Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:49, 17 January 2007

${\displaystyle \star }$  Rules governing this talk page  ${\displaystyle \star }$

This talk page is my territory, and I assume janitorial responsibility for it. I may, without notice, refactor (rearrange) comments to put like with like, correct indents, or retitle sections to reflect their contents more clearly. I reserve the right to delete comments; however, in practice, I am normally opposed to doing so, and use archives instead. When all else fails, there is always a complete edit history....;-) -- Fyslee

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

My offer to Ilena

(From here) If I have done something wrong, then I'll be happy to examine the diffs and either explain or apologize (it wouldn't be the first time!), but I won't do it with a hodgepodge jumble of confusing and paranoid accusations. It needs to be (1) specific, (2) short, (3) one-at-a-time, (4) with precise diffs, (5) precise quotes, (6) civil in tone, and (7) very precise accusations. I think that is only fair. Ilena can do it on my talk page, and any other editors who are interested are welcome to join in. If she does it in a civil manner, I won't consider it yet another personal attack in violation of WP:NPA.

I am making this unnecesary and gracious offer in good faith, so if she misuses it and her tone gets nasty, I'll request that the admins above react with an immediate block, especially considering that no other editor to my knowledge, has ever been allowed to get away with so much and gotten away with it for so long. She has now received so many clear warnings and "suspended sentences" that one more violation should result in a very long block. Only then can we get back to peacefully editing here.-- Fyslee 10:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You were never "attacked" by me as you falsely claim. I pointed out verifiable facts that you use Misplaced Pages to further the identical agenda as on your blogs, webrings and healthfraud list. You advertised all of these in your own vanity links on Misplaced Pages and seem to be under the impression that when these are pointed out, this is an attack. Your "quack files" are pejorative, biased sites and who you attack as "quacks" on them, you attempt to paint the same identical way on Misplaced Pages. You seem to want to paint a false picture of your years of work with Stephen Barrett. You got away for over 6 months with disinforming Wiki readers that NCAHF was a legal non profit and when I posted verified information that it was not, you reverted my posts back to your false claims of it being a legal entity. You have now been dishonest that your blogs do not contain attacks against me. You even brought an anonymous attack to Wiki and then denied that you posted it here. Every time you link quackwatch or the suspended NCAHF, it links directed to your "quack files" and your webrings. This is verifiable, not an attack. Today, you altered this link you advertise, to remove your years of responsibility as "Assistant Listmaster" for Barrett's Healthfraud List. I have web copies of your unaltered page. You claim you apologized for your months and months of disnformation about the legal status of NCAHF but I never saw them. It took months and months to get the facts on that article because of your attempts to keep the verifiable facts off of it. Have a lovely day. Ilena 16:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ Ilena. From an outsiders perspective you are very combative. Obviously "attack" is a strong word, but the cummulative effect of your edits speak for themselves. As I suggested before, editing pages with which you are not personally involved would be the better strategy for an enjoyable experience in wikipedia. I might add that editors in wikipedia have been remarkably tolerant of your disruptions, one presumes to allow you to get used to this more collaborative envirnoment. Unfortunately, you do not seem to be taking the hint. Seriously, read what people are saying, if you continue this way I am certain your editing priviledges will be reviewed, this has happened time and time again here. Please, it is not usenet, and wikipedia is not about the truth. Verifiable and no original research is the priority. David D. (Talk) 17:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

David. Please be so kind as to explain why when fyslee posts on Misplaced Pages his vanity links to his "quack files" (which are pejorative attacks on modalities which he and Barrett disagree with,) this is permitted. However, when I make reference to this verifiable fact, it is an "attack." This link of his I got off of his page on Wiki. Before today, it contained the link to Barrett's Healthfraud List where he worked for several years. As you recommended David, I have only been adding comments to the discussion pages on related articles and not edited them. Please also explain to me something that is very confusing. fyslee has posted x number of quackwatch/ncahf links around Misplaced Pages ... each and every one linking to his own webrings and pages. This seems like a gorilla could have a monkey posting his gorilla links, and this would not be considered "linkspam" and allowed. Is this accurate? One last question. Fyslee has continually attacked my work with breast implant women here on Misplaced Pages, much like is posted on his webrings. I have headed for 11 years, a large support group of appreciative women, and am regularly quoted in various media. His false allegations are nothing but attacks yet he freely is allowed to continue this on Misplaced Pages without so much as a mention. Please explain why this is allowed. Thank you very much.Ilena 17:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Make the case for the removal of his sites and they may be removed too. Thanks for restricting edits to the talk pages, maybe try and bite your tongue too :), count to ten before posting? Fyslee's behaviour may well be bad too, but that does not excuse your own behaviour. Make the case against Fyslees edits not against him. basically both of you need to take a step back and battle each others ideas and content. Not each other. David D. (Talk) 21:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

One last chance

Ilena, I have given you an opportunity to civilly and simply state your case, not to just repeat and embellish your accusations. I can read them, and we have all done so numerous times here.

