Misplaced Pages

User talk:Neuraxis: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:28, 7 June 2014 view sourceDoc James (talk | contribs)Administrators312,257 edits →Comments such as this← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:18, 23 June 2014 view source Floquenbeam (talk | contribs)Administrators38,302 editsm Protected User talk:Neuraxis: no need for further discussion (with my admin hat on, not my arb hat) ( (indefinite) (indefinite)) 
(79 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT ]
{{User:Tothwolf/harassment-awareness}}
{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot III|age=10|dounreplied=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(10d)
|archive = User talk:DVMt/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archives}}

== Welcome! ==

<!-- This comes from the template {{subst:W-screen}} -->
<div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px darkblue; background-color: darkblue; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 25px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 25px;">
<center><font size="+1" color="white">Hello DVMt, and <font color="orange">]</font></font>]</div>
<div style="align: left; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px darkblue; background-color: white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 25px;">
''''']''''' I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to ]. As a first step, you may wish to read the ].

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the ].

-------
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to ]

<big> '''Finding your way around:''' </big>
{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
* ''']'''
{{col-2}}
* ''']'''
{{col-end}}

<big> '''Need help?''' </big>
{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
* ''']''' — a guide on where to ask questions.
* ''']''' — quick reference on Misplaced Pages's mark-up codes.
* ''']''' — an overview of Misplaced Pages's foundations
{{col-2}}
* ''']''' — a Wizard to help you create articles
* ''']''' — a summary of Misplaced Pages's most important rules.
*''']''' — A thorough step-by-step guide to Misplaced Pages.
{{col-end}}

<big> '''How you can help:''' </big>
{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
* ''']''' — a guide on how you can help.
{{col-2}}
* ''']''' — Misplaced Pages's hub of activity.
{{col-end}}

<big> '''Additional tips...''' </big>
{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
* Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The ] or ] button, on the tool bar above Misplaced Pages's text editing window, also does this.
{{col-2}}
* If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the ''''']''''' is for you.
{{col-end}}


== Unblock request ==

Admin Kww did not provide any evidence whatsoever and the block is a personal issue. We can't just indef block users for no reason. ] (]) 21:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock reviewed | 1=No evidence of any reason for any block at any point in time. No diffs provided, nothing that justifies this action | accept = Unblocking per discussion below. Two reverts spaced by 3 days is not generally considered edit warring, and user seems to have been exonerated of the socking suspicions. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 05:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)}}

:], you the from your talk page. Before you but then you . Your edits were ]. ] (]) 21:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
:My god Quack, you are being nothing but a troll. I've asked you not to write on my page before and you continue to do so despite me respectfully asking. I brought the conversation back to the proper venue. Your template is not useful because you made a false allegation and got an admin to bite on it who was warned by 3 different editors regarding his tactics. Regardless, the diffs and my contributions show that I am talking, to a variety of people and not making any radical edits, or destabilizing articles. I welcome an investigation by neutral parties who will judge me by my edits this year, not the rookie mistakes I made in the past, and which I have not repeated after my voluntary one year break. I was not battling at all, I am discussing things. You can see my contributions to talk. Your allegations are just a witch hunt at this point. ] (]) 21:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

:I am in support of DVMt's unblock request. The user has been awarded as one of Misplaced Pages's top 300 medical contributors, and as far as I am concerned from editing three articles in common, DVMt has always been discussing things first at the Talk Page and trying to settle the possible differences.
:DVMt isn't the only one receiving arbitrary treatment from administrator Kww:
:*Administrator Kww gave me a warning for edit warring.
:*After pointing out to Kww that 1) I wasn't even accused of edit warring, 2) I wasn't involved in edit warring, and that 3) I filed a report for a 3RR violation concerning another user (QuackGuru), '''Kww took his warning back'''.
:*The new allegation I was faced with, was (direct quote) "''The next sign of abusing administrative noticeboards to further pseudoscientific POVs will result in an indefinite block. —Kww(talk) 13:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)''". However, 1) nobody ever accused me of such thing, 2) administrator Kww never provided any diffs where I'd have been doing that, 3) I wasn't pushing any POV's (just kept calmly to the 3RR report I filed).
:I think administrator Kww's behaviour has been completely unprofessional. A neutral administrator opinion is required.
:Administrator Kww also got himself involved into a WP:ANI -case, where he again resulted the case for user QuackGuru '''without any evidence presented''' by either administrator Kww nor user QuackGuru. (I was accused for following QuackGuru ''to other articles'', which is completely absurd, and QuackGuru refused to answer when I asked what articles "''I have been following him to''". Still, administrator Kww decided to give me a warning for that. I think there are just three (3) articles in common that we are editing with QuackGuru.)
:'''I think a neutral admin decision is required''' ] (]) 20:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's patently obvious that Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt work to ensure that articles about pseudoscientific topics are biased towards treating those topics as credible. DVmt was warned about edit-warring, and seems to have responded to the warning by immediately making another repeated reversion, as useless. As for being involved, no, I'm not. I saw the AN/I and 3RR reports and quickly determined that QuackGuru was being tag-teamed.&mdash;](]) 22:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

:No, you're biased and I was thanked for removing those inline citations by a NewsandEventsGuy (I believe) because there was no discussion and I reverted based on BRD and initiated a discussion there. You're mispresenting me, my work, my discussions with others. You have displayed very poor judgment here, de-facto bullying and Quackguru saw your 'warning' on my page, posted a bogus allegation the same day and you bit, hook line and sinker. Still no diffs provided, and I'd definitely like a different, admin to review the case, and ultimately your conduct which is heavy on threats and bans, not so much with providing evidence and a rationale that reflects your controversial judgment. ] (]) 17:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

