Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:35, 19 June 2007

Archives
Archive 0 Archive 1 Archive 2

sure why not

what purpose does "Video game references" or "anime references" or any of that have in an encyclopedia

I read this website a lot and I see nothing but people wanting to edit completely useless garbage into a document to thump their chests at their immense knowledge of completely insignificant and trivial facts from assorted media 68.192.152.196 06:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)k

Summertime and the living is easy

Summertime clean up. Not offically summer, but it sure is hot here. -- Levine2112 03:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Shamblin Page

Hello! Could you tell me how I could call for more moderation over on Gwen Shamblin? A user deletes information off the page every night, desipte the fact that it's all annotated with solid sources. Efkeathley 11:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are dealing with the same persistent vandal, then you may want to report the matter to WP:AIV. -- Levine2112 16:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. There are so many pages on vandalism I was having difficulty finding the correct one. Any additional advice or help you have with this sort of thing would be very welcome.Efkeathley 17:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you or anyone else put the proper warning templates on this user's talk page? You can find those here. If you have and the editor still disregards and continues to vandalize, then you should definitely post a complaint to WP:AIV. I hope this helps! -- Levine2112 17:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have bookmarked the vandalism template page, and the vandal has been blocked. Remnant church has sued more than just Spirit Watch over what they consider to be libelous information on the internet, so I suspect I will get good use of these. That's part of why I annotated the heck out of the article. Thanks again!Efkeathley 17:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Locking

I would like to ask that you could sii if you can make it so that the Firestar's Quset page under Warriors (book series) could not be locked. Badgerstripe 00:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking for here. I am happy to help. Please elaborate? -- Levine2112 07:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I worded that wrong. I would like it if I could put a full lock on it until July. A lot of crap goes through it and I would like to make so no one, and I mean no one can change it. Badgerstripe 20:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so I am unsure if I have that ability any more than you might. You may want to file a complaint at the appropriate page on the Administrators' Noticeboard at WP:AN. -- Levine2112 20:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in here, since I don't know the background for this matter, but maybe my experience can help. I have requested semi-protection for a number of articles and gotten it. It can only be done in cases where an article is a constant target of vandalism, and this leaves it open for editing by more experienced registered users. Some articles are very popular for various reasons, for example when high school students are assigned the Gettysburg Address, it becomes a vandalism magnet. -- Fyslee/talk 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Fyslee. How could Barderstripe go about making such a request to see if the article he is working on qualifies? (I have no experience with this.) -- Levine2112 21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it the subject of drive-by vandalism or extreme disruption? If not it would be hard, since content disputes alone aren't enough. -- Fyslee/talk 22:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have requested locks. Thank you for your help Levine2112 and Fyslee. Also, Levine2112 I hope you don't find our old little discussion offensive, I slightly enjoyed it. A break from the ordinary. Badgerstripe 00:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not offended at all. I love discussing that topic! -- Levine2112 00:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Respect

I would like to ask that you don't show your religious beliefs or critisize mine for I am a Strong christian and find it offensive to find you saying people would be saner without the belief in God, and you don't find me saying the world would be a safer, saner place without atheists. Thank You for your time. Badgerstripe 00:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for causing you offense. Please understand that as I am a firm believer in free speech, I fully support your right to say that the world would be a safer and saner place without atheists. Words cannot hurt; only actions. Let's come together and express our differences; let's rejoice that we have a forum where we are free to be you and me. I know it may seem mindboggling, but I truly believe that religions - especially of the organized nature - is a crutch holding civilization back from evolving. It may have once been a necessary step, but it's time to continue our journey. -- Levine2112 07:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I also believe in free speech, but tell me, TRUTHFULY, have you been made fun, or critisized by someone, and not been hurt? Words can hurt, worse than actions. And in a way I believe you, in part. Some religions are a crutch holding civilization back, like Hinduism, Muslim, and Buddhism, yet as a true american and christian, I will respect these religions even though they do hold civilization back. Also, if I may be so bold, do you wish to undermine equality of people, do you wish to undermine the Declaration of Independence, or even undermine the Constitution, for the writers of all these laws and works were written by christian writers, our very founding fathers were christians? Badgerstripe 01:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Matt. 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." -- Levine2112 01:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You are a smart one Levine2112, you are smart one. And I am not judging you Levine. I am meerly asking a question. And as I said words do hurt. Oh, if you want to know why you are so smart, I have met many athiests, none of which have used the Bible against me. That is a stroke of genius. But may I ask you to answer those questions I asked in the other message. And, I am not sure if you were wondering this but, you do have my respect just by the respect you have for the Bible, you earned mine. Badgerstripe 21:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

