your insistence that it is either toxic or it isn't is hogwash. You can find the phrase "low toxicity" over and over again in the Merck Index of Chemicals and Drugs, for numerous compounds. So the phrase does and an understood meaning. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 16:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are repeating a misunderstanding I have already corrected. I do not believe that something is either toxic or not. My edit did not insist on that at all. Your attempted "compromise" went against what I thought was the consensus. May we agree on the following "Because of ethanol's low production cost and relatively "low toxicity" (as defined in the Merck Index of Chemicals and Drugs) it is used widely as a solvent etc etc."? Mccready (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have my Merck with me right now, so I can't tell you at this time what Merck as to say specifically about ethanol, so let me get back to you on that tonight. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 17:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

First let me say that I admire what you are doing with your pseudoscience project.

Now, before I get to my missive, let me suggest langauge for ethanol that we might be able to agree upon: "... and because as used in these applications it affords negligible risk to human health."

I don't want to say "as defined by Merck Index" because nowhere does Merck state its definition. The phrase, "low toxicity" is widely and generally understood, and it is a relative term -- relative to exposures expected in the compounds application. Some examples: An article I just wrote is a stub for Phenidone, which Merck does explicitly say has low toxicity. This does not mean that it's ok to sprinkle it on your breakfast cereal, but as a photographic developer, it poses little risk to a careless darkroom person who forgets to wash his hands before having lunch. The insecticide, malathion, is listed in the literature as having low toxicity to mammals. This does not mean that I am comfortable having large residues of it in my vegetables, but I am comfortable having the mosquito-control truck spraying drainage ditches in my neighborhood with this stuff.

Your assertion that any exposure to ethanol by pregnant women is harmful is also suspect, since ethanol exposure is unavoidable unless you proscribe pregnant women from eating such wholesome foods as bread or fresh fruit, both of which have measurable concentrations of ethanol. The mouthwash I buy from Walgreen's contains 27% ethanol by volume, yet it has no warning on the label against use by pregnant women. The reason clearly is that the exposure you gets by swishing 10 ml of it around in your mouth for less than a minute each day and spitting it out is not enough to cause birth defects. Hence it has low toxicity in this application.

Also, can you declare a substance as being highly toxic if it is harmful only to a small segment of the population? Examples: I am advised by my doctor that exposure to aspirin could be fatal because I survived a near fatal stomach bleed some years ago. There are plenty of other folks in my same situation. Does that make aspirin highly toxic? Amounts of glucose that I could tolerate easily would be calamitous to a type 1 diabetic. So how toxic is glucose? There are plenty of people could die as a consequence of eating even a single peanut. Does that make peanuts highly toxic?

Just some things to think about. If you read past my second paragraph, I thank you for your perseverence. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 04:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Karl, you logic is wrong in several places that I hope you will reveal to yourself on careful re-reading. You also misquote me again. Ethanol is harmful to some foetuses. Our major difference is on your claim that it is "widely and generally understood". Given all that can we agree on "as listed in the Merck index"? Mccready (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Merck only lists ethanol's LD50, which, if you use that as a measure of toxicity, makes it less toxic than sodium chloride. I don't see what's wrong with the language I've proposed, which says nothing about toxicity. It only states that the applications as solvent for food additives, scents, mouthwash, etc. don't pose a hazard to human health. Clearly an authority such as the FDA agrees with that, otherwise they would not allow it. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 13:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the more accurate formulation I suggest? I don't need to repeat that your formulation is factually incorrect despite any views you believe the FDA has. Mccready (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT more accurate. Merck does not define "low toxicity." It is disingenuous to imply that they do. I am very near submitting this issue to arbitration. Can you indicate literature where use as directed of products like cologne or alcohol-containing mouthwash has led to fetal injury due to the effects of ethanol? If not, please accept that such use is NOT known to cause harm. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 02:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Stay calm. Assume good faith. Does Merck use the term or not? Answer yes. Whether it "defines" the term is not at issue with my formulation. Therefore my formulation ""as listed in the Merck index" is accurate is it not? While your preference for "negligible" harm is clearly unfactual since ethanol has caused foetal alcohol syndrome and is responsible for a huge percentage of the hospital population at any one time. I don't understand what you are trying to defend. Your request for me to find literature sites on mouthwash etc seems slightly fatuous. The issue is ethanol. But for your own information, people checking into detox regularly have their mouthwashes and even hair creams confiscated for obvious reasons. Once again I ask you what is wrong with my formulation? Mccready (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The 9th edition does not explicitly use the phrase, "low toxicity," in the monograph for ethanol. Instead it lists the LD50, which is a numeric way of expressing the toxicity of a substance. Statistics like LD50 does not belong in the lead of an article, since the majority of readers will not know what it means. The Merck does use the "low toxicity" phrase on numerous other compounds, and in each case the implication that it is relative to the application for the substance. As for your statements about alcoholics getting drunk by drinking mouthwash or cologne, while I do not argue that that does not happen, that is clearly NOT the directed use of such products. My point is that use AS DIRECTED of these products is not known to cause harm. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 03:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

unblocked

I blocked you for a 3RR violation at Chiropractic, but you didn't revert a 4th time, so I've unblocked you. Be careful you don't make another edit removing/adding the same material at that article for the next 24 hours. - KrakatoaKatie 09:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Can I take that as an apology for a wrongful block? May I now ask you to spend some time and enquire into Hugh's removal of my attempt to resolve the issue [29] and why Hugh and Levine have acted in concert refusing to explain why my more concise edit is not preferred. Thanks. Mccready (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

McCready, please see talk. We have explained this many times over. We are dealing with a direct quote and to me and others "aiming" sounds poor (similar to "fixing" i.e. "I'm fixing to make me some supper.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to provide a cite for you WTC claim. Then you need to show what wiki principle means we should accept their definition above any other. Interesting to note that the OED, despite attempts by some chiros to move themselves to science based practices instead of the founders hoodoo vooodoo, says "That practises or is concerned with the curing of disease by manipulation of the structures of the human body, esp. those of the spinal column." The head really should acknowledge the percentage of chiros who actually believe they can cure serious diseases. Mccready (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin Error

Krakatoakatie said she would unblock me. I have not yet been unblocked. Mccready (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC) {{unblock|KrakatoaKatie said she had blocked me in error and would unblock me (see above on my talkpage). I am still blocked.}}

Check my block log – I did unblock you, and I said 'sorry' right there in the summary. Apparently there was an autoblock that remained in place. - KrakatoaKatie 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of user's personal names

Please don't refer to other users by name, as you did in your comment regarding this, now oversighted edit. Fred Bauder (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fred, may I call you Fred? I have no idea what you are getting at. When I click on the link you provide I get an error message. Please email me if you would like to make your point clearer. Mccready (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted

I responded on my talk, sorry for the confusion, -- Dēmatt (chat) 16:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Neil Risch

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Neil Risch, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Acupuncture, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you.

For what it is worth, I too think that paragraph whilst well cited but is indeed rather long & undue weight (not re advocacy or otherwise of a particular viewpoint, but for being too long on discussing verification of effectiveness compared to the overall length of the lead-in); clearly issues of verification are discussed more fully in a later section. I think that paragraph perhaps could be shortened a little, but not as much as your hack, but the rest must be relocated into the "Scientific research into efficacy" section. However repeated reverting over several days is not getting anywhere (as both you and Jim Butler are longterm contributers), and risks a good editor getting blocked or the article protected for a while - inevitably as WP:The wrong version :-) Take this back to the talk page and see if compromise can be established (hint given acupuncture's very long history, perhaps the lead in should expand a little on that and how use in "Western World" is a more recent phenomina - surely such points non contentious and would improve the lead-in ?). If need be have low threshold to seek additional input from WP:MED WP:AMED projects or request a RfC (do whatever is required here to stop this being seen as a 1-on-1 edit war). David Ruben ^Talk 11:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've started a Talk:Acupuncture#Lead-in discussion on verification thread, I hope this helps sort things out to everyones satisfaction. David Ruben ^Talk 12:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In regards to my Acupuncture revert, it was done to restore the introduction. The article simply didn't make sense starting out with a criticism of acupuncture without first defining the term.Asher196 (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

copied to acupuncture talk and replied there. Mccready (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Acupuncture. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You're attempting to game the system by making a 4RR right outside of the 24 hour limit. Considering I agree mostly with scientific attacks on CAM, you're patently wrong on this article.

OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You must be kidding since you are reverting me without proper discussion. See my latest discussion on the acu talk before making such silly remarks. Mccready (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you from editing for 72 hours. You're engaged in multiple edit wars across several articles, including acupuncture and chiropractic. While you've barely skirted the letter on WP:3RR on most of these individual articles, you're clearly violating the spirit of the policy in a fairly egregious manner. This appears to be at least your 3rd or 4th block for edit-warring - hence the length of 72 hours. I would suggest seriously considering limiting yourself to voluntary 1RR in the future, given your history. You may appeal this block by the usual means, including the {{unblock}} template. MastCell ^Talk 17:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Learn to count mate. There is no way I've been blocked three or 4 times. The last block was an error reported by on overzealous chiro believer. I've engaged in constructive discussion. Three editors agree with me on chiro. Have you blocked EBDCM? Mccready (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mccready (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have not 3rrd. I have engaged in discussion. See my post above. Mastcell is mistaken in his counting. I have disputed chiro and acu consistently and with support of other editors. Mastcell needs to explain what he means by his accusation of multiple edit wars on several articles. His reason here [31] is my alleged history. Since he is mistaken in that analysis of my history, this block should not stand.

Decline reason:

WP:3RR does not entitle you to at least three reverts; you may be blocked with fewer if you have a history of edit warring. And your block history does indeed show three prior blocks for edit warring. If you can show how that you were not engaged in an edit war this time (that is, you have not been reverting other editors' contributions), please feel free to re-request an unblock. — Yamla (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mccready (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Yamla. You have obviously not checked the block log properly. I was unblocked multiple times for incorrect blocks. Some of them by admins who took a different view on pages we were both editing. After you have checked properly, please do me the courtesy of telling me 1. how many "legitimate" blocks have been made on me and how many for my alleged "history" of edit warring. 2. when the last one was. 3. Neither you nor mastcall have addressed the fact that I have engaged in constructive discussion, that other editors support me and that 4. I have not edit warred on "several" pages.Mccready (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Actually, according to the block log, many of your earlier edit-war blocks were NOT overturned. Also, I wouldn't call the prior unblocks indications that they were overturned because the blocks were wrong; merely that one admin or another wished to extend you "good faith" that you would NOT get involved in an edit war after the block expired. That this has happened multiple times even since the prior extensions of good will towards you would seem to indicate that this block is more than appropriate. In the future, I would recommend that you do no edit more than 1 time. As soon as any edit of your is challenged by another, seek dispute resolution immediately. If your version of an article is correct, uninvolved third parties or mediators will side with you, giving you the consensus needed to proceed with your desired edits. Continuing to edit war will result in future blocks. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mccready (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've asked three times now for facts and figs. But all I get is smears. So here are the facts.

My history of blocks for edit warring or 3rr

Block 1 by a young admin Ruud Koot who was editing the same article he blocked me on. He didn't block himself for reverting me.

Block 2 by Friday. yes I'm happy to own up to that in Aug 2006

Block 3 by Flonight who was editing the same article (she didn't block herself for reverting me and I was unblocked)

Block 4 by KrakatoaKatie who then unblocked me herself and apologised.

So by my reckoning this amounts to one legitimate block for edit warring. This is in NO way equivalent to the charges leveled against me - multiple blocks and edit warring on multiple pages.