:], you just said that you saw the WP:ANI report filed by user QuackGuru and "''quickly determined that QuackGuru was being tag-teamed''". First, user QuackGuru filed a WP:ANI case '''against me''' under the accusation of '''I following him to other articles'''. So far, user QuackGuru has not even agreed to provide a list of the supposed articles where I'd have been following him to. User QuackGuru hasn't provided any evidence to support his claims, neither have you Kww. Still you decided to give me a warning without any evidence presented. How can you say that your administrative behaviour would be fair and neutral? ] (]) 19:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

::], please see . Maybe you can find hep there if Kww is not going to change his behaviour. ] (]) 19:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
::I did provide the evidence against ] but he . ] (]) 20:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
:::No, not true. You have provided no evidence. Please provide a complete list of the supposed articles where I have been following you to. ] (]) 20:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
:::Unbelievable. I have asked Quack no less than 4 times to stay off my page and he keeps on trolling here. '''Stay off my talk page QuackGuru. I consider this harassment on your part.''' If you continue to do so, I will seek to address this issue through whatever means necessary to prevent the continued harassment that you are engaged in. This is my final warning. ] (]) 00:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Any reviewing admin should note that I have just blocked ] as an apparent sock of ]. I would take any protestations that he has reformed from his previous career as a sockpuppeteer with a grain of salt.&mdash;](]) 04:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
:I am not Klocek, never seen or heard of him/her. Use whatever tools you want, any how about '''you actually provide evidence''' rather than just assume things. I've been on the sidelines since your rather specious blocking and now you're making bogus allegations against me while I am blocked. As I said before, I learned from 2013 and I have taken to the talk pages to discuss things prior to any bold or even radical edits. You are really on a smear campaign Kww, and you have made a brutal decision already and now are compounding it with another bogus allegation. How about you provide the diffs, the tools, '''anything''' that backs up your claims? ] (]) 14:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

:'''The suggestion that this is a sleeper account seems to me to be completely baseless. Enthusiastic editing after a period of uninvolvement with WP is not in itself remarkable or extraordinary and is certainly not proof of anything like sock puppetry. HGilbert (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)''' You are being called out again, Kww, for your baseless attacks. You either provide proof or you retract your statement that Klocek is a sock puppet of mine. ] (]) 14:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
:: Follow up: . I may have misidentified the sock master, '''but there's no way that this is anything but a sleeper account.'''. Another instance of Kww not assuming any good faith and abusing his powers as an admin. '''Please provide direct evidence that supports your claims or retract them, Kww.''' You are continuing to making false allegations, assumptions without any evidence the more it looks like you're going rogue. We all make mistakes, including you. Own up to them, and move on. If you're going to write on my talk page, bring evidence, diffs, ip tracking data. Otherwise, I will ask you to please refrain from using my wall to make specious, unfounded allegations. Thank you. ] (]) 17:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

:::Now there are two sleeper accounts which have been revived for editing ], see ]. ] (]) 19:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

::::Run a checkuser, provide diffs, get evidence. I look forward to the report and clearing my name from these bogus allegations and attempts to smear and libel my character. ] is diff in play. ] (]) 19:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Edit: You are lying why I was blocked this year and it had nothing to do with sockpuppetry . Retract your '''factual error''', Tgeorgescu. I was blocked bc Kww '''believed''' I was edit warring and provided no diffs despite me repeatedly asking him to do so and now there's a witch hunt going on trying to link me to 2 other editors. ] (]) 19:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