• Yes, I been made fun of and criticized. And I've been hurt by these, but mostly when I was younger. I have grown and learned that everyone is going to have an opinion and they are free to shout at me until they are blue in the face. The words alone cannot hurt me; but rather it is my reaction to those words which can do the most damage. Do I bottle it up with contempt? Do I externalize with an equal and opposite reaction? Do I consider the source? Do I let it pass on over me and then move on?
• I don't wish to undermine the equality of people. All people are created equally, with equal inalienable rights. These rights are not God-given. They are granted by a well-intentioned society who wants what is best for itself.
• I don't wish to undermine the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. I take these documents to heart and see their brilliance. But I also recognize that they were written over two hundred years ago in a different time. Don't forget, despite the genius of these documents granted equality to all, most of the authors were able to justify slavery in the eyes of their God and - more unfortunately - in the laws of the land. My feeling is that slavery was motivated mostly by despicable greed. Greed is a sin in just about every religion I know. But Greed is just a sympton of the human condition and like all so-called sins, it is a manifestation of the very trait which makes us human... selfishness. (Take your Seven Deadly Sins - they are all about selfishness.) Selfishness is a side-effect of our individuality; a response to the fact that we all individually have the capacity to recognize that we are alive. We treasure this life; try to fill it the best way we know how; protect it from being extinguished. Death is the great unknown, and the fear of death dictates so much of who we are as individuals and as a society. Promises of heavens and valhallas and warnings of hells and Hades have long time been ways to keep our selfishness in check and keep society working. But that time should have passed a long time ago. We are intelligent enough now to want to keep our selfishness from overrunning society just for the sake of society. We don't need the laws of some god to govern us; the laws of man (all humans, not just men) is all we need. Besides, when the laws of some supposedly supernatural diety governs us collectively, its called a theocrasy. This is the oldest form of government (though perhaps just plain old brute force is older). When the laws of some supposedly supernatural diety governs us individually, there is an astounding lack of personal accountability. In my eyes, you're free to believe in God or whatever, but when it comes to the way that you handle yourself in society - the way you treat others - there ought to be something more than a fear of retribution in a hell or the promise of some reward in a heaven that makes you want to treat that person with all of the respect you would like that person to bestow upon you. I believe in the Golden Rule; I just personally don't need faith in the supernatural to scare me into abiding by that rule; or a promise of some great reward in an unproven afterlife to get me to follow this tried and true rule. That would just play on my base fears and selfishness. Rather, I recognize my fear of death and instead I choose to explore life scientifically to learn all I can about the unknown. I understand that selfishness may be hard-wired into my core DNA, but in recognizing it, I am more apt to control it and put it in check and channel it into something more productive then just making the world a better place for just me and me alone. I focus it (rather I try to, I'm not perfect) on deeds that make the world a better place for everyone.

To conclude, there is nothing wrong with believing in a higher power, but don't let that belief dictate the sum total of who you are. Have faith in yourself and your ability to control your own fears and selfishness. Have faith in others ability to do the same. We have a policy here at Misplaced Pages: WP:AGF. There is no mention of God or the supernatural, but we all try to obey this policy the best we can. And if we don't, it isn't a supernatural power which establishes the order, but rather the community which cooperatively tries to smooth out the wrinkles and level the bumps. Sure, it's not perfect, but it is a step huge in the right direction away from the times we bowed down and prayed to the drawings on the walls of our caves. -- Levine2112 17:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot agree with all of that. One, I don't believe that fear of hell or the wanting of heaven is what makes christians obey these laws. We do have self-respect, we do gorvern ourselves-for the most part-but, if we except this help, we are helped along this path to heaven or left to go to hell. Also, many that have died and were revived with defibulators have seen great suffering and pain or great light and happiness while they were dead. And these are not dreams, for when you are dead, no thought can exist but these acounts are what they saw. Yes, some are most likely hoaxs, but some must have a basis of truth. Badgerstripe 19:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We all have our own way of thinking, I suppose. For me, as a scientific skeptic, I require concrete scientific evidence of something for me to believe in something. That some people have had "near death" experience and experienced pain or light or euphoria doesn't amount to much more than anecdotal evidence. Further, it isn't evidence of God. And understand, I don't beleive in God; however, I am open to the possibility of God. This is how a true skeptic thinks. I only base my beliefs on logic and rational scientific discovery. Currently, in my eyes, the evidence for religion is that no institution or concept in the history of mankind has been more responsible for murder than religion. It is paradoxical since most (if not all) religions teach the Golden Rule. And even Christianity, though a religion of pacifism (Jesus was basically a hippie after all - with all due respect), has been used to justify hundreds of millions of murders in the past two thousand years. What I am saying is: religion doesn't have a very good track record. Why? Because arguing over whose version of the "boogey man" is correct is futile because true believers can have no evidence which will make them change their mind. Why? Because all of the evidence and beliefs are based soley on faith. There's no winning arguments or wars when fantasy is the terms. We'd have better luck fighting over which flavor of ice cream is the best. At least there we are dealing with somewhat of a realistic concept - ice cream. In summary, I think that for all the goodness they preach, religions have proven themselves to be very hazardous to our health. While it may once have been a good way to teach people the difference between right and wrong, I think we are creative enough to think of a lesson plan grounded in reality and still have the same net effect as far as getting the message across. I'll leave you with this question for you to ponder: Did God create us in His own image or did we create Him in our own? -- Levine2112 00:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you didn't call Jesus a hippy. That is very offensive. God didn't nessasarily mean a physical image, but a mental image, when he created us. Also, there are scientific reasons for nature, but with all its beuty, wouldn't it seem very likely (and true) that someone would be guiding it all? Ponder that for a little while. Badgerstripe 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for offending. In my eyes, a "hippie" is a good thing, no a wonderful thing to be. This means you embody the tenets of pacifism, compassion, and love. That's all I meant. I apologize again. Anyhow, I have pondered the beauty of nature and the complexity of the universe for my whole life. At this particular point in time, I don't see any evidence or need of God in its existence. Remember, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Similarly we can say that God is in the eye of the beholder. -- Levine2112 22:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am not excusing terrorism it is wrong, but isn't there an anger that that is right, and murder that is justified? Also, there is much proof of Jesus and his miracles. In Roman history there is a history of Jesus healing many with dirt or other common things, or even jsut speaking. Also the scriptures cannot be a work of fiction becuase they are all made at different times, if it was fiction, then it would be made at one point, not all in different times. Badgerstripe 20:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Were the Crusades terrorism? The Inquisition? Witch hunts? All murder done in the name of and sake of religion. -- Levine2112 22:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You are very right Levine2112, the Crusades were mostly terrorism, so were witch hunts, and I don't know what the Inquisition was. Like I said, I am not excusing these acts. Sometimes people bring religion to far, take the Bible to litterely, and do other unjust acts by doing so. Badgerstripe 23:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your comments at my recent RfA. They meant a lot, especially as we often find ourselves on different sides of content issues. As you may have noticed, I've been backing off the Quackwatch/Barrett articles lately; I feel like they're a drain and create bad feelings, and I don't even feel that strongly about the particular subjects. Anyhoo, thanks again for your fair-mindedness and let me know if I can give you a hand with anything. MastCell 15:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. How did the rest of the confirmation process go for you? -- Levine2112 00:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty smoothly, actually. Only one episode of trolling, from a sockpuppeteer I'd run across recently. Now I'm trying to figure out how to use the buttons. MastCell 02:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Case?