Yes I am a forceful editor and this incident will be a lesson to me, but you have not addressed the fact that I am a very constructive editor on a number of articles, that I use the talk pages (that three other editors support me on chiro), that the block of 72 hours is way excessive and the evidence hasn't been looked at objectively. Seems like a case of give a dog a bad name... Mccready (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Considering the facts presented and backed by links and the block log, I believe that the block is justified, however, the length perhaps not. I've reduced the block to 31 hours, which is the typical block time for a second instance of edit-warring. Another unblock request will be considered disruption and may result in page protection. — Lara❤Love 18:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For further explanation of how policy is being "interpreted" here:

The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. ... Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.

— WP:3RR

I agree with others that your editing on Acupuncture, for example, was disruptive, as can be seen here. It is for that reason that you have been blocked. Regards, Lara❤Love 19:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

lara, you appear mistaken. The diff you refer to wasn't me. Mccready (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I see a block for edit-warring from User:Ruud Koot, a block for edit-warring from User:Jayjg, a block for edit-warring from User:Friday, and a block for edit-warring from User:KrakatoaKatie. The last was undone because you hadn't made a 4th revert. Regardless, you're continuing to rationalize away clearly disruptive behavior and wikilawyer about the letter of a policy whose spirit you're wantonly and repeatedly violating. You also appeared to be engaged in classic gaming of the system with your revert timing. Those are discouraging signs. I see you've been rewarded for admin-shopping with a shorter block, but I hope you won't take the wrong message from that - your behavior has been disruptive. Your activity destabilized a previously reasonably decent article. EBDCM (talk · contribs) was also edit-warring on chiropractic, and I've warned them and asked them to voluntarily submit to 1RR - but your history is far more extensive, you've had the benefit of previous run-ins (though you've rationalized most of them away), and you were also edit-warring on acupuncture simultaneously. Those factors explain why I blocked you and only warned the other user.

In regard to your emailed question of whether I stand for "science and truth": it should be obvious what I stand for from my activity on-wiki. I'm not a defender of fringecruft or undue weight; rather, quite the opposite. I would hope that this would be an indication to you that your behavior has been disruptive, and not just in the opinion of "overzealous chiro believers". MastCell ^Talk 21:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

mastcell. You represent a big problem on wikipedia for a number of reasons. 1. Too quick to jump to conclusions without doing your research properly. The block from Jaygj, contrary to your statement, was NOT a block for edit warring. Indeed it was a very controversial block in circumstances where he and another powerful administrator did not like my edits on the same page they were editing on, they then accused me of stalking to that page. The only evidence of this was their opinion. There was no assmption of good faith. 2. You have accused me of gaming the system. Wrong. I had no idea that the 3rr could be interpreted in the way you have pointed out. Thanks for enlightening me. 3. You blocked me at 17:17 8 Feb and I would love to know what went through your mind or who might have suggested the block. The facts are that I was not edit warring. On acupuncture I had not edited for the previous SIX HOURS and there were edits opposing me in that time. Indeed I was using the talk page when you blocked me. On chiro, except for posting the POV tag I had not edited for about SIX HOURS and again I had not edited despite other edits opposing mine, including a revert from your informant EBDCM with a grossly inaccurate edit summary claiming consensus against the views of other editors. I would love to know then, what happened in the intervening six hours that made you take the action you did? 4. And, this is possibly equally egregious with your lack of attention to detail (a big problem on an encyclopedia), is your dare I say it, ridiculous statement, that the article (you do not say which one) was in a "reasonably decent" article (sounds like weasel words to me). Again you impose your judgement about what is reasonably decent. In fact on chiro and acupuncture, the ones you quote, other editors have supported me - a fact you don't address and a fact which undermine your opinion. I have used the talk pages extensively - another fact you don't address. You also fail to back up your statement of multiple edit wars on multiple pages. 5. failure to assume good faith. When I put up rational reasons why I think your behaviour is unreasonable and I give proof that another admin agrees with, you accuse me of admin shoping. I never asked another admin to look into this at all. I emailed one who is active on bikes and merely pointed out I was blocked.

Having said all this, yes, I know know in greater detail how the system works and will behave accordingly. Indeed I had already done so by putting the pov tag on chiro and refraining from editing. I look forward to your explanations, a dispassionate reassessment and a removal of the block. Your accusations of wikilawyering do not assume good faith. If you feel you cannot address these issues, perhaps you should ask someone else to do so.Mccready (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously lecturing me on assuming good faith in the same breath in which you accuse me of doing the bidding of some nefarious chiropractic conspiracy? I don't see much productive coming from further discussion here; it's evident you have a rationalization for each of your many blocks which involves admitting absolutely no fault on your part. This one is no exception; and posting 3 consecutive unblock templates is admin-shopping. I didn't realize you'd also emailed at least one other admin, but since you mention it, that adds to my earlier impression. MastCell ^Talk 03:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not suggesting you are part of a nefarious conspiracy at all. I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion, unless it was the word "informant" perhaps. Cool down, analyze the situation unemotionally and try to answer my questions (particularly on the six hour lag) or get someone else to do it for you. Mccready (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me preface what I am about to say by declaring that we probably have similar real-world incredularity and dismay at much/most of the claims made on behalf of CAM. The problem here is how you engage on wikipedia, and you have not approached this in the best of ways (accepting that there can be no perfect system when "expertese" gives no greater weight to any one editors views/edits and CAM viewpoints are held by large numbers of people/editors). A reminder that edit warring may lead to block without necessarily exceeding 3 reverts in 24 hrs was given by myself on 7 February 2008 above, and I set up a talk-page discussion thread (which whilst you contributed to, thank you, you also continued to revert aginst other editors), I see above you also had further warning early on 8th and the block applied later that same day (reluctantly I too would have blocked you if I had been online). You had been given plenty of prior notification and your previous blocks (irrespective of whether correctly applied or later cleared) will have alerted you to the WP:3RR policy and how 'the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period' . Now in conclusion I entirely agree with the points you recently made about conventional science often not even bothering with what it would see as a waste of time spent dismissing CAM claims, as it has better things to do like carry out verifiable science and actually treat patients. Hence it is only to be expected that CAM advocates are going to be proactive on such articles and conventional scientists will perhaps be less interested in contributing, therefore it is important that wikipedia can keep as many "conventionalists" engaged across the wide range of articles. You therefore are a useful (and, IMHO, welcomed) editor providing counterpoint, but you need find a more collaborative approach and learn that you do not need to "fight the good fight" alone - seek opinions from other editors rather than going-it-alone and seek input from projects (WP:MED, WP:PHARM) or WP:RfC etc - wikipedia is by no means perfect, but there are certainly less-stressful approaches (consider WP:1RR). David Ruben ^Talk 13:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

McReady--MastCell, David Ruben and I are amongst the 3 most strongly anti-CAM, anti-pseudoscience, and pro-reliable sources editors out there. And all three of us wonder how useful you are to the project if you are battling us. I went to Acupuncture with about as skeptical eye as there is. However, I found masses of reliable sources that confirm that Acupuncture does some things. NO it does not cure erectile dysfunction, male pattern baldness, nor cure juvenile diabetes. But it does have a mild to medium analgesic effect. I'm all right with that. I'm as passionate as you, but your fighting me and others is not going to get you far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs) 22:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said Orange. Show me ONE reliable study on analgesic effect. This is the third time. I've asked. Did you read the Mannhiemer corres I sent you? I might add Orange that your estimate of my use on wikipedia does not seem to be shared by david. Thanks David, point taken. I must say that Mastcell has been wrong, has not acknowledged that and lost his cool. I'll definitely take on board what you say David. Mccready (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Mccready

http://lib.bioinfo.pl/meid:318000

http://fhs.mcmaster.ca/anaesthesia/acupuncturecourses/

Notice it is the department of anaesthesia. There's many, many more references available upon request. Thanks for coming out.

EBDCM (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Not good enought E. First link said itself there was no conclusive finding. Second link was cruft. If there was a followup in the second link, pls provide it. Like I say AGAIN. Show me ONE conclusive study. Just ONE. Not two not three not a host (which you would rightly demand from conventional med), just one. Is the bar low enough?? Mccready (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: a programme in medical acupuncture, from the school of medicine, at McMaster University, the birthplace of evidence based medicine is not good enough for you? Wow. Have you ever considered that your position on the topic is dogmatic, not unlike, say straight chiropractors? Regardless of your personal opinion, your scientific compass is surely not working correctly... You say you stand for science and truth but when those clash with your deeply rooted views, you can't admit that your understanding may be wrong and may be in need of modernization. Which is why I'm here to help.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=64140 http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001351.html EBDCM (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reiki ‎

Could you discuss your recent edit to Reiki ‎on the article talk page? I don't think the edit summary suffices given recent edits and past discussions. --Ronz (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm blocked for alleged edit warring though did not break 3rr. Quaint how wiki rules are interpreted. And still no one has denied I am useful to the project and 3 other editors agreed with me on chiro. But be that as it may I'm not going to let it disturb my eqanamity unless another admin take a more considered view. What problems did you have with my Reiki edit? Mccready (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Email warning

Emails sent to your address are being bounced by your email server (I removed your email address):

Technical details of permanent failure:
PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 13): 550 <address removed for privacy>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual mailbox table

--Yamla (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

recumbent

We should discuss on the talk page after the block expires. Also, note that I tried to reply to your email but your reply-to address doesn't work. -SCEhardT 20:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A gentle nudge

I think you should take a short wikibreak, and have a really good long re-read of the rules and then consider what they are trying to convey about the approach at wikipedia - eg WP:BITE re your quite inapproapriate hostile exchange at Talk:Acupuncture#Fact or Crit, also WP:CIVILITY. Then ponder on distinction of WP:SPOV from WP:NPOV - medical journals, textbooks and one hopes doctors follow the former, as an encyclopaedia we follow the later. My personal beliefs (not that it should matter), as you no doubt have gathered, is to consider (a) most CAM as unfounded voodoo faith-driven glorified placebo (b) wonder at my own strong prejudice and consider what is wrong with at least placebo effects if harmless and conventional options are lacking ? However revert waring on CAM articles is both disruptive and counter productive (you'll get banned and that would then be one less editor who seeks to uphold scientific POV in such articles - consider the recent flak over Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch as a source for wikipedia reaching Arbcom decissions). As I have previously tried to point out, an article needs first to describe what something is before overviewing the various opinions/POVs on the topic. This edit, intentional or inadvertant, was disruptive. That you started to argue against an uninvolved editor who tried to point out copyediting issues was, in light of your recent block, a really poor show.

You have complained of tenaceous editing by pro-CAM editors, but your immediate return from the block into similar disputed-content editing and sour manner with other editors neither helps you, other conventional doctors editing here or, most importantly, this encyclopaedia. My gentle nudge, for what tuppence it is worth. is to consider the merits of WP:1RR, and confound those that you disagree with by being 'super-civil' (so rather than "Fine.Yes I concede your point. But ..."[30] why not a simple "Sorry/Thanks, so corrected." - see WP:CIVILITY#Reducing the impact, it does work). David Ruben ^Talk 21:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks David, I'll limit myself to 1RR. I doubt if Asher is the newbie he appears to be (his knowledge and use of wiki stuff after so short a time is unusual). I certainly didn't mean to be rude, but firm. There has been an undeniable change in my edit style since the ban. I will also say that Jim Butler, despite his nicey nicey language is very hard to engage in sensible discussion. For example, he has consistently refused to say why he wants to list the nausea claims in the lead but reject mention of all the conditions for which acu has no benefit. Indeed my latest edit as you will see was to use his actual words from the discussion page. He accuses me of digging in, but refuses to see that he also is dug in. He quotes all the editors who agree with him, but does not quote those who agree with me. He accuses me of being rude but does not show where he has been rude. I certainly apologise for the apparent error in blanking the first part of the acu article; it is not my style and I corrected it ASAP. For anyone to suggest it was deliberate is absurd. I repeat, it is not my style, as any check of all my edits will show.