:::::What are the odds of two sleeper accounts of acupuncturists suddenly being revived in order to help you pursue your goals? It seems like ]. Unless, of course, you would be maintaining that ]'s self-identification as acupuncturist is bogus and the two accounts were especially revived to create problems for you. ] (]) 20:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::'''Evidence is required. When you open the investigation, you must immediately provide evidence that the suspected sock puppets are connected. You must provide this evidence in a clear way.'''
::::::You're failing to meet the minimum standard, Tudor. You're making a smear against me and trying to connect false dots. Also, stop trying to put words into my mouth. I don't know who or care Klocek or ODD are. You have not assumed ''''any''' good faith and your behaviour here is reckless. I do expect a ''full apology''' from you and Kww when this cleared up. You have provided no diffs, and if you look closely at my editing Hx, you will see my edits at acupuncture were minimal. You also lied about me at the SPI and misinformed the investigation as to why I was blocked. You and Kww are going on a witch hunt and '''have not provided any evidence or diffs''' that back your claim. The first rule of SPI is provide diffs and evidence '''which you have not done. The burden is on you to prove your claim.''' ] (]) 21:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::::If there is no evidence, the SPI will be closed with no sanctions. I just stated that I have a suspicion, if I already had evidence, I would not have requested a checkuser. About the block, I just assumed that ] applied ] and technically there are rational reasons for making such assumption, whatever the truth may be in this matter. Also, you may consider that if these editors are independent of you, the checkuser will be an argument in your favor, not one against you. ] (]) 22:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::::You're ducking my point. '''You provided no evidence or diffs'''. That's the first thing with an SPI. Evidence is required and now you're saying you don't have evidence. Whatever your rationale, you '''incorrectly assumed''' which goes to show your bias, in this case. If you want to at least come off as neutral then at least '''meet the minimum standard as described in SPI'''. What you're doing is shooting first and asking questions later. Or in other words, presuming me guilty until proven innocent. That's not how this works. What you're doing is dragging me through the mud, and not assuming good faith. You're making the claim, now '''provide evidence which SPI mandates'''. At the very least, let this be an opportunity to teach you how to file a proper SPI and check your facts before making false statements. ] (]) 22:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC) EDIT: Just saw Tgeorgescu blurbs at the SPI investigation and he's making false assumptions again. '''I am not an acupuncturist'''. You're conflating things. My page says clearly '''I have a particular interest in integrative medicine, particularly manipulative therapies and acupuncture and their appropriate use in health care.''' You're trying to use a shotgun approach hoping something might stick. I'll repeat again: do not misinform, misrepresent or mischaracterize me or my intentions. You're hitting far below the belt with making insinuations about me without me being able to respond to the allegations. You might want to read ]. ] (]) 23:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::Look, I don't have to have evidence for suspicions, I just have to make clear why I presume something to be probable. Evidence is required for facts, not for mere subjective beliefs. ] is an accepted standard at ] and you cannot deny that it applies to your case, even if it might be a false positive. So, unless a checkuser actually investigates this, I cannot have evidence, since I am not a checkuser. That's why they are called "investigations" and not "sockpuppet proclamations": by presenting the reasons for suspicion the matter gets investigated. Actually, opening such investigation would be an occasion to clear your name, at least if you agree that a checkuser should investigate the login data. When I say "I believe that tomorrow it will rain" I don't have to have evidence, the same as Christians don't need to have objective evidence in order to accept Jesus as Redeemer. Don't conflate believing with knowing, I was entitled to believe that sockpuppetry was going on even if it later proves to be false. I have stated my reasons for opening the investigation. You may disagree with them and checkusers may disagree with them, but I was sincere in believing that a sockpuppet investigation should be opened. ] (]) 23:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::I hear what you're saying and don't doubt that you're being genuine. However, SPI is very clear that evidence needs to be presented. Scanning through Klocek, ODD I don't see how you can see why they would be me nor does HGilbert. Bringing Christianity or any other red-herring isn't helping matters. I'm not the one conflating, you're the one telling the SPI that I am an acupuncturist, that my current block was for sockpuppetry and other factual mistakes. Then you cast aspersions on HGilbert insinuating he/she isn't reliable or trustworthy. You can see why I would be annoyed; you '''rushed into this and made a judgment call on false data'''. Although I do hope this will clear my name, I'm not so naive as to think it will count towards anything since Kww is blocking indef anyone who seemingly disagrees with GQ (and there are many past and present) style of editing. Your hypothesis is not reliable since the data you presented is inaccurate. Again, SPI is very clear '''The evidence will need to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected.''' . You should be following the minimum standard. Hope you have learned something. ] (]) 23:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::It is still a case of duck, not a simple one, but a double one (twice a duck, maybe yesterday wasn't your lucky day). That's my reason for opening the investigation. Of course, solid evidence will be needed to actually prove the case, but if I already had such evidence, I would have went directly to ] and requested the indeff-ing of all three accounts. ] (]) 23:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::About Klocek being blocked as a duck, see ]. There was where I got my information from. ] (]) 00:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree that a checkuser should be done, but the originally complaint was spurious and did not follow standard protocol. Here Tgeorges incorrectly states " DVMt cannot deny that he got blocked due to the application of WP:Duck" . '''I was not blocked because of duck.''' You are again making factual inaccuracies. I was blocked, by Kww, under the belief I was edit warring, which I am disputing.''' This is the third time today where you have gotten your facts wrong on me. Is this a case of ]? Why are you continuing to make false statements? You have never once discussed the key point I made, which is you did not follow SPI protocol. At least you have the ability to do it now and correct yourself while I'm in wiki purgatory. ] (]) 00:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

:About ] believing that you and Klocek aren't the same person, I have no problem with that. I would have a problem with him ''knowing'' that you are two different persons, since this means that he knows you both, and that would suggest collusion. Elementary my dear Watson. About opening the SPI, I was suspicious because of the double duck. Namely Klocek got blocked as your sockpuppet and another sleeper account followed the Klocek model and edited ]. That's not proof, but it is enough reason for suspicion. ] (]) 00:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
:: Go through my edit Hx and tell me when the last time I made an edit to the acupuncture article. You have again failed to provide any diffs as I had asked. All you're going on is a suspicion which you provided no diffs which is exactly '''what SPI states is required when filling a SPI'''. Anyways, your logic is absurd, that I created 2 sleeper accounts 8 years ago, faking to be Japanese and an American all the while waiting 8 years to activate a sock or meat puppet over an article I barely edit? Have you not noticed that I am pretty much exclusively using the talk page in 2014 to discuss issues? You didn't your research here and have impugned the credibility of many editors. You need to be more diligent and follow the protocol which you ignored (4th time: it said to provide diffs). ] (]) 00:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
::: Is it too much to ask that Kww not lie at the SPI? I was never blocked for any allegation of using a sockpuppet. It's clear in the block log, I simply don't get why users are permitted to continually make bogus statements that aren't factual. '''I was never blocked for using a sockpuppet'''. Get your facts straight. See the diff ] (]) 00:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

::::Well, then you have an easy way out, write below "I agree with performing a checkuser investigation" and sign it. Since if you know that you are different persons, then there is nothing to fear from such investigation. There are too many diffs to be provided and they would not add extra information to what I already stated at ]: an amazing, extremely improbable case of double duck. The diffs would show nothing else than an extremely improbable case of double duck. ] (]) 00:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::: Here is a diff that states he blocked me indef for sockpuppet. Why is he clearly lying when the above diff stated the real reason for the indef block? Here is context where I reverted per BRD and went immediately to the talk page. Tgeorgescu, I already stated clearly here about the checkuser. ] (]) 01:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Edit: Since you're not following proper protocol and providing diffs as you're supposed to when filing a SPI here is the diff when the last time I edited acupuncture. '''May 9th, 2014'''. Note that I reverted by BRD and took it to the talk page. If you're too lazy to actually find the diffs to make your case, then don't make spurious allegations. ] (]) 01:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC) I consent with a checkuser investigation to clear my name of bogus allegations made by Kww and Tgeorgescu. ] (]) 01:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Sounds like that pretty much settles it. DVMt consented to a check user investigation. Time to do it and settle this one way or another-either the check will exonerate DVMt and will be consistent with what he's saying...or it won't. I'm not aiming this statement at anyone in particular, but at this point, it doesn't seem like the conversation is moving forward any more. For both sides, time to put up or shut up. It's simple. That's my unsolicited 2 cents. ] (]) 05:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