Since you're the one that requested the mediation, could you give us some indication on what you're plans are with it? As far as I know, nothing has happened since it was suggested the mediation be conducted via email. --Ronz 01:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Our mediator is busy outside of Misplaced Pages. We have been in contact via email over the past few weeks. I'll let you know when there is an update. -- Levine2112 03:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Good enough. Thanks! --Ronz 03:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

He says 2-3 days or perhaps next week. -- Levine2112 21:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Watch what you are doing.

Editing a sentence into an unintelligible sentence fragment is not acceptable. You have now done this twice. —SlamDiego 02:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread that totally. Heh, heh. Anyhow, that sentence has to go per WP:BLP as there is no reliable secondary source from which to cite that information. Additionally, what was there was an innacurate summary of the unreliable source which had been given. Thanks for catching my error. -- Levine2112 03:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my perspective. Since it's a new article, it's probably best to be lenient with sources since you have so few. You might want to put back in the sentence with a verify tag on it. One of the references from the Quackwatch article might be able to verify the information.

It's going to be a tricky article if all (or most of) the best sources are critical of him. WEIGHT will call for a critical article while there's still the need to watch BLP issues. --Ronz 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the junk references out from the start. Build an article upward with a strong base at the start. -- Levine2112 09:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've incorporated my suggestions here into the article and the article's talk page. --Ronz 16:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for the Barnstar. It feels nice to be appreciated. Misplaced Pages can be stormy place. MaxPont 17:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you are scary efficient (offending page deleted in under 10 minutes!) but thanks for website guidelines link. My lame attempt to document something new was genuine but clearly misguided. Cheers.--Invisible City 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Change of strategy

I'm still trying to find a way to work with you. Nothing seems to work. As a gesture of good faith, I'll use your exact words to try to settle some of our differences: "There are absolutely no uncivil personal comments toward you or anyone else in either of those posts. If you are detecting that, please quote me exactly that which you find offensive." I believe you've referred to my posts on 15 May starting with the one at 15:37 and ending with the one at 23:35. --Ronz 17:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to quote somethings you wrote in that time spanse. You tell me if they are or aren't uncivil personal attacks and generally in bad faith.

1. Read what I wrote, then read some of the discussions about the certification that I repeatedly warn you about ignoring (if you ever read them at all). Then stop wasting our time with your povpush.
2. Sorry if you find it hostile. I've explained myself. You're falling back on your habit of asking for repeated explanations while ignoring past explanations. Stop wasting my time.
3. Sorry that you don't like me pointing out that you're just ignoring explanations.
4. You don't understand OR, WEIGHT, BLP, and you refuse to pay attention when others try to explain.
5. Your lack of understanding is not justification for this type of incivility.

Please explain. I welcome this discussion here. I would prefer to discuss editing on Talk:Stephen Barrett. I would also appreciate that you would in good faith answer my request for you to explain how you are interpreting policy at any given time rather than have you tell me that you have already answered that question and I am just ignoring it. Even if it causes you to restate your interpretation, it would be a sign of good faith for your to explain your rationale for me if I am asking you to. I believe I always do that for you (that's why that tak page is so verbose). I don't think I have ever refused to answer your request for an explanation or said that I have already answered it and that you are wasting my time. I hope you undersand how these kinds of responses come off as hostile. I appreciate that you are now taking the time to try to figure out a way to get us to work together better. I submit that full disclosure of our understanding of the application of policy any time will greatly imporve our understanding of each other. -- Levine2112 18:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that your saying, "I appreciate that you are now taking the time to try to figure out a way to get us to work together better" assumes that I have not prior.

I've given it a first go-through, refactoring and clarifying. You'll notice I've offered what I hope is a solution, "If you don't understand, ask questions that demonstrate that you've at least read what you're commenting on." --Ronz 18:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. But why not just assume good faith by assuming that I have in fact read what I am commenting on? All I am asking is that when I ask for an explanation of how you see the policy, that you give it to me and not tell me that I am wasting your time or that I am going in circles. To me, this is hostile. Let's not use or assume sarcasm. Let's try to talk more openly about policy with regards to article space and less hostility and incivility.

As you know, I have repeated attested to not have any knowledge of Barrett or Quackwatch before coming to Misplaced Pages. I have no dealings with anything regarding Barrett or Quackwatch outside of Misplaced Pages. I am not an alternative medicine practitioner or salesman. I don't participates in blogs or newsletters or anything outside of Misplaced Pages which deals with Barrett or Quackwatch. I am not a paid advocate for alternatiive medicine working to make Barrett look bad and alternative medicine look good. Do you understand what I am saying? There is no and can be no POVPUSH here for me. All I am pushing for is for the fair and equal treatment of all subjects under the umbrella of Misplaced Pages policy. -- Levine2112 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Without you're making any indication you've read what I've wrote, I don't know where to begin with an explanation.