I'd be grateful if you could address the issue of fact/crit. I can't see any good reason for what the CAM community may regard as a crit in the lead, particularly if it gives the truth on a popularly accepted myth. My view on this would appear to be in line with the principles of SPOV. Mccready (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I second that nudge. Here is my reply to your post: Mccready, for the umteenth time, I'm not abusing you. I have just shredded your argument that's all. I asked you a question and you keep dodging it: how can you claim to be scientific and yet deny any existence of scientific chiropractic and acupuncture? Even other CAM skeptics have suggested that you've gone too far. I agree with them. EBDCM (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's very simple E. You have yet to provide evidence for your views. Your DOI refs appeared to be badly formatted. My views, like yours, are irrelevant because we are creating an encyclopedia based on verifiable sources. You may think that your editing style shreds my arguments. Since you have provided no evidence that is a very hard argument to make, is it not? Anyway, I suggest you get some sleep as you alluded to in your last badly formated and abusive post on the chiro page. Mccready (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, Mccready. Just because something is veriable doesn't make it valid. It's called contextual validity and you do not know the difference in your edits. I have provided ample evidence and furthermore, not one person has agreed with your edit which has been reverted by no less than 5 separate editors. You are continuing to be disruptive, you make false accusations against those who challenge your POV and are generally not a pleasant fellow given your general demeanor in the majority of your posts.EBDCM (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[undent]It's simple E. Provide links to the DOIs and we can examine the evidence. Please desist from expressing your comments about my wikipedia personality. Please desist from false allegations. There is nothing disruptive in asking for evidence on the talkpage. Mccready (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

EBDCM, please step back and disengage here. There's nothing to be gained by coming here and baiting Mccready. It's just not going to help anything. Mccready has agreed to voluntary 1RR, which I think is a big step in the right direction. It'd be best to disengage and not poke him with a stick while progress is hopefully being made. MastCell ^Talk 08:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mastcell. You might notice I haven't reverted today despite reverts of my contributions by Levine, Hughr and Martinphi. I think E has gone to bed as I advised. He hasn't edited for a couple of hours. Mccready (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mccready -- technically, you are at 3RR at I Ching[31][32][33]. I'm not uptight about it, just letting you know. While it's great that you're taking to heart DavidR's and MastCell's constructive comments, I hope it is fair to point out that I and other editors feel your approach remains somewhat disruptive at chiropractic and acupuncture. Why not disengage a little? regards, --Jim Butler (t) 22:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record Jim. Technically I was nowhere near 3RR. Surely you don't regard placing a POV tag, an action you supported, as a revert? Instead of posting here perhaps you could advise User:Martinphi and User:Sunray they shouldn't remove POV tags. I hope that in a spirit of bipartisanship and to support your credentials in producing a better encyclopedia you will do so. Your comments re chiro appear gratuitous. I have used the talkpage extensively to suggest changes to the lead and have deleted puff material which was unsourced. On acupuncture are you comments related to your action in removing my edits which place scientific analysis of acupuncture from the first paragraph? As an acupuncturist you should acknowledge you have a COI here. I'd be grateful if you would consider your comments more carefully in future. Smearing a user, even if unintentional, does not help the project. Mccready (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my comments, which were intended to remind you of your own desire to stick to 1RR, were uncivil in any way. The first edit looked to me like a revert since it removed content, the second reverted to an earlier edit of yours, and the third restored the POV tag (with which I agreed, sure, but still a revert). As I said, it "appeared" to be three reverts, and I wasn't suggesting you violated 3RR. It appears that since then you may have gone to 3RR again,[34][35][36]. but I do not wish to offend or be uncivil by pointing that out. Re other articles: editors at chiro have criticized your edits there. Re acupuncture, please see Talk:Acupuncture#Pain and specifically this diff. I see you suggest I have a COI. According to WP:COI, "Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." If you believe that this is the case for me, please produce the evidence. Also, please consider WP:KETTLE in terms of your own edits and affiliations[37]:

"I'm Kevin McCready, a member of the Australian Skeptics ... The skeptics are famous for our standing offer of $50,000 for anyone who can demonstrate for example that acupuncture is anything more than a placebo..."'

I apologize if the above appears uncivil in any respect, as that is not my intention. --Jim Butler (t) 20:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Moderate nudge, Mccready please back-down and disengage from this approach of aggressive, sour, on-the-limit of WP:AGF retorts - it does you no justice. Jim gave you a polite heads up on your repeated edits to a section on I Ching (I'll review that below). Do not make assumptions on other editor actions, bringing in edits of others is a side-issue here (but of course edits or proposals of several editors of course can be brought together in considering on an article talk page discussion thread how to proceed to work on a section).

As for Jim's points, I think he is wrong, but I can understand why. The first edit-link provided above was not a revert but rather a 1st edit (the 3RR#What_is_a_revert? wikilink Jim provided, suggests blanking of other's contributions, but you did not do that IMHO, just rephrased). Hence the next edit-link provided was the 1st revert and the final edit counts as a "+" on an admins radar screen (I agree it was not reverting the same text, but it questions the text in a somewhat similar manner). Generally POV tags should be used sparingly unless profound problems with a section or ongoing existing talk page discussion is failing to resolve the issue. If POV tagging is disputed or reverted then I would strongly suggest seeking outside opinions (relevant wikiprojects or RfC) which is a far better (allbeit less immediate) method in trying to resolve a disagreement without it risk becoming personal. So, I agree not near 3RR (as at 1+), but editing had been a tiny eany weany bit persistant and you have indicated at acupuncture a change of approach to a more restrained style, so why not lessen editing-stress on other topics too ?

Jim, have a reread of WP:3RR (PS, I always used to get completely confused by this for although has "3" in its title, automatic block is applied on the breaching of the policy with the 4th revert). So your posting, whilst polite, was I think a misapprehension of where Mccready was with the edit/revert numbers (you may wish to consider a brief acknowledgement/appology). It was predictable that your posting would not be the most welcomed ever, with hindsight you might have refrained or posted along a different tack, eg "I note you have edited a few times and with difference of opinons..." and then either "...I've set up a talk page discussion thread to see if other editors can help resolve this" or perhaps "...this seems to have been discussed at the talk page, but as agreement has not been reached, I think fresh opinions of wider selection of previously uninvolved editors might help us, and I have created a RfC#xyz". That would have acknowledged the continuing editing disagreement without making any opinion on Mcready himself, and seeking alternative solutions to an impass.

So both of you treat the other with really thick gloves whilst you rebuild your collaboration, stop stressing each other out, and take good care of yourselves - i.e. no wikistress burn outs please :-) David Ruben ^Talk 14:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

David, you are quite right. AGF trumps all else. Any time there is a conflict, we should always AGF, no matter what other editors' histories are. AGF, always. AGF. --Jim Butler (t) 20:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there an "edit" button to the right of this? ------>

Let me know. If not, perhaps there is something which you need to install in your monobook.js which will make editing so much easier for you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Section#Section_editing for even more information about section editing. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

yes there is. pls read carefully what I wrote. The problem for you is when I click on the plus icon to start a new topic.Mccready (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider not creating a new topic with the + icon then. Just click the "edit" button next to the topic heading just above the references section, and create a new section manually. As an alternative, continue to use the + method and then please just reorder the sections manually so that the references section stays at the bottom of the page. Or... ignore this request and someone anal retentive like me will hopefully clean it up. :-) LoHa! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I did consider it. It negates the fundamental usefulness of having the plus icon there in the first place. Consider an alternative for your notes section. Mccready (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have an alternative suggestion for THE notes section, please suggest one. Note that it isn't my section, but rather a community section (our section) useful to all contributers especially when it is easy-to-find at the bottom of the page. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

After you last gratuitous revert of my work at chiro? You would get more cooperation if you tried to leave your POV aside and edit for the encyclopedia, not for your chiro POV. We all have a POV, it's just that some make greater efforts at writing encyclopediacally than others. I look forward to your improved performance on this front. You can do better. Mccready (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

McCready, though it has nothing to do with this thread, I will take your message to heart. But back to the point, I hope your try this new method of adding threads to the talk pages where there are ref/notes section on the bottom which the regular editors of the page would like left at the bottom of the page. That's all. It seems as though you are saying that you are purposefully ignoring this request out of spite because you disagree with my POV. I hope this isn't the case. There a more cooperative ways to express that you disagree with me. And keeping the ref/notes section on the bottom of the talk page is a methodology which does seem to help writing this encyclopedia. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[undent]There isn't a spiteful bone in my body. Silly of you to think so. Please assume good faith and review the discussion. All I was pointing out is that you will get better cooperation on wikipedia if you cooperate. Your behaviour on chiropractic has not been cooperative.Mccready (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please elucidate. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to help you Levine if it will mean a more cooperative attitude and more thoughtful edits from you in future. What I am alluding to is this, which I now copy from the chiro talkpage:

"I deleted: All chiropractors share a common approach to patient care: all are based on conservative, non-invasive, non-medication approaches via manual therapy. Nonetheless, there are significant differences amongst the practice styles, claims and beliefs between various practitioners.

from which Dematt had just removed a fact tag.

I replaced with: Chiropractors differ significantly in practice styles, claims and beliefs. and an edit summary which said "as per Jimbo on fact tags. we could also do without the sermon on ALL nice chiros"

Levine reverted to: All chiropractors share a common approach to patient care: all are based on conservative, non-invasive, non-medication approaches via manual therapy. Nonetheless, there are significant differences amongst the practice styles, claims and beliefs between various practitioners.

ie Levine did not address my edit summary, did not appear to notice that the issue was removal of a fact tag and did not discuss with us before reverting.

The revert should be reverted. Alternatively you need reliable sources on ALL chiros sharing ALL the characteristics mentioned. Since the section is about differences there is no need to point out commonalities which Levine claims to be doing in his revert. I will refrain from editing for the moment while the community comments on this. I am disappointed that Dematt has apparently let this go, as he has recently been praised more than once by an editor with a scientific approach to wikipedia. Hopefully it was an oversight by Dematt and I AGF."

Do you understand now Levine that you reinserted statements about ALL chiros which were unverifiable?