:Just to point out that I did not block DVMt for using sockpuppets (although, despite his claim that "''I was never blocked for using a sockpuppet''", he has, in fact, been blocked twice for using sock puppets). I blocked him because shortly after being warned not to edit war on about pseudoscience, he edit warred over a template used on pseudoscience articles. The rash of socks on the article may or may not be him: even if the socks are not him, I see no reason to unblock DVMt: socks aren't the reason for his block.&mdash;](]) 06:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

::Kww, your block was bogus. I did not edit war and you did not provide any evidence that I did. GQ put up 2 templates that had no CON so per BRD I reverted and put it to the talk page. QG claimed I was slowly edit warring and then you came in heavy handed and blocked me. I was '''thanked''' for taking those templates down which, to me, showed that the issue was far from settled. In short, you over-reacted, didn't provide diffs, didn't know the context, and abused your power as an admin. Rather than issue a mea culpa, you continue to compound your mistake. You have already been blocked yourself 3 times for abusing your admin powers, so don't throw stones when you live in glass houses. Get on with the check user and I want an independent admin to review my case. ] (]) 13:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
::: Browsing around I can see that QG is lobbying you once again for more punishment against me. The specific context of removing the templates at the fringe page is that they were problematic as seen at this discussion here . So, as you can clearly see by the discussion this issue was far from being resolved. Seeing that you warned QG twice and you seem to be using a double standard. '''Why the leniency towards GQ and a hard line with others?'''. ] (]) 16:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

::::About the diffs: with or without them, there still is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry, that's why I have opened the SPI. So, I don't have to apologize for being reasonably suspicious, since it is not a fault or moral defect. I did not say "DVMt did sockpuppetry" since I had no proof, I only had the reasonable suspicion that sockpuppetry was going on so I asked that the matter be investigated. ] (]) 19:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User ] got just banned for one week for . I'd advise Kww to review his groundless warnings and bans, or measures described at ] has to take place in. The latest ban for user QuackGuru by administrator John gives a good evaluation point. ] (]) 20:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

: Well, it's nice to see I'm not the only one who found his editing style troublesome. He sure was canvassing hard to Kww to have me more indef blocked, perhaps banned? It's all speculation but he does seem to rather obsessive about me. At this point I am going to let the check user take its course, be cleared up being a sock/meat master. Kww should climb down his high horse and retract the misuse of his admin tools or, at the very least '''provide evidence in the form of diffs that shows a pattern of edit warring''' that backs up his decision. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Tgeorgescu seems to have been caught in the cross fire and made a bad decision to link me, personally, to whatever happened at acupuncture with those other editors. I don't think that he is a bad guy per se, but I also know that he didn't follow the basics and is trying to justify his act after the fact. When I'm cleared, all I'd ask of him is a simple 'sorry I was misinformed or was misled' and it will be water under the bridge. Thanks for informing me, it's rather emotionally draining constantly being on the defensive of malicious attacks. Regards, ] (]) 22:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
::I would like to thank ] for endorsing the CU and getting the ball going. Progress is progress! ] (]) 23:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Edit: Kww still on the witch hunt makes accusation, provides no diffs. Clearly, Kww ] and doesn't provide any evidence while making grandiose statements. Man up, Kww, put the diffs up or shut up! You made the claim I edit warred, and indef'ed me, so back it up. Such a power tripper, making comments sullying my character without giving me the proper chance to respond and ] for any appeal. You're doing the same thing to those other editors you smeared with your bogus accusations. ] (]) 00:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