Why are you bringing up all this off-topic information about Barrett and Quackwatch, which begins with the hidden comment I added? If this info is important in some way, start a separate discussion on it, with some explanation as to how it relates. --Ronz 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Try beginning with answering whatever question I am asking. If you are unclear, please ask me to clarify. What hidden comment? What information is off-topic? On this page? Please clarify. -- Levine2112 19:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The hidden comment was lost in the edit conflict. I've started a new paragraph instead. --Ronz 19:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

While I understand the paragraph break, I really believe that I am talking about the same topic. One of your recent points (which I have in bold above) is that you feel I am motivated by a POVPUSH. I am just letting you know in good faith that this is not my motivation. Again, openness and honesty. This will help us understand each other and work together better. -- Levine2112 20:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand now. I find it irrelevant because it's your behavior here on Misplaced Pages that we're talking about. I think you are confusing WP:COI with WP:POVPUSH#POV_pushing. But of course, I've struck out the mention of povpush. --Ronz 21:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

POVPUSH, while an incivil term to use, is used in regards to minor or fringe views. What we are dealing with isn't a fringe or minor view. Regardless, I appreciate that you have struck your uncivil use of it. My point in elaborating where I am coming is more than just to show that I have no COI, but also that I don't have any hidden agendas behind me. This seems directly related to an exploration of my behavior. Besides, I thought we are talking about your behavior on Misplaced Pages too. -- Levine2112 21:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think our discussion here is over. I've worked to address your concerns, and rather than responding in like you continue to be incivil and assume bad faith. --Ronz 15:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Where have I been uncivil or assumed bad faith? -- Levine2112 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"rather than responding in like" --Ronz 16:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking me to strike passages out as you have done, you will first have to point them out to me as I don't see any incivility on my part there. But now I have you and Shot Info tag-teaming there rather than using the page to discuss policy and edits; which you will note is all I am doing. But please, I would love to respond in kind. Let me know where you think I have been uncivil. -- Levine2112 17:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going to waste my time with you with yet another lesson in what civility and good faith mean. I think this discussion has been as productive as it's going to get. --Ronz 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way. Again, I am offering to respond in kind as you have asked of me. But as I have done for you, please provide excepts of my writing from that time exchange on Talk:Stephen Barrett where you feel I was being uncivil. I am not a mindreader. Again, I appreciate that once I pointed out to you where I felt you were being uncivil, you promptly struck out those passages. I think that shows a lot of character on your part. Give me the chance, and I will do the same.

Also, please understand that when I ask you to explain yourself in terms of Misplaced Pages policy, it isn't harrassment. I am doing exactly what the talk page was set up to do; commenting on edits (not editors). I am somewhat taken aback by your hostile responses to my questions concerning policy explanations. You say that I am assuming bad faith when I presume what your interpretation might be; but when you refuse to explain your feelings about policy (and rather attack my character by saying I am going in circles or guilty of POVPUSH or am wasting your time), I am left with no other choice but to guess. Again, I am not a mindreader. (I don't believe in mindreading; at least I haven't seen convincing evidence of its existence.) ;-) -- Levine2112 17:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

visakhapatnam page

Hi i added a external link in visakhapatnam page because it should and must come there, someone who created this page should have forgotten to place this link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunet-tech (talk • contribs)

Please see my response here. -- Levine2112 00:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Blessings

Blessings on your head: Have a good weekend. -- Fyslee/talk 17:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the simplest solution is the... well, you know. ;-) -- Levine2112 17:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Shabbat shalom. It is nearly sunset here. I grew up in an SDA home, so I know how important Sabbath observance is. -- Fyslee/talk 18:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank God I'm an atheist. -- Levine2112 18:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Amen. -- Fyslee/talk 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Schools in North America

I was hoping you had time to chime in here.--Travisthurston 17:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

MaxPont

Remember the times when I've discussed with you about your support of Ilena, encouraging her to behave inappropriately? This is another one of those times --Ronz 00:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think suggesting an ArbCom is a good idea. I don't think it is an inappropriate suggestion at all. Do you?

BTW, Pot calling the kettle black? Seems you have been supporting bad behavior yourself. Hmm. -- Levine2112 01:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Make up your mind. Are you supporting his personal attacks or not? Are you supporting his original research? How about his obviously bad original research? How about trying to trump WP:V with original research?

Like I said, this reminds me of the situation with Ilena. That was a massive wasted of time too, and for so many. Of course, that's something that we have completely opposite viewpoints on: I find it incivil to waste others' time, to be disrespectiful of others' contributions and requests. --Ronz 03:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you on that. I too find it incivil to waste others' time, to be disrespectiful of others' contributions and requests. Please reread my post, I am support the RfA. Where are you getting the idea that I am supporting anyones personal attacks or original research? -- Levine2112 03:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Because you're ignoring it, because you're deliberately diverting attention away from his misbehavior. Like Ilena, remember? Blatant WP:TE and WP:DE behavior is happening, and you ignore it, commenting instead on the call for ArbComm buried in the completely and totally inappropriate comments. When you ignore WP:V and WP:OR problems, and instead divert the discussion back to your misunderstanding of WEIGHT, interjecting sarcasm and hostility in doing so. Again, it's too much like the situations with Ilena. --Ronz 16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see it that way. The only similarity I see is behaviour which enflames another editor, and stubborness which cannot allow another editor to be dispassionate about a subject and consider a compromise. Anthony has called for an end of this debate until mediation and yet you continue it. Please refrain. Let's wait until mediation. -- Levine2112 16:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. MaxPont has demonstrated clear disruptive editing. I'm not making the same mistake I made with Ilena, letting others keep the disruptive editing going for their purposes. Besides, Anthony is not helping us address behavioral issues. I just wanted to point out that this is a great time for you to demonstrate that you're actually interested in showing how you want to improve Misplaced Pages. --Ronz 17:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