Mccready (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that your issues have all been addressed here. Please consider that your edit summary - "we could also do without the sermon on ALL nice chiros" - can be viewed as inflammatory. I am not sure what this means to be quite frank, but it comes off as hostile. I really don't know how to address that. However, aside from just being common knowledge - it is also extremely clear from the description of the various chiropractic schools of thought that indeed all chiropractors do share a common approach to patient care: all are based on conservative, non-invasive, non-medication approaches via manual therapy. After all, this common approach is in essence a spinal adjustment. Spinal adjustments are the domain of chiropractors. IOW, all chiropractors perform spinal adjustments. It is basically the very definition of what a chiropractor does. Hence, common knowledge. I believe another edit noted in the discussion that this is plainly as obvious as a medical doctor prescribes drugs. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I can see how the word "sermon" may seem hostile. I was using it as shorthand for unencyclopedic writing. No offence meant. You seem to be putting your personal opinion which of course if valuable. But you do not seem to acknowledge the point that whenever this appears in a wikipedia article it needs to be supported by a verifiable source. Do you understand now Levine that you reinserted statements about ALL chiros which were not verified? Mccready (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing it still. This information is verified. But quite simply, a chiropractor who does not use conservative, non-invasive, non-medication approaches to patient care via manual therapy (aka Spinal adjustment ceases to be a chiropractor. Thus, QED: all chiropractors share this common approach. The verifying source is the any which one that defines what a chiropractor does. There are only at least a dozen such source currently in usage at Chiropractic. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is one such source: The chiropractic approach to health care stresses the patient’s overall health. Chiropractors provide natural, drugless, nonsurgical health treatments, relying on the body’s inherent recuperative abilities. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistic. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Levine, thank you for the source. But I'm sure you understand that is not the issue here. The issue is that you reverted well written encyclopedic language and did not provide a source. Please assure me that you understand the issue and this will not happen again. Thank you. Mccready (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that what you wrote was better writing that the version reverted to (I am not saying that your version wasn't well-written, but rather not as well-written as the prior version) nor did I think a source was necessary as the information was plainly supported by the discussion of "what chiropractic is" throughout the article. So to answer your questions: Yes, I do understand the issue; however, I don't think it is the same issue which you have (which seems more about feeling slighted because your edit got reverted). In the future, if an edit is made which in my opinion weakens long-standing good phrasing, I will again revert once and participate in open-minded discussions just as I had done in this case. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[undent]Levine, this is the fourth time you have avoided the question. Until you answer it I am not convinced you are capable of collaborative editing on wikipedia. You do not appear to understand wikipedia policies that mean, to use your phrase, "long-standing good phrasing" can be challenged at any time as unverified and removed. Indeed you threaten to interpret the content of talkpages in a way to suit your "opinion". Please answer the question, now posed to you for the fifth time: Did you or did you not replace my edit with unsourced material? Mccready (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was the question you were asking - my apologies - but I think my answer should be plainly obvious to you by now: No, I did not replace your edit with unsourced material. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase. Did you revert my edit and not place the sources for your reversion in your edit? Will you now also reconsider your threat to revert to unsourced material but which in your opinion is "long-standing good phrasing"? Mccready (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am exasperated by this, McCready. No source was needed for my revert as I have made plainly obvious to you now. I have not made any threat so please don't accuse me of that. I'm moving on. Bye. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if you are upset. I should have used the word "intention" or "promise" or "commitment" or "assurance". Having expressed my sorrow, I hope you can see it within yourself to provide an answer to my legitimate concerns about your understanding of wikipedia policy. Mccready (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If the word "all" were replaced with "generally" (or something like that), would it solve the problem? Sourcing isn't needed for obviously common knowledge. -- Fyslee / talk 17:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No it wouldn't be alright. It's a demonstrably untrue statement. How many chiros each year are caught in unprofessional behaviour. If it's common knowledge then it doesn't even need to be in the article, does it? Mccready (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What on earth does this have to do with chiropractic fraud, which is a large subject, but another subject than discussed above, TTBOMK? -- Fyslee / talk 01:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mccready. Do you have any statistics which suggests that chiropractors are more likely caught in unprofessional behaviour than any other health professional? If not, what are you basing your judgment on? Thanks, EBDCM (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See my response below under the heading "Chiropractor fraud" Mccready (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Corapi

It looks like my last edit reverted to YOUR last edit, so I think we are, literally, on the same page. --Midnite Critic (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Mccready (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Blacklist

I've removed the blacklisted link. I've also removed your comment, as you posted to the wrong page (actually, you posted to page that isn't supposed to be edited at all). I believe you meant to post to either WP:AN or WP:ANI. Anyway, problem solved, happy editing. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yi Chingers, What To Do?

Sunray and his I Ching article represents a kind of religious orthodoxy to my mind. Behind it all is a ridgid belief in the I Ching as religious revealation. Any suggestion that the book's magic is suspect will not be tolerated. Please continue your efforts. --Kungtzu (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I wasn't aware that a dispute still existed. The infobox for the neutrality tag says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page..." Since we had resolved the issue about the Needham quote, and you had already agreed to "leave it in [my] capable hands," I figured we were done. The "egad" thing has to do with style, not neutrality, IMO. If some area of dispute still exists about the neutrality of the article, would you be able to summarize that on the talk page? Sunray (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I already have. See the talkpage. In your capable hands is not carte blanche to do what you want. It is an expression of trust that you would find a formulation all can be happy with. You will have to rebuild trust again by trying to insert the fact of significant (Needham is nothing if not significant in China studies) criticism in the lead. Mccready (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If you follow that thread, there was an agreement to include the Needham quote in the article, in a criticism section. An editor then did that. I am curious as to why you continue to wish to include the "neutrality" tag? Please see my note on the talk page. Sunray (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractor fraud

EBDCM asked me above about my comments on this topic. See Consumer Health Digest

Virginia licensing board reprimands chiropractor who used bogus muscle-testing.

A chiropractor who operates The Health and Wellness Center in Alexandria, Virginia, has been reprimanded, fined $1,500, and ordered to stop using and promoting Body Response Technique (BRT), Nambudripad's Allergy Elimination Technique (NAET), **Contact Reflex Analysis (CRA), and testing with an Acoustic Cardiograph (ACG). BRT, NAET, and CRA involve bogus muscle tests that supposedly are related to body organs. The ACG is claimed to provide a "readable signature" of heart sounds" that is used to detect imbalances of body chemistry. The alleged problems are then corrected with dietary supplements. The consent agreement notes that Berg had made many therapeutic claims that were not supportable by reasonable scientific or medical evidence. http://www.casewatch.org/board/chiro/berg.shtml Surveys have found that over 40% of chiropractors have used muscle testing in similar ways, most notably as part of a system called applied kinesiology. Berg, who represents himself as BRT's developer, says that he has trained more than 1,000 practitioners at his seminars.

For reports on the dubious practices, see: http://www.chirobase.org/06DD/brt.html http://www.chirobase.org/06DD/naet.html http://www.chirobase.org/06DD/cra.html http://www.devicewatch.org/reports/acg.shtml http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/ak.html Mccready (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the question in issue: do chiropractors have a higher fraud rate than other health care practitioners and if so, what is your source? I could also easily google 'medical fraud' and bring up an isolated case as well. This is poor research on your part. Your links to chirobase and quackwatch confirm this. EBDCM (talk) 01:14, February 17, 2008

Do your own research. You may be surprised. At no stage did I say chiro fraud was worse than any other. You need to apologise for your slur on me. Mccready (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the name as I am not sure if linking the name with fraud is a violation of WP:BLP. If it isn't I apologize in advance. -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That only applies to unsourced negative info. This is highly sourced and published. -- Fyslee / talk 01:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My concern was that we (WP) are calling it fraud while the quote calls it dubious. I'm not familiar enough with legal lingo to know if there is a difference, but considering this guy already has some legal experience, I assume he has an attorney. -- Dēmatt (chat) 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you admit that chiropractic fraud is not any worse than any other health profession then why the special mention here? It could be construed in some circles as a WP:WEIGHT violation. EBDCM (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[undent]EBDCM if you are going to improve your contribution to wikipedia you really need to read carefully and think logically. There are courses in logic which you might find helpful. I didn't admit anything. Without the evidence either way that would be silly wouldn't it? You are also forgetting that my comments were on a talk page and of rhetorical nature - WP:WEIGHT doesn't apply in this instance. You might also like to research the device of rhetoric. Good luck in your research on rates of fraud. Mccready (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you or do you not have a source that demonstrates that 'chiropractic fraud' is greater than other health disciplines? If not, why the special mention? Your snide comments aside, it seems like you're using a straw man fallacy here. I've had a few philosophy courses in University, so I'm well aware of logic and fallacies. You might be well served to take some of your own advice. I look forward to further collaborating with you in the future. EBDCM (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is getting boring. You are putting your words into my mouth - words I have already told you I never said. The trouble with getting emotional about these things is that you start to believe what you believe with even greater passion, despite the evidence. Your constant referral to the straw man fallacy does not advance your argument - in fact it is you entirely who is constructing a stawman out of your own mind. You need to show me where I said chiro fraud is greater than other disciplines. Otherwise you need to apologise for your error and your continual slur on me. Given your behaviour in the past, your uncivil conduct and the advice you have had to desist, this is not a light matter. Please either put up the evidence or stop posting slurs on my talkpage or I will take this as Wikipedia:Harassment Mccready (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you feel I am harassing you, I am sorry; that is not my intent. I just wanted you to clarify your position. You had written "How many chiros each year are caught in unprofessional behaviour. If it's common knowledge then it doesn't even need to be in the article, does it?". You seem to be implying that it is common knowledge that chiropractors commit health fraud. I was asking you why you find this to be notable if its not in greater proportion than other health care providers. I don't feel like I have slurred you but I apologize if you had mistakenly taken it that way. EBDCM (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Common knowledge referred to the assertion that it was common knowledge that ALL chiros try to heal or whatever the unsourced words were that I deleted. Thank you for your apology. Let's leave it at that, shall we? Mccready (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Crossmr (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Urban dictionary

Urban Dictionary almost certainly isn't a source since it is self-published and has no reputation for checking material, see WP:SOURCES and WP:SPS for more details. Thanks, Rich257 (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what you may mean is that it may not be a suitable source? The the purposes of Fuck the Navy (FTN) it seems fine to me, especially since the term has wide use as shown by the number of Alta Vista hits. The sources you quote don't mention it.Mccready (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

acupuncture (2)

I failed to produce tonight the edit I wanted to incorporate your most recently reverted additions to acupuncture. I left my thoughts as to what the lead section should contain over at Talk:Acupuncture#paring lede. I will try over the next day or two to sift through what was mostly a cosmetically motivated reversion to make sure no useful content is being discarded. If you want to drop that text with the rest of the reviews or elsewhere in the article before I get around to it, so much the better. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 10:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or do not, I am on "your side" - my reading of the studies on acupuncture is that the evidence is wan or wanting for efficacy and nonexistent for mechanism. Check my edit history - I really do belong to the reality-based community. There were good, non-controversial edits that you just stomped, for instance the trans-wiki to bs:Akupunktura. Plunking an indiscriminate list of studies in the lead is not acceptable style for this or any other article. Try formatting a comprehensive list of the findings of quality sources (like Cochrane) as a wikitable and contributing it to the Acupuncture#Scientific_research_into_efficacy section. Do this, and you will gain an ally in this little low-frequency edit war, or possibly even end it. Please reserve the lead as a relatively brief summary of the article. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 09:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very busy in real life and don't have time to do detailed battle with believers. The question is one of weight. Like I said in my edit summary. If you really are science based then I would welcome your cooperation. Your simple revert doesn't help - it's a question of emphasis as I said and if a good edit falls, it falls. It's happened to me to, but we have to get priorities right. Mccready (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to acupuncture because not only does it not conform to proper manual of style, but it seems you seem to be using it to make a point. The content looks reliable, so find a way to gain consensus on talk and then but it under the appropriate subsection. I hope that adequately explains my reversion; no hard feelings. CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you not know that there is no proof that acupuncture is effective for anyting? Are you really happy then that the first mention of effectiveness in YOUR version says acu might be a good thing? This is stupid and misleading is it not? Please answer these three questions. Mccready (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports Chiropractic

I completed the AfD for you... — Scientizzle 15:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It does not meet AfD criteria and is well sourced and referenced. CorticoSpinal (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Efficiency