:::About an apology for reasonable suspicion: I will not apologize for that, since what happened is weird enough to warrant suspicion. But at ] I made a concession and I have retracted affirmations for which I lacked proof. ] (]) 00:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
::::I saw, and I thank you for that. If only ] were as constructive and collaborative. I believe in ], so what goes around, comes around. Be well. ] (]) 00:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
:I listen ''extremely'' well, DVMT, I just find repeating myself tiresome. I warned you not to edit war, or I would block you. Shortly thereafter, you performed a second reversion of material that had been inserted by two different editors. Shortly after that, I blocked you, including a diff to the problematic edit in the block. Shortly after that, you began falsely claiming that I hadn't provided that diff and that you hadn't been edit-warring. You subsequently made false claims about your history of blocks for socking. I've listened to all of that very closely, but have deemed that it isn't worth much time and effort considering. I generally feel that way about any number of false claims, yours included.&mdash;](]) 00:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
::Please, Kww. As I said at the very beginning of this thread ''' I welcome an investigation by neutral parties who will judge me by my edits this year, not the rookie mistakes I made in the past, and which I have not repeated after my voluntary one year break.''' I did not get blocked this year for socking. You must think I'm an idiot that people can't see the block log. You chose to cherry pick a sentence. You a) warned me about a revert I made that I was thanked for b) was re-inserted, c) took it out again as there was no CON and the issue was being discussed at talk page, which I then brought up at the talk page. QuackGuru made a bogus post on my talk page which I moved to the proper discussion forum (FRINGE TALK) he then canvassed you stating I was edit warring and in you came. Today QG goes bananas and canvasses you again with all this BS and finally a level-headed editor see's that this guy's editing style is a pain in the ass and takes action. You didn't provide any diffs that showed an actual edit war, nor did you take any context. Considering you '''claim''' to listen but apparently have a tin ear and would rather double down on a mistake than, try to resolve the issue professionally. So I'll ask you once again: are you willing to re-evaluate your block of me if I provide a timeline of the events with context so your decision is more informed, or will you continue to caustic, and mis-represent what my intents and purpose is (hint: it's not to promote pseudoscience like you falsely claimed). Sincere question. ] (]) 00:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
:::Uninvolved editor here who is only aware of this dispute because I have edit warring & incident page on watchlist. I saw no recent report against DVMt for edit warring. QuackGuru was reported by Jayaguru-Shishya for edit warring.
:::https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive245#User:QuackGuru_reported_by_User:Jayaguru-Shishya_.28Result:_DvMT_and_Jayaguru-Shishya_warned.29
:::DVMt commented on the report Jayaguru-Shishya filed against QuackGuru saying that QuackGuru was a “difficult” editor. Over on the incident report page, Jayaguru-Shishya was reported by QuackGuru for “battle ground behavior”.
:::https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:Jayaguru-Shishya_is_not_moving_on_and_he_is_continuing_his_battleground_behaviour
:::The incident report was about to go into archive when a sock puppet, User:Wales of Jimbo, who was advancing QuackGuru’s position against Jayaguru-Shishya revived it. That sock puppet was then promptly blocked by admin. How DVMt became the only one initially blocked out of this bizarre dispute is a bit confusing, and an indefinite block is even more confusing. However, I see at some later point QuackGuru was also blocked relating to some other incident and another probable sock puppet is protesting that block user:fasf14, who apparently joined Misplaced Pages and to protest that block. Apparently there’s a lot of drama here for reviewing admin to sort out. --] (]) 01:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
:I've made no move to unblock QuackGuru, and won't. You might notice that I told him not to post here again. Whether people thanked you for an edit is irrelevant (and I believe I just won a bet ... I warned the implementors that people would use "BUT I WAS THANKED FOR THAT EDIT" as a defense). The issue was that I warned you not to edit war and you immediately did so. Past history doesn't matter much, nor does the behaviour of others.&mdash;](]) 01:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
::Who cares if you won a bet? The fact that I was thanked meant that '''another editor concurred with the edit'''. That's notable otherwise the feature wouldn't exist. Another editor agreed with my removal by the BRD cycle. That is totally fair game. Basically, Jayguru reported QG for disruptive behaviour and you came out defending him and putting up bogus warnings on myself and Jayguru's talk page. My 2nd to last comment stated''' I won't be baited into edit warring''', then QuackGuru immediatley posts this on my talk page and you unjustly block me. We've had our disagreements and you made this personal. And as we can see above, other uninvolved editors suggest that something weird is going on here... ] (]) 05:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
:::You know, it's frustrating, but there are a couple of admins who apparently believe that any edit to any page, after the one that creates the page, is "a revert" and "therefore edit warring". In this case, however, the charge isn't quite so silly, although it is an unusually aggressive interpretation: you removed the same "advertisement" for a new template twice, three days apart. Edit warring doesn't technically require a 3RR violation. I'd suggest in the future that if you invoke BRD, then you follow BRD, especially the parts about BRD not meaning BRRRRRD and about the most BRD-compliant editor being the one who starts the discussion (that is, please start the discussion ''before'' the second revert, not three hours later). Anyone can start a discussion under BRD, not just the bold editor. (BTW, there is a discussion about that template on the talk page. I'm dubious of its added value and suspicious that it would not survive a trip to TFD.)
:::I think it would be helpful for ] to explain the terms under which he would agree to unblock you. He can't formally respond to your unblock request (because he's ] in blocking you), but he could tell you what his suggestions were. ] (]) 17:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
::::Thanks for your comment, WAID. I do realize now, that 2 reversals 3 days apart may have been edit warring. I think I was caught up in the moment dealing with QuackGuru on so many other pages where he simply steamrolls his POV in. My intent was to discuss if these edits had support and I am/was unaware of what TFD means/is. Consider it a lesson learned. I too find that interpretation was pretty aggressive and I have tried to discuss this with Kww who hasn't made '''any''' suggestions. ] (]) 17:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, TFD is ] ("discussion" because it handles all contested mergers as well as deletions.) ] (]) 18:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::I haven't made any suggestions because I can't envision any reason to unblock DVMt. I suppose that I would have to be persuaded that his presence on the project was beneficial to the project.&mdash;](]) 21:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::], with all due respect, you alone should not be able to benefits to WP of my presence. Hope about some constructive feedback like ] suggested? You've sided with QuackGuru on this one, and thought that Jayguru and I were tag-teaming him. We were legitimately voicing our concerns over his ownership and tendentious editing style. With his recent block because of the same BS at ] clearing shows that I am not alone who finds his editing disruptive. I apologize that I engaged in 2 reverts in 3 days. '''I am not here to promote pseudoscience or whitewash criticism of CAM. I am here to help find a balance between fringe and mainstream practices with respect to specific CAM interventions for for musculoskeletal medicine.''' I do not condone radicalists, true believers or dogmatic skeptics. I am a centrist. And for that, I am a very valuable asset especially in a hotly contested domain that needs a different approach after 7 failed years of the same old, same old. ] (]) 21:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
===Vindicated===