By stepping out of this senseless bickering until we can deal with it in a better forum (mediation, ArbCom, et cetera), I am in fact improving Misplaced Pages. If you want to continue to be a disruptive influence there, then you will have to live with being the cause of making the environment more and more hostile. I consider this matter "pending" until mediation or arbitration. I would appreciate it if you respect my wishes and discontinued this conversation with me right here, right now. No reply from you is necessary. Thank you. -- Levine2112 17:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What you label "senseless bickering" is my attempt at improvement. As I said, Anthony is not addressing behavioral issues, so someone needs too given they've been ongoing for over 15 months. You don't want to be involved in this problem with MaxPont. Your choice. It's Ilena all over again as far as I'm concerned. I was hoping you'd take an active involvement this time around. --Ronz 19:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been taking an active involvement by pointed out your behavioral issues. You don't want to pay any attention to me though. Again, I would appreciate it if you respect my wishes and discontinued this conversation with me right here, right now. No reply from you is necessary or warranted. Further discussion on this topic here will be viewed as harrassment. Please stop now. Thank you. -- Levine2112 20:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So it's harassment for just replying? --Ronz 20:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Please discontinue further discussion with me about this until mediation begins. -- Levine2112 20:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So, any and all other disputed issues are to be addressed in mediation? Are you going to change your description of what's going on then? Are you going to specifically include behavioral issues like those of MaxPont? --Ronz 22:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reported your persistent harrassment here to AN/I. Please respect the request of our mediator and cease this dispute until mediation. No reply to this message should be made either. Just stop harrassing me and I will know you understand. -- Levine2112 23:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this conversation about how many books Barrett has written? The mediation is about board certification, or is this too going to be added to the on going mediation? ----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 23:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This conversation is about both. The two are related in that they demonstrate the inconsitent application of policy. Since they are related, I'd prefer to not to discuss it anymore until mediation as my civil attempts have just lead to incivility, personal attacks, and harassment. You will note however that my participation in the "authorship" issue was only limited to show the inconsistencies in other's policy application. Other than that, I have not made any comment as to what to do about the authorship issue. If you are going to be involved in the mediation, I suggest that you follow our mediator's advice and discontinue further discussion until mediation begins. Thanks. (Nice signature by the way. Very groovy.) -- Levine2112 00:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks, the sig was a gift. :)----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 11:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Attachment Therapy article

There seems to be a link between the SB article and a group involved in a dispute regarding Attachment Therapy. I'd be interested in your views and comments. DPeterson 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not seeing the link between the two articles. I would be glad to help out any way I can. Please fill me in with some details. Feel free to post the connection between the two articles here or email me. -- Levine2112 16:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case over?

Since you're the requesting party, perhaps you should be the one that works with Anthony and perhaps other Mediation Cabal editors if necessary, to get Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-05_Stephen_Barrett to reflect what's going on? --Ronz 01:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I've got the situation under control. I've posted my recommendations on how to handle this here: Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Coordination_Desk#Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal.2FCases.2F2007-04-05_Stephen_Barrett. --Ronz 16:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though I don't think that is an accurate depiction of what occured. There was one proposal that was made which received no consensus. No counter proposal or compromise was ever made. I beleive that would have been the next step. -- Levine2112 17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but from what I read, Anthony did say no consenses to add was passed. He states;

"* Edit not implemented — general consensus is against this edit being undertaken. Feel free to evaluate the reasons expressed, and re-list with a possible compromise that is more widely suitable, and therefore satisfies the justifications expressed in "Oppose" posts above ~ Anthony 20:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)". To me, at least, he is saying that if there is a compromise please list it.

Also, please check my talk page. I am asking for just a litte bit of time to understand Not and Weight. I was a new editor back when all of this started and I understand policy here much better. I think I understand the policies I have here but I just want to make sure then I will post my thoughts on the talk page. So if you would, please, hold off on voting and taking a consenses on this. I email our mediator to see if he could/would ask another mediator to replace him. I don't know if this is possible or doable but I guess it doesn't hurt to ask. Right now I have not decided about adding that Barrett is not board certified but I do know I think it's wrong to put in that he failed the test. That part as you wrote it on the talk page and the article sounds like critism and that he was not a good doctor. I know you don't mean it that way but that's how it reads to me. I had my son read it and he thought the same thing. So anyways, would you please give me a few days at least to gather my information and post it to the talk page? I really would appreciate it. Also, let's all try to assume good faith from now on and stop the bickering. It gets the article no where and is really a big turn off for anyone seeing what is written. I assure you that I am not blaming you at all, I think there are a bunch not assuming good faith. Please do not take offense, I do not mean to offend you or anyone. Thanks, ----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 20:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Anthony says "general consensus is against this edit being undertaken". "This edit" refers to my proposed edit. If he meant that the case was closed on all edits, then there wouldn't have been cause to continue the mediation. Right?

Please take your time gathering your thoughts. You can mark your vote whenever you are ready.

I definitely agree with you about civility and good faith. Please read ourmediator's talk page for some clarity on this issue. He feels that given the environment of bad faith accusation banded about that mediation will be difficult if not impossible. I guess what I am hoping to accomplish with the re-introduction of this compromise is a peaceful end to inserting this seemingly inocuous bit of factual information.

I think we should pay attention to the thoughts of MastCell and Arthur Rubin here. They are both admins - and while this doesn't mean they are infallible, we might want to consider that they know more about Misplaced Pages policy than us. On the same token, we should respect the thoughts of AGK on the ongoing behavior. As a mediator, his job is to observe things neutrally. There is no taking sides for him. Again, please read his observation about the state of our discussions on his archived talk pages linked above.