This time is different. We all need to analyze them and get to the bottom of your rage and defuse it. Your rage and warrior attitude do not belong here at Misplaced Pages. Now I'll copy from above in a better format and order, so READ MY LIPS very carefully:

Your presentation here (not attack) needs to be

1. Very precise

2. One-at-a-time

3. Specific

4. Short

5. Precise quotes

6. With precise diffs

7. Civil in tone

Now what part of that don't you understand? Number two says "one-at-a-time", so take your pick from your many accusations and then follow every single one of the steps listed above. Any deviations will not be tolerated, and will be promptly deleted. You make many serious charges against me, including of lieing I'm giving you a golden opportunity to demonstrate that you are capable of civil discourse, using simple logic, without hyperbole, and above all -- with documentation. Start with a short subheading for your first one, and we'll confine discussion under that subheading, without any deviations into other charges. If you aren't sure what to do....don't attack, just ask.

If you screw up this attempt, then I will take the initiative and demand proof for your charges, and I'll do the picking. The only reasons I haven't already sued you for libel are that we don't do that here, and I'm so used to receiving insults, death threats, spam, and other stuff from radical chiropractors and other alternative medicine types that I'm pretty hardened. I happen to know chiropractors and others who don't use such methods, and I can work fine with them, even though we hold differing POV.

I could even work fine with you (as I have stated previously), and help you add information that does not conform to my POV, if you would only cease attacking and try collaborating. Just ask for my help. I believe in the inclusion of differing POV, as long as they are encyclopedic, are from verifiable, reliable, and good sources, and without any WP:OR. If you doubt my intentions regarding the application of NPOV to opposing POV, just ask User:Dematt, a chiropractor whom I admire very highly. -- Fyslee 19:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ilena

...What am I supposed to do?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. But if it interests you, you are welcome to follow along or participate above. -- Fyslee 21:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you were one of many in fyslee's "call to arms" to take turns WikiWacking me. As you see, he attempted to erase comments of someone who attempted to support me. Have a lovely day. Ilena 15:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Ilena. That was rather odd. Earlier he said other editors were welcome to join in. Censorship? I think you have raised legitimate concerns with potentially significant conflicts of interests that need to be addressed. Steth 16:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering why he got rid of your post so quick, too? I'm also curious about something else. I realize one cannot post a link to their own website, but what about a website that is only one click away from your website? And then you post that link hundreds of times. Seems a little fishy. --24.237.119.177 20:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My rules of play

Ilena (and Steth), you both seem to have misunderstood this offer (made to Ilena). We (multiple editors here) have read both of your (usually undocumented) charges and personal attacks against me all over Misplaced Pages, and you've gotten away with it. Now Ilena (alone) is being provided the opportunity to provide documentation for them, one-at-a-time. She's a big girl and should be able to defend herself without any help from anyone else (except for possible technicalities, although she has just proven she can provide a diff.). She has made the charges, she is now expected to provide the documentation. If she can't do it, then she's got a problem. I don't doubt that she can provide something or other that is somehow related to each of her charges. (If I twist my brain enough and try to adopt her conspiracy theory mindset, I can vaguely get a glimpse of things she might be basing her misunderstandings upon.) It's her interpretation of things and the way she frames them in her charges that is the problem. I believe she is grossly misrepresenting things in an obvious effort to injure my reputation (a portion of the definition of libel -- but no threat of a lawsuit here), and I'd like to be able to explain things for her (and whoever cares to listen).

• "a publication without justification or lawful excuse which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule." -- Parke, B. in Parmiter v. Coupland (1840) GM&W 105 at 108

I am not excluding the possibility of comments from other editors, but am primarily interested in others making sure that things are done properly. I believe my outline of conditions is a fair method to get to the bottom of this, and to provide a basis for examining her charges. If other editors feel there could be improvement, I'm willing to consider constructive suggestions. Otherwise this is basically between myself and Ilena. She has repeatedly thrown down the gauntlet, and I have finally decided to take her hyperbole seriously, since other editors who aren't familiar with her normal mode of communication might actually believe her.

Although none of this should be necessary (since neither her's nor Steth's personal attacks are even allowed here, and are ample grounds for blocks), I'm allowing Ilena (alone) to defend herself. I'm tired of her deceptive and libelous statements here at Misplaced Pages and on her websites, so now's the time to settle this. -- Fyslee 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)