As I've been saying, I have learned from past mistakes and did not engage in duplicitous behaviour as suggested by ] and ]. Seeing how that drama is over, I am hoping in earnest that an uninvolved admin can take a look at my unblock request. Thank you. ] (]) 15:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
:Vindicated of ''socking'', yes, which I have repeatedly stated was not the reason for your block. As for your comments above, can you distinguish yourself from the myriad of previous editors that loudly proclaimed that they were attempting to bring "balance" to pseudoscience and alternative medicine articles, editors that invariably attempted to highlight small sections of the topic that had some legitimacy and downplay the vast majority of the area that was nonsense?&mdash;](]) 15:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
::Sure. I am distinguishing myself because I am focusing on a very specific topics a) '''manual and manipulative therapies for MSK disorders''' b) '''conservative management of MSK disorders''' and c) '''effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical and non-surgical interventions to improve MSK function'''. I have expertise in rehabilitative sciences and my workplace setting is multi-disciplinary so I am exposed to and work in collaborative care models. My point is, I generally work very well with editors who don't mischaracterize me as an alt-med proponent, because that suggests I'm giving all of alt-med a blank check. It also suggest that I am a conventional med opponent, which I am not given that one of my degrees is in 'conventional' side of the fence. So, I reject the characterizations that I am a true believer or dogmatic skeptic. I am not a SPA, but I prioritize my work, and the biggest problem, IMHO, is the evidence-base for manual and manipulative therapies and MSK disorders. I was part of a good discussion here which is collaboratively working with an experienced and respected medical editor to try and figure out what aspect are legitimate and what aspects or more fringe. Regardless, you can see that I am doing a lot of talking and discussing the issues rather than bulldoze the articles themselves. I've asked for some mentorship , because I want to become more well versed in all aspects of WP, especially when it comes to policies that govern the pages I edit. ] (]) 16:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Read ], re-do your block request, and I'll consider it. Specifically, I'd appreciate it if you would concisely address the concerns raised at ]. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 22:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
::::Thanks for your reply ]. It is difficult to try to explain the whole QuackGuru scenario without bringing in some context , and it goes a way back. Short of the long is I removed the template, not for the reason QuackGuru suggests, but because it didn't seem to have consensus and was seemingly trying to steamroll his version in. I hadn't noticed that conversation until I was blocked. I did, in retrospect, accidentally took down 2 templates, thinking they were both new. I apologize for this. I did 2 reverts in 3 days as noted here with the comment stating that this was an unusually aggressive 'interpretation' by the banning admin. I hope this explains things a bit, but it is hard to provide proper context to the event without discussing the editor who 'complained' about me in the first place. Lastly, I had no idea that 2 reverts in 3 days could be construed as edit warring, I was trying to invoke BRD. My understanding is that if an editor makes a bold edit, then it is reversed invoking BRD, then re-inserting the disputed edit would be a breach of policy. Regardless, as my comment said I was trying not to get involved into an edit war but I guess I was inadvertently involved in one. If it's confusing to you, I apologize, I'm just trying to explain the situation to the best of my current understanding. ] (]) 00:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for the explanation. Just so you are aware, BRD is not policy, even though some people treat it as such. Reverting on the grounds of BRD is generally pretty weak, and probably does more harm than good. I'm actually at this very moment involved in two disputes where someone made a bold edit, I reverted, they reverted, and I started a discussion with no further reverts (BRRD). I could revert on the basis of ] or BRD, but in the vast majority of cases it doesn't matter if the "wrong" version is left up for a day or two, and the benefits of being able to calmly discuss something without tempers being raised by a corresponding edit war usually outweigh any negatives. I seem to recall you mentioning somewhere that you were interested in some sort of mentorship to learn the ways of the wiki, and I believe this tip will help quite a bit if you follow it, particularly at this point in your wiki-career. Note, however, that this only works when you are right about something and have a strong enough argument to convince your audience. If you are wrong and/or unwilling to modify your stance based on evidence, edit warring may be your best option. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 00:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::Learned something new! I don't want to '''ever''' engage in any edit war, even if I am "right". I thought BRD was a standard thing to do, it is invoked so often at the pages I frequently edit at it just seemed like this was "normal" thing to do. Last year I got emotionally involved in these type of discussions at the respective talk page, realizing only after my voluntary year off I was often being trolled and putting energy into trying to discuss things with some ] editors. Basically, the key thing that I learned that in dealing with disruptive editors, I'm going to take thing ANI, and do an RfC for content disputes. I do have a question though: When an editor is being very tendentious, and not listening (IDHT) what is the best way to address this behaviour? I also have concerns about 'vote stacking' when editors who have no experience in the subject matter pile on and add nothing of substance (i.e. new evidence) but it appears, on the surface, like they have a 'majority vote'. I recall this issue when the Colbert Report told his audience and viewers to edit that elephants were pink in colour (which they did) to expose this 'loophole' that strength in numbers doesn't mean the facts have changed. Thanks for discussing these issues with me, I appreciate your guidance. ] (]) 01:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::::MPOV, TEND, and IDHT editors are a tough problem on Misplaced Pages and I'm afraid I don't have the answers you're looking for. RfCs, RfC/Us, and noticeboards can help sometimes, but often have the side effect of creating way more drama than they're worth. There are also other dispute resolution options such as ], but that only works when it's two editors in a disagreement. The best strategy I've found is to try to understand and address their concerns, and if that fails, make sure that you're on the side of reliable sources. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 18:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks for the advice. I'll look into ], I've never seen that before. If there is a dispute, do you mind if I tag you so you can give your 2c? It's hard to find admins who have your communication style without resorting to personal beliefs instead of being objective with respect to the facts (i.e. reliable sources). ] (]) 19:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's see: I asked you to distinguish yourself from previous editors that had attempted to highlight small sections of pseudoscience topics that had some legitimacy and downplay the vast majority of the area that was nonsense. You replied not by distinguishing yourself, but by ''delineating'' the small section of a topic that you were going to highlight because it has some legitimacy.&mdash;](]) 23:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
: I'm sorry that I did not satisfy your concerns. But the ''distinguishing'' is rather, broad. Distinguish myself from which editors? I showed you diffs of collaboration, willing to engage other editors, not bulldozing through articles, sought mentorship so I can learn more about how to navigate some of the trickier articles. I don't know exactly what it is specifically you're asking me to do. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I also don't want you to paint me into a corner by taking what I said out context. You seem to focusing a lot on me somehow advancing a pseudoscience agenda, '''which is not my position at all'''. I reject the mischaracterizations and the labels. If you were to provide perhaps an example of what it is exactly you're asking for, perhaps the next exchange can be more productive. ] (]) 00:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