Thanks for your continued interest in this matter, Crohnie. -- Levine2112 21:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness (sorry to jump in), I wouldn't claim any greater understanding of policy than the average editor who's been around a similar length of time. I don't think this is a black-and-white case, so I'm just giving my personal interpretation of how I think policy should be applied. I'm flattered, but I don't necessarily expect any extra weight to be attached to my opinion on the basis of adminship. MastCell 21:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. You are exceedingly humble - a very admirable characteristic! -- Levine2112 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

re: AGK's comments

Given that AGK has refused to engage in dispute resolution with me concerning his comments, I see no choice at this time but to treat them as a personal attack on me. Please do not link to them in article talk space. Thanks. --Ronz 16:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume that you mean these comments. They are far too relevant to this ongoing dispute to not be read by everyone involved. Besides, aren't you the one always telling me to take responsibility for my actions? Here you have neutral thrid party calling you out on incivility. And what do you do? You try to sweep it under the rug. This seems oddly related to what you are trying to accomplish at Stephen Barrett and that is even more reason to have contrubutors there read it. -- Levine2112 20:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Do what you will. Anthony has refused to respond to my repeated attempts to get him to explain himself or otherwise resolve this dispute User_talk:Ronz#Formal_dispute_resolution_request_for_AGK. If you persist, I will take it as a personal attack against me, because it requires you to make judgments about Anthony's perspective that he's not shared with me, judgements that assume bad faith and that are hostile to me. --Ronz 21:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you get a third party involved, given . --Ronz 21:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I disagree. -- Levine2112 21:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll seek help instead since you won't. I'm asking you again to refrain from adding the links. --Ronz 21:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am asking you kindly to stop your censorship. AGK's reasons for ending the mediation are entirely relevant for our discussion and will help us more forward. I am sorry that you don't like what he had to say, but remember: he is a neutral party here. -- Levine2112 21:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. You should have mentioned the "censorship" accusation before you declined seeking help. --Ronz 21:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What did I decline seeking help for? -- Levine2112 22:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If your want to put the incivil comments on your talk page that's totally up to you. I too emailed with our mediator and there were more than one being incivil during the mediation. I am done with all of this. We are not getting anywhere except making each other angry and I don't like this feeling at all. Sorry, ----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 21:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there was. And I think that is what I get from these comments. That's why I think it is important for everyone to see them. We need to put incivility aside and just stick to policy discussions. -- Levine2112 22:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You've not added any more of these links to article space. Are we done with this issue, or are you waiting for responses from others? --Ronz 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you're on a short wikibreak. In an effort to assist others that may be looking into this dispute, here are some relevant diffs in chronological order:

• 16:30, 24 May 2007 - link removed by Ronz
• 16:32, 24 May 2007 - discussion started by Ronz
• 20:42, 25 May 2007 - another link added by Levine2112
• 20:44, 25 May 2007 - first link restored by Levine2112
• 20:47, 25 May 2007 - first response to discussion by Levine2112
• 21:41, 25 May 2007 - both links removed by Ronz -- Ronz  15:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am long done with this issue. What you fail to recognize is that AGK represents a neutral arbitor. His comments about you are not a personal attack, but rather an accurate summary of your behavior. I am sorry that you refuse to see that. But what is more important - the only reason why I have linked to that section of his talk page in the first place - are AGK's comments on mediation in general. This is why the closing admin included a link to AGK's remarks on the mediation page. I am sorry that you are making this all about you. I wish you could step back and see the big picture here. I don't blame AGK for ignoring you now. He's very wise. I shall take this lesson of his to heart. -- Levine2112 16:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll withdraw my calls for other viewpoints then. Thanks. -- Ronz  17:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: A different suggestion

I'm disappointed at your response to my compromise. I've identified a single problem to compromise upon, the existance of a reliable, secondary, non-partisan source that we can use to determine WEIGHT. I think this is the one and only issue preventing us from agreeing on a solution. If we all agree on this compromise, then we have a solution that doesn't violate any other policies or guidelines. If not, we're back to going in circles, or looking to violate multiple policies and guidelines. --Ronz 15:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you don't see how the DC and WCA articles both pass WP:RS with flying colors. I am happy that you are willing to make a compromise though, but in the terms you couched it, I don't find it acceptable. I'm taking the day off from this. Please come up with a detailed reason citing specific points from policy why each and every source we have provided don't qualify; this is something you have never done, so don't say that we are going in circles. Otherwise, your argument against inclusion must fall by the wayside and the material will be including as suggested. -- Levine2112 15:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You're the one that wants the material included. It's your responsibility to do this work per policy. --Ronz 15:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a cop-out. I have worked ovre and over again to show you how this imformation passes policy. The majority of editors agree. You don't seem to get it or want to get it. So before you violate WP:OWN, you are going to have to show exactly why none of the sources don't pass. Otherwise, there is no reason to leave the information out. I will be back here tomorrow or the next day, so take your time. -- Levine2112 15:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that following policy is a "cop-out" as you put it. --Ronz 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent comment to Talk:Stephen Barrett

I think you should take another look at your recent edit , specifically:

• "Though I find it interesting that when you are pressured from "the other side" you don't seem to mind as much"
• "Let me assure you that neither QuackGuru nor Shot info know policy very well"

--Ronz 15:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent comment to User_talk:Alison

Similarly :

• "three or four editors are (for some reason) violating --WP:OWN]] and not allowing this info to pass. Second, the mediation ended only after one proposal was deemd to have no consensus and the process had degraded into the depths of incivility"

--Ronz 15:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What I want to know is how you knew I went to Alison's talk page to begin with? Are you stalking out where I go? I find your comments on both her page and the Barrett talk page very uncivil and rude. What gives you the right to judge me and how I do things? I changed my mind because of my own conscience, not because of what anything anyone had to say. Now you are threatening to put the information in against what is being said on the talk page. Also, what you said about me not being accurate is like saying I lied, which I did not do. I attached the appropriate links so that she could come in and check things out without any interference from any of us. You also Say the Shot and QuackGuru don't know the policies, well sorry I disagree. I also believe that Ronz knows policy very well. I am the one that needs to learn policies, not them. I think you should go back and read what you wrote and retract some of your uncivil comments about people. Is your behavior now because I do not believe what you want to add? I just don't understand you outburst nor do I understand how you knew I went to another administrator. Please explain this to me. I don't get angry very often but I am very upset with what you have said. ----CrohnieGal/_Contribs 17:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing uncivil nor rude about my comments on Alison's page. Never do I accuse of of lying. I am sorry that you are taking this so personally. I am baffled that you come down on me for making such an assertion about QuackGuru and Shot info, when you and them have written the same about me several times. I am very disappointed in your 180 here - from a cooperative spirit to incivility. Please come back when you're feeling more cooperative. -- Levine2112 17:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent comment on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