Wikipedia needs editors in the reality based community to keep pseudoscience pov-pushers from running over articles, but you're going about this the wrong way. You'll simply be more efficient and accomplish more if you try to follow the behavioral guidelines by not being angry, not pushing edits not suitable simply for stylistic reasons or reverting endlessly. If you continue down this path, you're rapidly heading towards a ban from editing pseudoscience articles at all, and how much will that accomplish? Please, consider this advice and consider changing your approach. You'll accomplish more. henrik•talk 14:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So you agree that the dispute is the weight given to various scientific sources. Butler et al want to highlight a tiny minority of studies saying acupuncture MIGHT be effective. They insist on placing this information first in acupuncture articles and edit war in concert to achieve their aims. I want to highlight the huge number of studies showing acupuncture is NOT effective. Then please edit acupuncture to achieve a good result. Thanks for you advice. I'll take it on board. I might add that the "community" Butler purports to represent are those fellow acu apologists who inhabit the acu page and leave him congratulatory messages about what a great job he's doing preventing reality from appearing on the acu pages. Mccready (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Where on earth do you get the idea that Henrik "agree[s] that the dispute is the weight..."? Read what he wrote again. He points out several behavioral and formatting issues, yet you ignore that and repeat your straw man excuse for edit warring. Pitiful. Just because many of us agree that your sources and POV are good and needed, we still disagree with your way of going about this, and that is the ONLY thing this conflict is about, not your POV. You make skeptics look bad and make it hard for us to agree with you, even when we wish to. We don't want to be associated with an uncollaborative POV warrior who "doesn't get it." -- Fyslee / talk 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You've done a great job of finding and assembling sources into a list, however it must be edited into prose to fit the article. There is discussion here Talk:Acupuncture#Commentary_on_Effectiveness on how to integrate it, I suggest you engage in that discussion. henrik•talk 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider the rhetorical style - if your aim is to convince people that the effects of acupuncture are consistent with placebo response, cogent, well-reasoned arguments backed up by high quality evidence will be more effective than a raw list. If your aim is a neutral presentation of the body of evidence (which shows the usual CAM research problems, but does not unequivocally discard the null), it needs to be incorporated into the text anyway. We are all busy volunteers, and only doing half the work leads to your work being wasted.

I initiated a lead proposal on the talk page a few weeks ago, but thus far only one person has commented. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We certainly need more skeptics. But you shouldn't go about it in this manner. Voice-of-All 06:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert probation

After the discussion here, it seems that the consensus is that imposing a 1RR would be best, rather than a topic ban or other remedy. For a period of 6 months, you are limited to 1 revert per day on all pseudoscience related articles (broadly interpreted), excepting obvious vandalism. You've previously committed to a 1RR above, so this is a mere formalization of that agreement. A very important of being a Wikipedia editor is being able to work together with people with different views, as long as they also are willing to do the same. I would encourage you to try explaining your actions in the edit summaries and talk page and try to work together with other editors in the future, instead of fighting them. henrik•talk 19:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that such a consensus emerged. However, I will limit to 1RR unless circumstances warrant otherwise, such as the silly bulk revert of my hour's work by Butler a few minutes ago. He deleted uncontroversial and good edits and claimed they were addressed on talk. I'm not going to wade through thousands of words of talk to see what he means on this occasion. He needs to start a new thread and say why he removed well sourced well edited material which other editors had suggested.Mccready (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mccready. There was no such consensus, on the contrary! -- Fyslee / talk 02:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be funny if it wasn't for your silly wikistalking revert I pointed out on your talkpage and to which you have no response. Why don't you do something useful instead of sniping meaninglessly, wikistalking and making patently silly reverts? Even Butler reverted you on the date issue.Mccready (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) So you're OK with 1RR except when you have a righteous reason to ignore it, right? Great, that's going to work really well, I can see.

From Talk:Acupuncture:

First, I reverted because your edit was redundant and sloppy, and ignored discussion on this page.

If it took you an hour to do two cut and pastes -- the second paragraph from Eldereft's draft above, and the material you've been edit warring about, then my heart goes out to you: you must have a very slow internet connection indeed.

Sorry you were puzzled as to where my discussion of my edit might be. Hint: a logical place for it would be at the bottom of Talk:Acupuncture#paring_lede, from which you cut and pasted your hour-long edit. Another good way to find out when editors may have recently edited a page is to use the history, which shows this: 00:37, 28 April 2008 Jim Butler (Talk | contribs) (82,370 bytes) (→paring lede: explanation). Lo and behold, there are my comments.

Another thing the edit history shows is that the last time you edited this page, apart from your comment above, was 13:42, 17 March 2008. All this time you've been revert warring on the article, and you haven't discussed till now. You have it backwards: you need to be discussing a lot more and reverting a whole lot less.

As for our respective edits: you may not have noticed that I made a number of edits to the article today, including working in the material over which you've been revert warring. Your edit completely ignored that, and redundantly re-added list of conditions, and with poor formatting as well. As for my changes to the lead, those were based on Eldereft's draft above and our ensuing discussion (more below).

Since your edit adds redundant material and doesn't take into account the discussion following Eldereft's draft, I'm mostly reverting. Please feel free to continue the discussion. Why is "spiritual energy" preferable to "vital energy" given that most TCM-er's wouldn't call qi spiritual? Where is a reliable source on "prior probability", and why does a jargon-ish term like that belong in the lead? And most importantly, what is the threshold for objective efficacy beyond placebo, and how is that reached with acupuncture and other procedures (as opposed to compounds)? Has any surgical technique ever objectively been proven via double-blinded studies to be effective beyond placebo, and if not, isn't that the wrong question to be answering, cf. undue weight? I'd argue yes, and that a more general presentation, with further unpacking in the article, is preferable. --Jim Butler (t) 02:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for recurring disruption. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban and probation

As per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive409#Topic ban, you are placed under a topic ban and probation. You are banned from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed, for six months. You are under probation on all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics, broadly construed, for the same duration. You must explain all reverts except blatant vandalism on the article's talk page and are warned against further disruption, such as ignoring consensus or edit warring. Please reconsider your approach and editing pattern. Vassyana (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WOW. This is a new low for wikipedia. A user proposes such a drastic action, then the same user closes the discussion before I have a chance to respond. Great. What of all the errors in the info presented? What of the obvious bias in those who expressed a view (overwhelmingly altmeders)? What of the ridiculous assertion that I don't contribute to discussion on acupuncture? Since when do edit summaries not count? What of the editors who said my info was accurate and highly germane, but merely not formatted correctly and should have been referenced in lead rather than included. I'd like a review and a chance to put my defence. This is ridiculous. I am prepared to plead guilty to one thing and one thing only: drawing attention to the undue weight in the acupuncture article. Butler the acupuncturist insisted, despite all talk, that favourable research, no matter how small, be listed before the huge amount of research showing acupuncture has no effect. It's that simple. Mccready (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe such a response will not serve you well. Regardless, I did not close the discussion. It was archived without my intervention. Please note that those endorsing the topic ban include users like Jossi, MBisanz, MastCell and Nick. I will post a message at ANI indicating that you wish for this to be reviewed. Since you are still blocked for five days, if you have any particular message or rebuttal you would like posted, please post it here (noting you want it copied) and I will post it to the noticeboard on your behalf. Vassyana (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

For your reference, you can find the thread at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mccready topic ban. Vassyana (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Vassyana. Please post this on for consideration. I acknowledge I placed links on the acupuncture page (on average once per day for a few days) to 16 Cochrane studies showing acupuncture has no proven effect. After further research this was changed to 18 and I suspect further research would increase that number. I noted in my edit summaries the reasons, so the accusation that I have not communicated is not well founded. It had also been discussed on the talkpage previously by me. The record of talk on acupuncture also shows I have spent much time already, before this action, putting the point about UNDUE weight. The aim of inserting the 18 studies was to focus attention on the inappropriateness of the article mentioning first the tiny number of studies showing acupuncture MAY have effect, as against the overwhelming number of studies and metastudies showing no effect. My aim was also to note that the use of the Ernst sources was misleading (particularly on placebo if I recall correctly) - I had already discussed this on talk - so again, the accusation I don't communicate is ill-founded. I also noted in the ESs that I had limited time that week. I have often been the only pro-science editor on this page amongst a plethora of acupuncturist believers, most of whom have little editing experience and show little inclination to examine the sources properly, but who like to cheer on any edit which supports acupuncture, even going to the extent of leaving congratulatory messages on Jim Butler's talkpage. Other editors when alerted to my action agreed that my research was good. However there was legitimate objection to how my edit was formatted and placed. I acknowledged this in my ESs and was happy, as I said repeatedly and as I've said on my talk above, for the information to be summarized in the lead with the information below. What I objected to, and said so in my ESs was deletion of well-sourced research showing acupuncture is pointless (sorry about the pun). In the face of constant deletion of the information by acupuncturists (the claim that it was already below was erroneous because there were significant gaps) my view was that the information should be replaced, even if the formatting and position weren't ideal - I have since had time to fix this. I believe the proposed ban is too severe. The accusation that I do not use talk is patently motivated by a desire to get rid of a pro-science editor. The actions of Jim Butler in particular in supporting the proposed ban are clearly coloured by his wish as an acupuncturist to have the acupuncture page the way he wants it. I am happy to present more information as to why the discussion on the proposed ban contains many errors (claims on block frequency, mistaken blocks in past which were acknowledged by blockers etc), but do not wish to waste any more of the community's time. Accusations that I am not a net benefit to the project, (even Jim Butler has said my research is good) have only been expressed by altmeders for obvious reasons. Yes I am a robust editor and robustly express my views but this proposed ban is inappropriate. Overall I doubt that any objective person could say I am not a net benefit to the project. Indeed without me I can confidently say that the acupuncture page would be a much worse ad for acupuncture than it currently is. I might finish by saying that a careful analysis of all my work on acupuncture would take quite a bit more time than the editors you mention have had. My work on uncovering the research showing cultural bias in some of the studies from Chinese researchers is a case in point and one also objected to, unfortunately, by Jim Butler. I cannot recall but it may even be Mastcell who I wrote to (certainly it was a pro-science editor) saying Mastcell's views on acupuncture were skewed by the "apparent" science showing its effectiveness. These are not easy issues to deal with and need quite a bit of time and expertise. I throw myself on the intelligence of the community in deciding this issue and urge you to look at the facts sans emotion and special pleading from the altmeders. Mccready (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. I have no problem putting this up for review and also no problem making sure your responses and concerns are heard. I'll post this to thread immediately for you and keep an eye on your talk page, in case you have additional comments or responses to make. Vassyana (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Thanks much appreciated. Give a dog a bad name is the problem here and a concerted effort by altmeders to sideline a robust pro-science editor. Here is my block history.