::::DVMt, at least now you may no longer claim that I have attacked you through the SPI request, since you already knew you were a different editor than Klocek and Onediscdrive and the checkuser diligently reported this. Except for the retracted claims, I did not claim that you were sockpuppeting, I merely asked that the matter be investigated, since such revival of two sleeper accounts in order to edit the same article does not happen every day or every week at Misplaced Pages. I requested a check and the check has shown that you were not engaged in sockpuppetry. So, my SPI demand turned to be in your favor and you had reasons to know this in advance. Even if you are still blocked, this cleared you of using Klocek's account as a sockpuppet, but, unfortunately for him, he was himself engaged in sockpuppetry, as the checkuser has shown. ] (]) 23:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::::You may be trying to be speaking on a technicality but reporting suspicion that I was a sock is no different than claiming I am a sock; you're using semantics. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, ] and I don't find your investigation did me any favours, except cast additional aspersions on my character. I don't really care of what happened to the Klocek or the others personally, the truth eventually finds its way out. Anyways, I think that our engagement here is done. No hard feelings, be well and enjoy your editing. ] (]) 00:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Actually there is a difference between voicing suspicions and claiming, but it's probably not worth discussing here. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 00:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

== My experience in editing with Quack Guru ==

While I've been in wiki-purgatory, I've noticed a constant theme regarding QuackGuru: ], ], ].

Other editors complaining of chronic editing problems with QuackGuru (as of 2014)

#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]


Despite after promising to improve his behaviour and stop editing chiropractic he continued to do so, he has 50% of the edits alone in 2014 to chiropractic, and even stated that he shaped the article from top to bottom . He has misled editors continuously about reforming his behaviour
] and continued to be disruptive Despite asking him several times to engage in talk, there were repeated attempts of not listening , ,, , , ,
'''His''' chiropractic article has become unreadable , while he continues self-congratulates himself claiming the article is just peachy . He even implies that he may be Edzard Ernst He continues to bait by stating "very few editors can write such an impressive well sourced article. It looks like it was written by an expert like Ersnt himself.''. . This seems very bizarre to me. With so many different editors experiencing the same problems with Quack, past and present, it's clear that despite repeated blocks, and a yearlong topic ban hasn't changed anything.

Relevance: One of them enabling admins of QG blocked me with a dispute involving QG and I see that other editors have continued to have the same issues as I did even after I was tossed in the penalty box. ] (]) 16:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

===Conflict of Interest===

His ''special'' relationship with a high-rank med admin seems to be a conflict. In return, QG is seemingly given a pass for his disruptive behaviour at his favourite pages as seen by this recent February 2014 conversation here where ] and other discussed the problem. The same problems over the past 7 years problem again resurfaced less than 3 months after yet another RfC. The admin seems to be going out of his way defending and endorsing him. Under normal circumstances, giving a barnstar is no biggie, but when you consider the fact that QuackGuru has repeatedly editing the admin's biographical entry, then it deserves a bit more attention. Further, when you look at the '''context and nature of the edits''', the overwhelming number of edits is to suppress the real-world controversies surrounding the admin. , , , , , , , , , , , . I am not suggesting that the admin is not a competent or even respected medical editor, however, when it comes defending , and endorsing QuackGuru's character, this background story should be part of the record. There does seem to be some special pleading on behalf of the admin and I didn't really understand why such a passionate defense of QG until I did this research. ] (]) 17:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

:This is not good at all. The pre-existing connection between QuackGuru is pretty surprising, and casts Doc James's extreme and absurd defenses of QuackGuru in a very unflattering light. Examples:
:* "Hum User:Mallexikon the same one who filled out a RfCU without supporting claims and then refused to provide any when called on it" . Also "One of the RfC U has no difs supporting it" . Simply untrue. Fact: While the presentation of some of the evidence in that RfC was admittedly flawed (and I say this as its co-certifier), it certainly ]; Doc James just didn't like it.
:* "Still waiting for evidence of misbehavior to be provided. Removing comments from ones talk page is NOT significant misbehavior." Again untrue; see explanation of block posted a day before.
:* and see ] ''passim''.
:I'm not accusing Doc James of lying. The untrue statements above may reflect carelessness (albeit sometimes to an extreme degree -- how does one totally overlook the presence of diffs in an RfC/U?). But he is repeatedly distorting the record to an extreme degree in favor of QuackGuru, who has repeatedly edited Doc James bio to remove unflattering but RS and BLP-compliant material. There is an apparent conflict here, and a pretty strong appearance of impropriety; all Wikipedians obviously ought to avoid such things, especially prominent WP ambassadors. Doc James of course does wonderful stuff for WP, but his judgement with respect to QG has been poor. He should seriously consider recusing himself from further discussion of QG. --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 20:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
:: Having just gone through a questionable sock investigation, lobbying accusations against another editor that discredits them or smears them really poisons the well. That's why I'm not accusing the admin of anything but he did displays extremely poor and '''very biased''' judgment in dealing with QuackGuru. Feigning concern that without QG the alt-med articles will take a shit is rather extreme outlook on the situation, it infers he doesn't trust any other editors to build the encyclopedia. I just think going all in in defense of QuackGuru was not only a huge mistake, but now with the obvious COI, it looks premeditated. The whole situation seems to be getting worse by the day. ] might be interested as to why the admin was trying to sway him in reversing the block. ] (]) 21:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
:::It looks bad; whether it really ''is'' that bad I don't know, but we should certainly AGF. The overt problem is each editor's going too far toward dismissing valid criticism of the other. Is there reason to believe that Doc James even knew of QG's puffing up his BLP? (Note: a little more ], fwiw, and another editor's view.) --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 10:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Amazing. That somehow I would want edits like this and thus QC is doing me a service and I have a COI? This is a continuation of the issue that I have with the evidence that has been provided. It is not very good. Evidence is not just about providing a bunch of diffs the diffs actually need to show concern.
Some of the edits complained about in the RfC were actually improvements to Misplaced Pages. This was provided as evidence but was a positive edit. So yes after read through this stuff I am a little more concerned regarding some of those involved here. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
: We will have to agree to disagree. Regards, ] (]) 14:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
::That we have. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Wait -- how is the unflattering? Being an object of controversy is presumably something none of us want; QG OR-tagged such a sentence. That was certainly not unflattering to you. And virtually all of the other diffs cited by DVMt are are unduly positive, most being suppression of sources that are critical but pass RS and BLP. I said above that I wasn't sure whether or not you regularly follow your own BLP, but I know that if I were a highly active editor with a BLP, I would; it's human nature. So my guess would be that you do regularly follow your BLP. Am I wrong? I don't know how many other QG edits there are to your BLP. But if excessively positive is the trend, and it took some digging for you to find ''one'' that you ''thought'' wasn't positive, then you must be aware that QG's edits are overwhelmingly and excessively positive, and the ingredients for a conflict are there. I do find it concerning that you and QG are making edits about each other (in WP and article space respectively) that are unduly positive. The preceding sentence is objectively true: QG ignores RS and BLP (cf. DVMt's diffs); you ignore the very existence of diffs indicating QG's misbehavior, e.g first two bullet points cited just above . You're puffing each other up in Wikispaces where you respectively stand to benefit from the puffery. It looks poor. --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 02:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
::::But again, just because it ''looks'' poor doesn't mean it ''is'' poor, and please don't think I'm doubting your integrity. I AGF fully, and I think you've seen QG's good side but not his bad side and this largely accounts for our differences in perspective. (I too edit from a scientific stance and appreciate the good stuff he does) --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 06:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