I find your comment very confusing given Talk:Stephen_Barrett#Resolution.3F and the multiple assurances given to you about any accusations . -- Ronz  22:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What part do you find confusing? Perhaps I can clarify. (BTW, by saying that there is the appearance that I am pushing an agenda is not only an accusation but it is a false one.) I would appreciate your support and cooperativeness as we proceed to resolve this. -- Levine2112 23:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides the appearance of bias, which we're obviously going to get nowhere on, you say "it is being ignored." From my perspective, the fact that discussion is occuring pretty clearly demonstrates that it's not being ignored. I find this very confusing. -- Ronz  23:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

When you don't respond to my request to give me your current policy issues (given that RS has now been confirmed), I feel you are ignoring the analysis. Please be cooperative. It will help this process. Thanks. (And you're right, you are going to get nowhere on the appearance of bias, as there is no bias on my part.) -- Levine2112 23:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So "ignoring" refers to me only? Perhaps you should refactor your comment then to indicate that? -- Ronz  23:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not single any one out. And that it refers only to you may not be the case. Again, I think we should move past all of this he-said/she-said stuff and stick to the policy discussion. So please, list out your current policy issues with inserting the content as proposed. That's how discussion should work. Let's stick to a policy discussion. -- Levine2112 23:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you're so much for sticking to policy, then why not just remove the comment completely and not confuse anyone? -- Ronz  23:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Which policy is that comment in violation of? I don't think the comment is confusing. BTW, in trying to request some help to relvoe our dispute, I didn't find this comment of your very helpful or accurate. -- Levine2112 00:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Which policy is that comment in violation of?" You're missing the point. The comment is confusing and isn't about any specific policies, which I thought is what you want to focus discussion upon. -- Ronz  00:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have re-re-read what I have written. It is not confusing. It is on the money accurate. Now then, you claim above that what I wrote is in violation of some policy. Which policy are you refering to? -- Levine2112 01:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments on Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests

You mention above that you don't find my comment helpful or accurate. Should we discuss this? I think I qualified it as my perspective only. I don't see anything inaccurate in it. -- Ronz  00:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It is inaccurate to say that the majority viewpoint is that there is no consensus. The majority viewpoint is to include the content. The minority viewpoint is to leave it out. That there isn't complete agreement, means that there is no consensus. It is also inaccurate to say that I brought this issue up originally. As you well know now, it did not start with me, but rather was discussed and inserted before I even began editing at Misplaced Pages. What I feel is most troubling though, is that you found it necessary to follow me and comment there on the request for editor assitance noticeboard. This noticeboard is not a place to carry on disputes but rather to invite a neutral party to share some guidance. Your input there could be distracting and disruptive in attaining such guidance. I hope not though. This is among our last option in WP:DR. Though I am still holding out for one of our RfCs to go through. Of course, I would much prefer to settle this amongst ourselves first. You hold a key role in this. Please be more cooperative and more forthcoming with policy explantions of contention for keeping this material out. Thanks. -- Levine2112 00:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Size

This may sound weird, but the size of the font on the Misplaced Pages page on my computer keeps going from super large; to pin-head small. Do you know what to do to change that?? Badgerstripe 01:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this only happen on Misplaced Pages or on other sites as well? Which browser are you using? -- Levine2112 02:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Only here, and I use Internet Exlporer. Badgerstripe 19:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's so bizarre! Does it change after the page is loaded - like when you're reading the page? Or is it just how the page loads - some pages may load with small fonts, others may load with big fonts? -- Levine2112 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is when I am typing. I will press some buttons (don't know which one) the load bar comes up, then the font changes. Badgerstripe 02:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So strange. See if you can figure out which buttons. -- Levine2112 03:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC SB

Where can I find the RfC's regarding the SB dispute? I'm interested in reading them and maybe commenting as well. Thanks. RalphLender 11:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The RfCs can be found here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Biographies. -- Levine2112 17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the welcome, Levine2112! 70.50.172.172 01:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Let me know if you need any help here. -- Levine2112 03:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Alternative medicine

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my sub-categorization of Category:Alternative medicine under Category:Pseudoscience. I'm aware of the perils of controversial categorizations, and that's actually part of why I've been doing category sorting for topics related to pseudoscience. If you look at the category page for pseudoscience, you'll see that I've recently expanded the text to make it clearer that inclusion in the category does not imply that the topic of the included article (or sub-category) is an example of pseudoscience — it merely indicates an association of some sort. Right or wrong, a good many people associate alternative medicine with pseudoscience, and so the connection isn't really controversial (it would be controversial to assert that alternative medicine is pseudoscience, but that's not what category inclusion implies, at least in the case of topic-based categories). If you still disagree, I'd be happy to discuss this further but would suggest we continue on the talk page for the alternative medicine category so that others can be involved. Cheers, --Sapphic 19:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the qualiying annotation at the top of the category page, categorizing is in effect a label. And we are not going to label alternative medicine as a whole "pseudoscience". It isn't self-evident that it belongs there nor is it uncontroversial. I understand what you are doing with categorization, and I wholly appreciate your efforts, but in this case I think it is a matter of letting one bad apple spoil the bunch. Sure, there are some disciplines labelled as "alternative medicine" that are considered by some to be "pseudoscience". Sure, there are some techniques of some otherwise scientific alternative medicines which are considered by some to "pseudoscientific". However, there are many disciplines and techniques which are wholly scientific and to throw them under a parent or (grandparent) category of pseudoscience is far too misleading for an encyclopedia of knowledge. -- Levine2112 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that categorization is a label. Noted skeptics such as Michael Shermer are included in Category:Pseudoscience, and that clearly isn't meant to imply that they're pseudoscientists. There are actually many members of the category that are clearly not examples of pseudoscience, and are included because of some other kind of connection. Would it address your concerns if I (or you, or whoever) were to add some text to the page for Category:Alternative medicine that explained in more detail the connection to pseudoscience, and explicitly mentioned the points you brought up? I'm open to any other suggestions you have, but I want to make it clear that the alternative to sub-categorizing is for me to go back and explicitly add a good number of articles back into the pseudoscience category, which would needlessly clutter up the category page (thus making it less useful) and would also mean that the category (which you see as a label) would be more prominently featured on those articles. I don't think either of us would be happy with that, and would like to come up with a better solution. --Sapphic 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In terms of Michael Shermer, please understand that his notability (a main reason why his article exists on Misplaced Pages) is derived from being an exposer of pseudoscience. Thus, he is directly and uncontroversially tied to the topic of pseudoscience. Whereas Alternative Medicine is not notable for being about or dealing with pseudoscience. In general, the label "pseudoscience" is associated with Alternative Medicine in terms of controversial opinion. Thus putting it under that category would be directly against the categorization policy which I have noted. Again, I appreciate what you are doing and the magnitude of work which you have undertaken. I think you are very ambitious and I admire that quality immensely. So I sincerely apologize if this sets you back. And though I don't immediately have an alternative solution for you, I don't want to be completely unhelpful here. I am happy to discuss this issue in greater detail and maybe together we can come up with a suitable solution which isn't misleading and is not in violation of Misplaced Pages's categorization policies. -- Levine2112 20:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment to get into a lengthier discussion on this, but I recognize that there is a legitimate disagreement here and will respect that by holding off on any more edits to articles related to alternative medicine (including the category page). I think perhaps the various discussions I've been having in relation to my cleanup of the pseudoscience category should probably be consolidated into one location, and I suppose the talk page for that category is probably the most logical place. When I return to this topic (possibly not until later in the week, as I have to go on a trip) I'll try to bring everyone together on one page to discuss the issues. Thanks, and hope to see you then, --Sapphic 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I just left a redundant message on Category talk: Alternative medicine. Look forward to continuing this discussion with you. Have a safe and enjoyable trip! -- Levine2112 21:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Commenting on other editors' behavior on the BLPN

I have refactored your edit here. The removed material violates WP:BLP; it even clashes with your self-described ethics. AvB ÷ talk 01:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility

"Telling me the my efforts are pointless is uncivil." But, of course, I said no such thing. Please stop misrepresenting what I've written. -- Ronz  22:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, if you can't see why your comments are uncivil and equivelent to saying that my efforts are pointless (and a waste of your time - as you have said on many, many occassions), then I guess we have nothing further to discuss on this topic. -- Levine2112 01:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that further discussion will likely not get us anywhere given you're assuming bad faith. Please stop assuming bad faith and repeatedly accusing editors of incivility when you do so based upon bad faith assumptions and misrepresentations. -- Ronz  01:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am glad you agree that your comment was uncivil. Too often, these passive agressive comments go unrecognized and I am glad you are willing to take responsibility for one when it is pointed out to you. Yes, let's stop with the incivility and work on coming to a workable compromise for these disputes. -- Levine2112 01:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am saddened that you went back and changed your original comment above. For a moment, I thought we were ont he same page. I am troubled by your repeated incivility furthered now by your claiming that I don't assume good faith and am misprepresenting (misrepresenting what?). I don't know what to say. I know I am not the only editor who has pointed out your incivility to you. And I am not alone when I point out that when you are pressed to back up your bad faith accusations, you never do. I think it is time for you to take all of these comments about your behavior to heart. Please. For the benefit of all of us Misplaced Pages. Otherwise, I do appreciate your other edits, and your anti-spam campaigns. I think that is all good work. Please concentrate on the good stuff you do. Thanks. -- Levine2112 02:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Telling me the my efforts are pointless is uncivil." Yes, but I never did. Please stop misrepresenting me. Please stop assuming bad faith. Please stop accusing others of incivility based upon your bad faith assumptions. -- Ronz  02:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, just stop. -- Levine2112 03:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

More on Civility

"quickly descended into personal attacks, incivility and bad faith assumptions" . While someone may or may not have acted as you say, it is against WP:CIVIL to respond as you have. Please read through WP:CIVIL#General_suggestions for more appropriate responses. Thanks! -- Ronz  17:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it. It's just so damn hard to ignore such gross incivility, but I will give it a try. -- Levine2112 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And even more on civility

"Also, QuackGuru, you are still being uncivil. Given your RfC, I am not the only ediotr who feels this is a problem." . I don't really think that these two sentences fit either. -- Ronz  17:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is hard not to point out such gross incivility; especially as expressed by this editor in particular. Please discuss his/her behavior with that editor as he/she seems to ignore my requests. Thanks! -- Levine2112 23:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

please understand

Your are creating massive disruption on the talk page of the Stephen Barrett article. I hope you realize (after repeated discussion to exhaustion) there is no consensus among editors. We do not continue to debate when it has become obvious we cannot reach consensus after a very long and lengthy discussion. The discussion has been about 3 months old and about 400 Levine2112 talk page edits. Its time to stop. Now, please stop or you are more than likely to be blocked or restricted from editing. I wish to prevent you from being on the wrong end of a block. If you listen to my advise you are more than welcomed to continue collaborating on Misplaced Pages. If you refuse to learn from your mistakes (talk page disruption) and persist in disruption you will be greeted with a block. I recommend you take a wikibreak. Have a nice day. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 23:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)