• Block 1 by a young admin Ruud Koot who was editing the same article he blocked me on. He didn't block himself for reverting me.
• Block 2 by Friday. yes I'm happy to own up to that in Aug 2006
• Block 3 by Flonight who was editing the same article (she didn't block herself for reverting me and I was unblocked)
• Block 4 - mistake by KrakatoaKatie who then unblocked me herself and apologised.
• Block 5 - by trigger happy Mastcell for violating the "spirit" of 3RR. This was reduced in time on appeal. So we have one real blocks which I deserved in Aug 2006 and yet I have been given a bad name by the altmeders who claim, without details, I've been blocked ad nauseum. The current block, which I dispute, is for "disruption". My defence - a question of the lesser evil considering my limited time at the time has not been addressed. As I said these are complex matters and need to be judged on facts - not on appearances as presented by a vocal altmed cabal of editors. Mccready (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mccready (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This request is to allow me to be part of the discussion on the proposed topic ban only. If I am unblocked I will undertake only to edit on the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mccready topic ban until this issue is sorted out. It is unfair to Vassyana to expect her to cut and paste from here to the discussion. There are things being said about me which are totally wrong and need refutation if a sensible discussion is to proceed. It is unfair and wasteful of time to ask anyone to copy from this page and intersperse it into the appropriate part of the discussion. I hope I can confidently trust even to Jim Butler, to support this request. He should know and acknowledge, despite his antagonism and mixed messages that I am not the type of user who will edit elsewhere if this unblock is met for this specific purpose. Please refer my comments on the block log immediately above when making your decision. Mccready (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The discussion on your topic ban is concluded at this point. That isn't to say that another discussion can't take place, but none is taking place now. A limited-purpose unblock would not make sense for this reason. Mangojuice^talk 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reset block

You have been blocked for one month for canvassing and accusing otherwise reputable users of failing to properly review your situation. You've been around quite long enough to know that actions and comments like this are not at all acceptable. Since the canvassing was occurring through email, you have also been blocked from sending email via Wikipedia. I will continue to post your comments to the AN/I discussion, as offered and agreed. Vassyana (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mccready (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Disappointed but not surprised by a kangaroo court in which I wasn't able to defend myself. Here's what I wrote to Matthew that upset him. "Of course there's canvassing afoot. Since I am not able to defend myself I have the right to email people do I not? Would your COI have any bearing on this? You could not have possibly examined the information in detail in order to reach a reasoned decision - you simply haven't had the time. And speaking of canvassing, how did you become aware of the issue? I refer you to the latest statement on my page. Please consider it, it may be information you haven't yet considered. Since another admin has offered to copy it to the discussion but has not done so, you may like to do so in the interests of openness and you may include this email too. Thank you Matthew." AFTER this he rightly said I didn't know what canvassing meant. Now I do. I read the GUIDELINE after. So now we punish people for not knowing a GUIDELINE. Great job wikipedia. I also find it astounding that the same admin can reset the block, rather than an independent admin have a look. BTW I found another flaw in the wikipedia software - the preview and redit function doesn't work with the unblock template. The error is triggered by the last two brackets.Mccready (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're not going to be unblocked so long as you continue to assume bad faith on the part of others, which was part of the reason for your block. Canvassing is disruptive, and a blatant disregard even for our guidelines can be grounds for a block when it causes disruption. Calm down a bit, and come back when you're able to make a request that doesn't accuse others. Also, the current ANI discussion has not yet finished; once it has, you will be notified of the outcome. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I find it very difficult to believe that you've been here almost three years and have been an active participant in controversial areas, but yet have only now come to understand that canvassing is wrong. It's not some obscure rule buried in one of the many pages of the Manual of Style, for example. It is a conduct rule that receives regular mention, particular in areas plagued by accusations of coordination and meatpuppetry, such as areas you have edited. I accept it is possible that somehow in three years that notice of the rule completely escaped you, but that concerns me even further. As far back as just over a year and a half ago, you were placed under a topic ban due to repeated issues. If 18+ months, a few blocks and much drama later you are still not familiar with the basic conduct rules of Wikipedia, I can only attribute that to a disregard for (or apathy towards) Wikipedia's principles and rules. I can think of no other reason for continued ignorance of the common conduct rules. Active editors (outside of controversial areas) are usually familiar with them in less than 1/3 that time, without a pressing reason to familiarize themselves with the rules (such as repeated blocks and sanctions). Regardless, we're talking about a fair simple and relatively obvious set of rules: Be polite (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF). Don't try to rig the system (WP:SOCK, WP:GAME, WP:CANVAS). Don't stump for a position (WP:NOT, WP:NPOV). Don't disrupt the wiki process (WP:DE, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:POINT). I quite honestly and simply find it nearly beyond belief that by this point you are not familiar with those basic concepts. Vassyana (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So now you're calling me a liar? Please ask another admin to review this. Thanks. Mccready (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. As an uninvolved administrator, I'm supporting the original block. You have been here for nearly three years and you have failed to grasp the most basic principles and policies of Wikipedia, including civility and refrainment from personal attacks. You have also vague concepts regarding neutral points of view and you consistently edit war to no end. You have been sanctioned numerous times in the past and you have been the subject of much dialogue and debate. As a result, you were placed on 1RR and then blocked for disruption.

Continuing down this path will only lead to your talk page being locked for the duration of your block. seicer | talk | contribs 03:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I tell you I haven't read the canvassing guidelines before this incident and you call me a liar. That's nice - good wikipedia behaviour. By your estimation how many of the blocks on my log should have stood? Can you tell me when I was "placed on 1RR"? Even assuming I was, which I wasn't, my insertions of accurately sourced scientific literature into the LEAD were done on 1RR were they not? I should not have been blocked either for assuming bad faith. I asked Matthew legitimate questions. Had I read the canvassing guidelines do you think I would have emailed Matthew the way I did? I might ad that I receive on average an email once a week which may now be regarded as "canvassing" including from one of my most vocal critics. Once you've answered you may like to reconsider your remarks. I might also point out that even my detractors acknowledge I am a good editor and you now have the dubious honour of being the first person on wikipedia to call me a liar. Well done. I am not a liar. My original request stands.Mccready (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not call you a liar, though I quite openly expressed strong skepticism. It should not be unusual for someone to express deep skepticism that after such a long time on the site that you are not aware of some of the basic conduct principles. It should be even less unusual to see such skepticism directed towards someone who has been active in controversial areas and previously sanctioned, including with a topic ban. As I mention above, it is possible that somehow some of the basic behavior rules of Wikipedia escaped your cognition, but that is no less disturbing, given its likely indication of acute disregard or apathy for the community's expectations of conduct. You're asking for a quite credulous response if you expect your word to be taken at face value that you're innocently not familiar with the basic conduct expections of the community after three years. Vassyana (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This looks very like your are calling me a liar. Either I did or I did not know of the guidelines. Since I did not, do you agree the block is excessive? Even assuming, for the purposes of your skepticism, which shows complete lack of good faith and jumping to your own conclusions without evidence to back them up, what is the usual length of a first block for canvassing? Mccready (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia proceedings do not really resemble legal proceedings, there's is a concept from law which seems relevant. Libel law, and fraud, cover statements that the maker "knew, or should have known", were false and/or misleading. In this case, you "should have known" about canvassing restrictions, although I haven't tried to find evidence that you were specifically informed of it. That being said, I agree with much of what you've been trying to do in supporting [[[WP:FRINGE]] guidelines in medical articles, but your methods seem counterproductive. (I'm not an "uninvolved" admin, as I explained.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Innocent till proven guilty might be the better concept. I had never read the canvassing guidelines. Would you mind giving me you opinion on this [38]Mccready (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you did know about while saying you did not, that would be a lie. If you did not know about it, after a history of sanctions, participation in controversial areas and editing for three years, it belies gross disrespect for the community, or perhaps a simple inability to grok our rules. Whether or not you're being honest is quite simply not really relevant. Regardless of your honesty and reasons, your inability or unwillingness to learn and adhere to the principles of Wikipedia is deeply problematic. Please, take a step back and earnestly consider the feedback you've received from editors on both sides of the science divide and from outside editors. Vassyana (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Any further comment?

Reviewing the comments found here, do you have any further response or comments that you wish to be part of the discussion? Vassyana (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There's not much point having a discussion with people who won't discuss. Please first answer my question. What is the average block length for a first offence on canvassing. (Before the usual crowd chimes in with distortions please check the record - I tried for MONTHS to get the question of the acupuncture lead sorted. All I got was altmed resistance.) Mccready (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You won't be receiving an answer to the question from me, as its a loaded question that ignores the context of the block you received. "First offense" warnings and blocks are not for users, such as yourself, that have a long history of conduct issues and multiple years of experience on the site. Also, please realize that your continued insistance that people need to "check the record" and that the determination that there is a problem with your approach is purely the result of the "distortions" of the "usual crowd" are part of the problem. You continue to insist on blamelessness, impuging impugn your opponents as the cause of a "distorted" perception, after quite a long period and multiple sanctions (including a previous topic ban). For a moment, imagine a fringecruft pusher that (after three years and multiple blocks & sanctions) claimed to have not been aware of some of the basic behavior rules and continued to deny wrongdoing, instead blaming pro-science editors for distorting the truth and fooling many uninvolved administrators over the years (while claiming those administrators just aren't really checking the real record, just buying the lies and distortions of the anti-altmed editors. Exactly how would you react to a user like that? How would you expect independent sysops to act? Please consider how you would expect that behavior to be treated if it occured in your opponents and realize that in fairness, those standards are even both ways. Vassyana (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning is sloppy - I have never insisted on blamelessness - indeed it shows you have not even read my comments properly on this incident in which you have taken such a leading role. You owe me an apology. Sloppy reasoning is the greatest problem with a wikipedia which focusses on form over substance, a wikipedia that refuses to tackle the role of science in an encyclopedia and goes with its emotions on the say so of altmeders who distort the record. If the amount of energy wasted on this case had been put into examining the facts of acupuncture we would have a much improved encyclopedia. Of course I ask you to check the record - how else will you arrive at a balanced conclusion? Review the above and tell me which of my blocks was warranted. And then check this [39] for pure altmed altering the facts to suit itself. It's simply not good enough for you to assert that asking you to check the record is part of the problem. Indeed it is absurd for you to make the assertion without looking at the evidence carefully - the very problem wikipedia has with altmeders and believers in fringecruft. You also conveniently ignore the fact that I had already been sanctioned for reinserting the scientific material. The extra block for alleged canvassing was excessive and vindictive. How can we possibly discuss it properly if you refuse to put basic facts on the table? Please answer the question. Mccready (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) "Blamelessness" may be an overstatement, but I have yet to see you accept any blame whatsoever. I have not seen you take any responsibility for your own actions, instead blaming your problems on the distortions of your opponents. Your attitude throughout has been consistant in this regard. See, for example, your reply to FloNight (a respected arbitrator who is not known for snap judgments): User_talk:Mccready#Mccready is issued a 30 day community ban from editing all articles related to Pseudoscience. I've reviewed your contributions. I've reviewed your blocks. I've reviewed your previous topic ban. What I see is a large number of editors, including those on the "pro-science side" and uninvolved administrators, clearly indicating to you that there is a serious problem with your approach. See, for example: User_talk:Mccready#Blocked. LaraLove, Yamla and Jayron32 are all very reputable and level-headed administrators. MastCell, OrangeMarlin and David Ruben are all known for their anti-fringe/pro-science perspective. What information you are trying to add to the content is simply not an issue to be considered here. The constant problem is your inability to edit collegially with your fellow editors. If you cannot understand this, or refuse to accept it, there is little that can be done except prohibit you from editing in areas where there is a problem. Vassyana (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So you still refuse to answer the question. You have obviously not read the above and compound your error. I have accepted blame. What wikipedia refuses to do is sanction Butler for removing science based material. See his revert taking out the information on placebo from acupuncture. Now that you have reviewed my blocks (including the ones reversed and mistaken) would you do me the courtesy of saying which blocks should have been made? Mccready (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have clearly explained why I will not answer the question as so phrased. I have not seen you accept responsibility as you'd so claim, but you're welcome to point to me archived sections and diffs to show me what I missed. Arguing about other people's wrongs will not help you out here. I will not be drawn into a debate about your previous blocks. The two talk page sections I linked above demonstrate there is a serious issue, regardless of the validity of any given individual block. Vassyana (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

see my response 07:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) on this page to a post of yours. I'm getting sick of your game playing. How can you possibly hope to have an intelligent discussion if you keep saying I won't discuss this, I won't discuss that, I won't discuss validity of earlier blocks, I won't comment on Butler's misuse of sources (that should be the worst crime on wikipedia), I won't comment on Butler's removal of placebo from the lead. This is getting very tiresome. But now that I've gone to the trouble of providing the info you asked for (it was a few paras above), perhaps you'd deign to do me the courtesy of engaging in a sensible discussion.Mccready (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Accepting one block (from over a year and a half ago) among many blocks, sanctions and warnings is not exactly what I meant by "accept responsibility". In my conception, accepting responsibility would be acknowledging the acute problems noted by editors across the spectrum, or at the very least acknowledging that there was more than a one-time issue. Regardless, I have stricked out my overstated comments about blamelessness accordingly and apologize for needlessly overstating the case. Such overstatements are inflammatory and I should know well-enough to state the case more accurately without even mild hyperbole. I am earnestly sorry for doing so.

Regarding unanswered questions, I am only refusing to be drawn into debate on tangential issues that have no real bearing on the matter at hand. "First offense" warnings and sanctions have absolutely no bearing in a case of an editor with a long history of problematic participation. Even if multiple of your blocks were invalid, there is a clearly a long-term and serious issue with your behavior, with even pro-science and uninvolved editors noting the problem (as demonstrated by the two links I provided above). Butler's content contributions have absolutely no bearing on considerations of your actions. A sensible discussion is not possible if the core issue is avoided and tangential issues constantly raised in its place. Vassyana (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thanks for correcting yourself and your apology. One of the keys to this issue is my block log, is it not? In that case you need to say which blocks you regard as valid. It would be nice to see you putting the same amount of energy into Butler's appalling behaviour too.Mccready (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your block log, no. No it's not. I have plainly and repeatedly explained why it really doesn't matter. Again, regardless of the validity of any given block, there is a clear pattern of conduct problems that has been been apparent to pro-CAM, pro-science and neutral administrators alike. I am looking into the general dispute area, but I am only one person with finite energy, time and attention. However, if it is any comfort, I've acted on the "other side" as well, topic banning DanaUllman (talk · contribs) under the discretion afforded by ArbCom sanctions. To be honest, I don't really care what content you, Dana, Tom Jim or anyone else is generally try to add. It simply does not come down to what opinions people hold for me. If there's a simple disagreement over content, there are plenty of options. What matters in your case and Dana's (and in similar instances) is the problematic and disruptive behavior. Vassyana (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just an aside: Tom Butler is not the same editor as... Jim Butler (t) 05:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to interject with my perspective. I came to acupuncture while randomly searching articles. After reading the lead paragraph and finding that it didn't explain what acupuncture was, I found you were the reason. I came upon the article in the midst of an edit war. I have no vested interest in acupuncture, would never have it done, and think it probably doesn't work for most ailments. But, I want a readable and balanced encyclopedia, and editors that follow basic rules of conduct. I don't think most editors have a problem with the content you add as much as the way you go about adding it. You come across as arrogant and abrasive, boldly injecting content without concensus, and attacking those who disagree. You constantly claim that the "true believers" are the problem, and that you have done nothing wrong. I have read all of your talk page including archives. The length of time you have been carrying on this crusade and the manner you have being going about it makes me think you enjoy the conflict. I think you truly believe in your cause, but you enjoy trying to crush the opposition, you enjoy the fight and the ensuing attention. You come across as a troll. Your feigned ignorance of the problems you cause and the rules of Wikipedia only serve to turn editors against you, even those you agree with you in principle. Wikipedia isn't science, it's people. If you really want to get your message out there, you have to work with those people. Your personality is the problem.Asher196 (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Perhaps then you'd like to explain whether you support Butler removing the well sourced reference to placebo in the lead? In fact the reference is from a source he likes to use and in fact he removed the mention from the whole article, not just the lead (this isn't edit-warring is it?). But like a true believer he only picks the part of the source that supports his POV. There are strict rules against this but he gets away with it all the time. Talk about damage to the encyclopedia. Over to you Asher.Mccready (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Note. So you are aware, I have asked for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. Vassyana (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not "close" the discussion. I have more to say.Mccready (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You seemed to indicate above that you would not be commenting further to that thread. I had no reason to believe that you intended to contribute further to that discussion. Regardless, Scientizzle has already closed the discussion with the conclusion that the topic ban is now indefinite with the general pseudoscience probation set to a year.[40] Vassyana (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban extended

As Vassyana indicated above, I have closed the discussion. Based upon the evidence, and the various inputs from editors with varying levels of prior interaction with you, I believe that you have been actively disruptive on the now-topic-banned pages & pseudoscience/alt-med pages in general. I'm the type of editor that wants to see more scientifically literate editors working to improve the accuracy of this encyclopedia, so please keep in mind that the topic ban and probation is, naturally, subject to future community discussion--that is, if you can demonstrate an ability to work on other topics with fellow editors in a manner that conforms to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this restriction can be lifted or reduced. Your future here is up to you.

One more issue: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mccready. Your block was extended to 1 month on 19:53, May 1, 2008. This edit (00:56, May 6, 2008) Fits your profile and is geographically close to you. Given the likelihood of abusive block evasion, I will reset your block to a full month from May 6. Any further instances of apparent block/topic ban evasion will very likely result in longer blocks or an indefinite ban. I will bookmark this page, and you can certainly respond here. But I strongly suggest you take this month off and re-acquaint yourself with Wikipedia:Five pillars. Upon your return, try editing this article...it needs help. — Scientizzle 16:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean. What is geographically close to me? I checked the link you provided and don't appreciate your sense of humour advising me to edit Personal Terminal (MegaMan) Mccready (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As you can see here, Thatcher (talk · contribs) ran a checkuser on the IP contributions, stating that the edit above was performed by an IP address "nearby geographically" to your normal IP. Given that information, and that the content of the edit was compeletely consistent with your editing pattern, it seems highly likely that this was a case of you evading your block & topic ban. — Scientizzle 03:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear so now you are accusing me without evidence again. Do you think it might be one of the 678 people to whom I email a local newsletter? We always have a science section in that and I must confess that I mentioned wikipedia and acupuncture there. Once again I am absolutely appalled at the way some people jump to conclusions without firm evidence, and you call yourself a scientist? Mccready (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't extend the block, but rather reset it, based on this information--if it had been your common IP, I would have extended the block. Without that "smoking gun", just a lot of firm circumstantial evidence, I think that this result is fair. That you may have recruited another person (purposefully or otherwise) to edit on your behalf doesn't really sit well as a mitigating excuse... — Scientizzle 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) So now reporting in a magazine on the difficulties science based editors have on wikipedia is "recruiting"?? Since when was wikipedia a secret society with such rules?Mccready (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That link is [[Special:Random]] - click it again for another example of an article which probably needs help (not necessarily in only one sense of the word). - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 04:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now clicked it three times. Always boring I'm afraid. When I'm not even be allowed to defend myself while a whole bunch of altmeders slag off with half truths and not one person has acted to stop the undermining of science on acupuncture it really is hard to take seriously the suggestion that I edit at random, for god's sake, and thereby make a contribution. Let me ask for the umpteenth time, what do you think of this classic altmed tactic [41]. Muddy the waters with the old "controversial" canard, remove the well sourced material on placebo, etc etc. jeez talk about the good of the project.Mccready (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ducking Like a Quack

I don't know who this person is in the district who is editing wikipedia that get's me accused of avoiding a block. But I'd bet London to a brick that Butler has cherry-picked the evidence - altmeders specialize in that - witness his behaviour here [42]. So how often does this person edit wikipedia, what articles do they edit? What possible evidence other than an obscure correlation has Butler got? Oh I forgot altmeders don't understand the difference between correlation and causation - it's called the Rain Dance Effect - the thirsty man in the desert does a rain dance, it rains and he concludes his dance causes rain. I'd like to know too what is going on here. Mccready (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

All but one of the edits from Special:Contributions/203.102.44.230 are exactly the sort of edit you'd make (e.g. adding Cochrane ref's or editing a lead section to insert some skeptical generalization). The timing of all of them happens to correspond with your being sanctioned or warned on WP:

• September '06 [43][44], around the time of the first topic ban
• February '08 [45] [46], after you agreed to stick to 1RR and then went to 3RR
• May '08 [47], right after current topic ban was imposed.

This isn't irrefutable proof, but the ol' razor and WP:DUCK make it highly likely that these are from a sock- or meat-puppet of yours. Regardless of the merits of these edits, they are highly suggestive that you're violating WP:SOCK.

Anyway, the only upshot is that your block was extended reset (and in effect extended by a week). If and when you return to editing, there are worse fates than topic bans; you can still edit lots of other areas. --Jim Butler (t) 09:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mccready, I don't particularly see the problem with the diff you posted. He fixed up some references, removed some duplicate entries and undid the preferred wording of a single person. He's participated in talk page discussions and appears responsive to polite feedback. I don't see cherrypicking or dishonest use of sources, or the removal of any sourced factual content. The presentation and emphasis was changed somewhat, but nothing that seems obviously over the line. On the contrary, it seems well within reasonable consideration, though it is a matter for local consensus to settle on. I also don't see any red flags indicating escalation (or "tit for tat") behavior, which is very common in hotly disputed areas, such as inserting how many conditions reviews concluded showed a positive response to acupunture. You may disagree very strongly with his version, but that diff doesn't show any conduct that needs to be addressed by an administrator or the community, nor any obvious abuse or disruption of Wikipedia. Vassyana (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievably contorted logic. You give yourself away completely by saying "emphasis changed somewhat". Damned right. Removing the word placebo from Ernst summary and the Ernst conclusion that most acupuncture can be explained by placebo and the weight of evidence says placebo. You have got to be kidding. Have you ever heard of UNDUE weight? Butler has made an abortion of the source. Not to mention his serial reintroduction of the stupid altmed hoary canard of "controversial". Now you make the ridiculous assertion (above) that my block log doesn't weigh in this discussion? Seems to me you accept my analysis of the block log then and seek to wiggle out of your previous accusations. How on earth can you then conclude that a recent incident of inserting science based material once a day or so is disruptive? Mccready (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm perfectly familiar with WP:UNDUE. However, the change is not so drastic or out-of-place as to be sanctionable as a conduct issue. If you want to disagree with such edits, you are free to do so, but there is quite simply no sanctionable offense in Jim's edit. There is nothing ridiculous at all about asserting your block log just doesn't matter. Regardless of your block log, the problems with your approach have been noted by editors across the spectrum. The contents of your block log, or lack thereof, would not (and do not) alter that. I will make it clear I do not agree with your analysis of your block log, but again it's not an issue I'm going to debate because it simply is not salient in the least. Again, even firmly skeptical and clearly uninvolved admins have noted the long-term issues with your conduct on multiple occasions in the past few years, which even with a clean block log would indicate strong measures need to be taken to prevent disruption. Simply inserting skeptical or scientific information is not disruptive in and of itself. Ignoring consensus is disruptive. Fighting one-man edit wars against multiple users is disruptive. Refusing to engage in productive discussion is disruptive. And so on. Vassyana (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting very tired of your illogical attempts to justify the situation. I'm sick of your unfounded accusations. Let's start from the top. 1) Will you please withdraw the accusation that I accused any reputable editor of properly reviewing this incident. Alternatively, produce the evidence. 2) You focused above on my "history of sanctions". Now you say they irrelevant. Which is it to be. It's really not that hard for you to check them and form a judgement. 3) You say I refuse to engage in productive discussion. That is a simple lie. Please withdraw the remark. 4) Please list the science-based editors who say my behaviour warrants the sanction of the kangaroo court in which I was unable to properly defend myself. What we have now is the allegation of "disruption" because a tiny number of altmeders don't like my presence here and don't like science based material. Are you seriously denying that Jim Butler cherry-picked the source? Are you seriously denying he was justified in removing the reference to placebo? Mccready (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, although this is indeed fast degenerating into WP:SOUP: (a) "controversial" - Ernst's own words, regarding acu. Uses the term four times in the abstract, your depiction of which, above, plainly overreaches. (b) your block log -- as far as I can see you deserved all of them, save perhaps the dicey wikistalking allegation early on. Your wikilawyering about disruption and 3RR doesn't wash at all; WP:3RR means "use common sense, discuss, and don't edit war", not "you may revert three times in any given 24-hour period". Also, just because one or two admins were editing the same article as you, and therefore should not have blocked you themselves, doesn't mean your behavior didn't warrant a block. --Jim Butler (t) 03:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Like I say Jim Butler. Cherry-picking. Perhaps you'd like to comment on his use of the term placebo now?? As for wikilawyering - that's a meaningless term of abuse in a kangaroo court. Mccready (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What's sad, rather than amusing, is 1. your outing yourself as an altmeder 2. your apparent inability to answer the question I put to you above. But I guess this is the modus operandi of the true believer, eh?Mccready (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I say. The altmeders are showing their colours. Keep it up.Mccready (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Mccready, you ask above: "How on earth can you then conclude that a recent incident of inserting science based material once a day or so is disruptive?" It's very simple. If it's against consensus, it's disruptive and uncollaborative. You will always "catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." IOW, done in the right way, you may well get your edit accepted and you'll gain respect, which is what this place runs on as it's currency. -- Fyslee / talk 03:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what I mean by the triumph of form over substance in wikipedia. Do you seriously mean to say you haven't got the intelligence to know a good edit when you see one? And if you do see a good edit you reject it if you don't like the person making it. In addition to Jim Butler's other flaws in his edit he has this silly statement: "effects are not well-understood". But that's OK I suppose since he claims he's an acupuncturist and does it to relieve pain and cure disease and etc etc. WOW. Not to mention your incredible altmed hypocrisy. This is what happens when I try to reason with you [48]Mccready (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Human adaptation to space

Hi, I just saw that you removed the lead to this article in December 2007 with the edit summary, removed extraneous material.[49] I'm having a hard time accepting that, so before I revert I was wondering if you could share your view. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't appear to be a very active editor, so I'm going to restore the lead. If that bothers you, please use the talk page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ?

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."

We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ? Apovolot (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

In my view people nominated as "expert reviewers" should be willing not to hide under the veil of anonymity. They should be able to demonstrate some level of the verifiable accomplishment / recognition in the domain of professional science . BTW, I do not see any reason why the anonymity of editors on Wikipedia is considered to be a "good thing". Above is my general opinion, so please don't take my statement personally. There is obviously a choice given for everyone in Wikipedia either to act "in open" or to hide behind meaningless assumed pseudonym and I accept this situation. BTW, I do understand current Wikipedia concept that in order to produce good Wikipedia science article, one does not need to be a professional scientist ... - that is fine with me ... But I propose to have (at least optionally) ability to review/qualify such article by the professional scientist. Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Hello Mccready. FYI, I have filed a checkuser request for recent IP edits to acupuncture (where you are under an indef topic ban): WP:RFCU. --Jim Butler (t) 03:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I understood my ban period was over. What edits are you unhappy with? Mccready (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

See this diff. Topic bans (all acu and chiro, broadly construed) are now indefinite, and you're under probation for all pseudoscience and alt-med topics. A major reason these sanctions were imposed is because there was broad agreement among editors that you were editing and collaborating poorly. Thus, my objections to your latest edits are moot; in all honesty, I don't think any conversation we might have today would prove to be any more productive than in the past. Maybe we'll eventually cross paths on some other topic area. Till then, and always, happy editing. --Jim Butler (t) 06:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I was notified that the ban was for six months. Now I would be grateful if you could tell me, if anything, what worries you about the edits on acupuncture. May I remind you not to cast aspersions? Mccready (talk)

What, are you pretending that the diff I just cited above doesn't exist? Yes, the ban was originally for six months; then, per aforementioned diff, it was extended. Also, Vassyana notified you of the extension right here on your user talk page.

While you may not have understood that the bans were indef, now you do. You've been notified, so any attempts to evade them (via sock or meatpuppetry, etc.) will for sure result in further sanctions.

And no, you may not remind me not to cast aspersions, since per WP:SPADE I am accurately referring to the consensus among editors that it was your misconduct (tendentious and disruptive editing, etc.) that led to these sanctions in the first place. Nor am I going to discuss your attempts to edit topics where you're banned. On the other topics, again, happy editing. --Jim Butler (t) 08:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

undent Jim, please try to remain calm. The diff you provided does not show an indefinte ban. It shows an admin who abused me, refused to discuss the issue, imputed opinions to me which I do not and have never held. etc etc. Once again you have not assumed good faith and you continue to abuse me. Perhaps it is late at night for you and you should wait a while before responding again. Would it help if I reminded you of better times when you said to me "You're an intelligent person, and so are many fellow editors here. We're your collaborators, and if you'd stick closer to NPOV we could continue to improve WP as we have with acupuncture, which is much better thanks to our mutual efforts, even if we have butted heads at times." And for the third time you haven't explained | your bulk revert. Best wishes.Mccready (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm cool as a cucumber, no worries. As for my AGF comment, that was before you proved yourself to be a tendentious and disruptive editor. If you haven't realized it yet, you've exhausted the patience of the community.

Your denseness (WP:IDHT) on the topic ban does you little credit in that regard. I suggest re-reading those diffs in order to allay your doubts:

• "the topic ban is now indefinite"
• "Topic ban is extended to an indefinite ban."

What do you think: much ambiguity there? But maybe they were speaking in code or something. Maybe we should go back to AN/I and clarify that. Maybe we should take it to ArbCom. Who knows? Apart from their meanings, and the order in which they were arranged, those words could have meant anything. --Jim Butler (t) 09:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully I can clear this up. Mccready, your topic ban is indefinite. If you edit in any of the areas you are banned from you will be blocked from editing. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

You are in violation of an indefinite topic ban for all acupuncture and chiropractic topics, broadly construed. I've posted about this as AN/I (section); (diff), and have notified the original blocking admins. --Jim Butler (t) 17:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see this comment. Any more edits, logged-in or otherwise, in the topic banned area prior to a successful appeal of your topic ban will result in a block. Seriously. Don't even fix spelling or grammar errors...just make a clear appeal on AN/I as you indicated you would. — Scientizzle 18:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Scientizzle#Topic ban. Thanks, — Scientizzle 03:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied... — Scientizzle 19:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethanol has one oxygen atom

Every once in a while, an anon-IP unexplained edit is correct. DMacks (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

oops thanks. I should have checked rather than assumed.Mccready (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Question regards Mccready

Hi Mccready,

You made a comment "Seicer, this is not a Guido diff. I have looked at comments made by WLU which are illogical (WLU's contribution is damaged by Guido's userpage) and am inclined in the absence of evidence to stengthen my oppose" on AN. I'm unclear on what you mean, is it that my opinion is obviously biased (true, I'm not fond of Guido to understate)? I'm also unsure what you mean by "damaged by Guido's userpage". The reason I haven't run to AN with this a week ago was to be as comprehensive as possible; obviously my RFC sub-page is a messy thing and it isn't convincing (nor was it meant to be, it's a sandbox). If there's a way to make the evidence more convincing via formatting changes (most of the analysis will be removed in favour of bare diffs), or if the formatting in general isn't helpful, I'd like to know about it so I can adjust for the final version.

Thanks,

WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, you could add colon cleansing to your list of pseudoscience pages on your userpage, if you're updating it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

WLU if I understand you correctly you said that Guido's userpage describing his "experiment" had somehow sullied your contribution to wikipedia. I saw this as an illogical inference. I look forward to you providing content diffs where you feel Guido has damaged wikipedia. Since you have made the claim I think the onus is on you to provide the evidence rather than ask me to read archives. As I said, I'm quite capable of analysing the diffs you might provide. I'll copy this to the relevant page.Mccready (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Personally, yes, I feel that Guido's experiment is damaging to wikipedia. If it's real, he's not here to build an encylopedia, he's here to experiment with the patience of its community in a way that essentially ignores its rules while purporting to test them. If it's not, it's a post-hoc rationalization (or blatant lie) that attempts to justify how his contributions have been disruptive. Playing coy, refusing to actually share it or disclose the details of the report, the 'experiment', the methodology, the contents of 'phase II', his co-experimentors, etc. further renders it an invalid effort to criticize wikipedia, making it rather useless to talk about if it can't be used to improve the project. But that's my opinion and a long discussion.

I must apologize for not providing diffs here after your explicit request, but I really think the best thing to do is to review whole talk page sections - I don't see the advantage to posting multiple diffs when a whole section does the same thing in one fell swoop. Content-wise, I think these two sections are the best to illustrate a critical feature - ME and CFS are considered the same diagnosis by the majority of the medical community, and there's minimal support for separating the two. Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#ME or CFS contains references that explicitly state the two are the same. Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#ME as a separate condition from CFS contains, from what I can gather, the best and most supportive sources to justify the two conditions being separate. You can see my analysis and conclusions - I don't think it's sufficiently clear that the majority consider them separate. From this point onwards, I would think a reasonable editor would conclude that the consensus is the conditions are separate, and edit accordingly (unless new evidence/sources came to light to revisit the issue). In addition, the Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, the journal used to support the split, was reviewed on RSN here and found wanting. The keep-or-split discussion has been revisited many times - here, here and again here. The same discussion, several times in one year, without any substantial new, medically reliable sources that clearly demonstrate there is sufficient support in the medical community for a separate diagnosis, has worn down the patience of many contributors; that it's been done with a fairly continuous level of dismissiveness of others' opinions, with countless insinuations that other contributors are either stupid, or haven't done their research, hasn't helped either, and then to find out it may all be part of some experiment that has nothing to do with actually writing an encyclopedia... No-one likes playing these kinds of games. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Mccready, please be aware that I have never claimed ME and CFS to be different conditions. Also, the experiment mentioned in the title of my report is not an experiment conducted by me. Btw, I only just found that there is a continuation discussion at AN/I. Nobody bothered to inform me. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This makes my head hurt - if this is the case, why have you been consistently pushing for two pages, one for CFS and one for ME? If the report was not conducted by you, why does your report say "For that purpose, six volunteers created target accounts on three different chapters each, with specific instructions. After less than two years, my account at the English chapter is the last one standing"? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I know, the truth always hurts. :-)

• ME needs its own page not because it is a different condition, but because it is a different concept, with lots of relevant material that is difficult to put in an article about another concept. Just like we have one article on Dementia, and another on Alzheimer's disease.
• For the purpose of reporting, as the summary says. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweet monkey jesus I'm done here. Mccready, I'll be leaving your talk page alone now, if you want anything else from me, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

pseudoscience infobox at Remote viewing

Regarding this. There was already a lengthy RfC here. It's nice that you are happy to talk, but I think that there was already enough talk. How about you explain which are the unsopported statements on the box? Maybe the "topics" list? The people on the list of current proponents? Are you challenging some of the information or are you just objecting to them not having sources? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks eric. The lack of source for the claim is very worrying. Even in a pseudoscience box, some readers may take it as a supported claim, which it appears not to be. I'll copy this to the talk page.Mccready (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)