===Manipulative editing: A notebook===

*Doc James reverted a change made regarding the ordering of the sections here stating 'Not sure why the change in ordering of sections'. This is tendentious. I clearly stated 'Re-organize per MEDMOS in the diff . I had discussed this earlier today at the talk page .
* Reverting the Doctor of Chiropractic page to QuackGuru's version without consensus and despite ignoring previous concerns about redirections without a formal proposal to do so.
* MelanieN reverted Doc James stating "Stop redirecting this article unless/until there is consensus at the talk page.".
* Incorrectly asserting chiropractic is a treatment and not a profession
* Faulty logic regarding skepticism
* Narrow interpretation of the rules
* Adding archiver to protege's page which is then changed from 5 to 30 days. Are they hiding something?
* QuackGuru continuing to harass me and making more baseless allegations, trying to censor my work which is rejected for his bogus allegation of COPYVIO.
* Still not listening and being tendentious regarding MEDMOS
::Yes would be good to have someone look at these diffs. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
* Concerns of unconditional praise for QG

==DVMt==
We have of course previously interacted like here when they were having issues with using sockpuppets and copy and pasting ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
: I don't see the relevance of this what this has to do '''with this year'''. If you read my posts above, you will see that I was exonerated '''this year''' for a suspected sock case. If you want to focus on the past, that's your prerogative, I am focused on the present. Perhaps you should return to tutoring QuackGuru whose issues persist after 8 years. Like the old saying goes, "you dance with the one that brung you". Regards, ] (]) 14:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

== Your attention needed at WP:CHU ==

Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to ], but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up ] as soon as possible. Thank you. --''']''' (] &#124; ]) 23:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)<!-- Template:CHU note -->

== The Pulse (] newsletter) June 2014 ==

The first edition of '''The Pulse''' has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. ''']'''

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of ] members bearing the {{tl|User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, ] or simply remove your name from ]. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message ].

{{small|Posted by ] (]) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of ].}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Evad37@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list&oldid=610857270 -->

==Comments such as this==
"Don't make the same mistakes as QG and misrepresent the literature" are personal attacks and are thus not appropriate. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
: You're presenting things out of context. Here is the full quote '''Brangifer, you've made several errors in your assessment. First, this has nothing to do with true believers. This has to do with science and research.' You're conflating things. Next, Palmer does not equal chiropractic. It's what Palmer said not what he is saying. He's been dead for over 100 years and you know very well that from the beginning there were 2 very different approaches to chiropractic. In fact, the research shows that currently less than 20% of practice according to Palmer doctrine. "Despite continued concerns by mainstream medicine, only a minority of the profession has retained a perspective in contrast to current scientific paradigms. " . Don't make the same mistakes as QG and misrepresent the literature. Please bring peer-reviewed sources to support your claims in the future.''' That's not an attack but a request that he please abide standard WP policy and to assert facts not opinions. Brangifer made a claim, I rebutted it, because the claim he is making is not supported by evidence. Given that other editors have described you as a cynic you're not in position to be the moral compass as your bias has clouded your judgment in endorsing QuackGuru. I'd please ask that you refrain from quoting things out of context which is reminds me of the same tendentious editing that is done by your protege. We will have to agree to disagree on this one as well. Regards, ] (]) 22:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::That is a personal attack against QG. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:DVMt, Doc James does have a point here in that your comments are unnecessarily personal in nature. Referencing QG in the comment about misrepresenting the literature was unnecessary, as was your comment about QG being DJ's "protege". As for saying that Doc James's moral compass is off because somebody described him as a "cynic"...well, that's probably a step below ]. Your arguments will carry a lot more weight and you'll receive substantially less blowback if you stay in the top three tiers of ]. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 04:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
::Adjwilley, because I trust in your objectivity, I will strike out my comments in the morning. I do want to note, however, that the point I made was legitimate, there are recent ongoing questions regarding abusing sources. That being said, I do regret if I offended the dissenting parties. There does seem to be 2 fundamental disagreement, namely a profession or technique and 2) the existence of science-based chiropractic (i.e. manual and manipulative therapy for spinal/MSK disorders. I do welcome any dispute resolution or request for comment. ], thank you introducing me to that diagram! I've never seen it before and is immediately useful. Regards, ] (]) 06:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

==ANI==
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:18, 23 June 2014

Redirect to: