Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:08, 8 January 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Anthon01, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! - BanyanTree 02:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

BDORT

I am new to Misplaced Pages. I noticed your comments under BDORT and was wondering what happens next with this issue? If you don't mind my asking, how do you resolve a situation where a reference exists but the reference, on close examination, does not support the content? Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I've taken so long to respond -- I was on vacation.

The direct answer to your question is that there is a mediation process. The informal mediation pages are WP:3O and WP:MEDCAB. There is formal dispute resolution and WP:MEDCOM and WP:ARBCOM.

At the BDORT article, there is a long and tired history of dispute and various levels of success at resolution. You may want to look through the talk archives there.

If you have any more specific questions, let me know.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 21:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Anthon,

You can try WP:LOP as a starting point. Crum375 (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, some policies are actually sections or subsets of others, e.g. WP:SYN is part of WP:NOR. Crum375 (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm too controversial

Many of the people who vote at WP:RfA believe that no personal attacks and civility should be the hallmark qualities of an administrator. These qualities are not things I possess in the way many would like since I'm often dealing with users who are here expressly to push an anti-mainstream pseudoscience agenda. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How about you? Are you pushing the opposite or searching for balance? --Anthon01 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that neutral point of view implies that the mainstream will always be given the most weight. I am also of the opinion that the editorial opinions of those who are expert in the relevant academic fields should dominate Misplaced Pages. I do not believe that pseudoscience should be accommodated or given special treatment for the same reason I do not believe that the opinions of any random person found on the street should be accommodated. In an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the standards for inclusion must be kept very high in order to avoid subverting the aims of the reference by publishing original research or allowing believers in fringe opinions to soapbox beyond their relevance or legitimacy. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Responding on my talkpage is always the best way to get in touch with me as I do not have your talkpage on my watchlist. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Demarcation is an editorial decision that has to be made by considering the verifiability and reliability of the sources and the claims being made. There isn't a clean line in many cases. Acupuncture and chiropractor have aspects that are pseudoscientific in them, but there are also aspects which are not necessarily contradictory to science or perhaps are "complementary" in a way that scientific medicine doesn't mechanically address. These issues are currently being dealt with at various places (for example, Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts). ScienceApologist (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Terminology and sourcing

From Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism

So what is a SPA? Anthon01 (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Single Purpose Account: editing in a very specific topic area. It's not necessarily a problem, but in contentious areas such as alternative health and medicine, it can be a sign of someone pushing a viewpoint, so I asked for it to be checked out.

Very unreliable sourcing. Please define what you mean by that? Anthon01 (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation in sources that are not up to Misplaced Pages standards for reliable ones per WP:V and WP:RS. These require, for instance, reference works of generally acclaimed origin, peer-reviewed journals, quality newspapers, books that are not self-published, neutral articles of solid credentials that cite their own sources, and so on. The American Butter Company Building article is a good example of a reliable source: written by a well-qualified historian, commissioned by a US government office, well-cited, and clearly with no agenda on the topic of Schnabel and wheatgrass.

As to the opposite, for instance, Wheatgrass: Nature's Finest Medicine is a small-press polemical title from a small press, extremely unlikely to be peer-reviewed; it's probably fine as a source for what is claimed for wheatgrass, but not a reliable medical and scientific source for truth of such claims. Sites selling and promoting the object in question, because of their promotional interest, aren't viewed as reliable either (like Enzyme University, annwigmore.com, The Wheat Grass People, etc). 86.155.206.174 (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal communication with Barrett

I'm sorry, but I'm going to take a shortish WikiBreak, as it's proving a bit stressful. Could you post them on the relevant talk pages and let them hash it out? Thanks. Adam Cuerden 22:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You Vote Is Requested

Regarding your comment on Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Complementary and Alternative Medicine/Quotes, I would appreciate it if you were to start your comment out with either a Keep or a Delete comment. It is required for your comment to count when they get around to counting votes. -- John Gohde 14:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A few questions before I vote. How long is it open? Do many portals have quotes? If so, how can I find them? What is the point of having quotes? How does the average user find these quotes? Thank you.

Talk:Quackwatch

Thanks for contributing to the discussions in Talk:Quackwatch. I don't like to repeat myself on article talk pages, so I'm responding to you here. I hope you don't mind.

It's been pointed out now by multiple editors that there are many facts that are not true about Quackwatch. I've even suggested there are an infinite number of such facts. You appear to be arguing that somehow certain facts that are not true deserve to be included in the article.

As I've pointed out, there have been many discussions in Talk:Quackwatch and related discussion pages where this same argument was given. I urge you to read the past discussions. However, the relevant policies and guidelines have already been brought up in this matter (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV). I'm happy to explain to you here how any or all of these apply, but I don't want to repeat past discussions on the article talk page if they can be avoided. --Ronz 22:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Go right ahead. --Anthon01 22:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm happy to answer your questions about the policies/guidelines, or past discussions. --Ronz 22:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Barrett mentions something about a review process. We need to do the best we can to represent that. --Anthon01 16:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, but it's going to be limited by what sources we can find. I've looked for independent descriptions of the processes Quackwatch uses, as well as descriptions of the types of articles it publishes, and haven't found anything useful. Independent sources are the best to use, because they not only verify the information, but determine importance and balance. I don't think we can get anywhere trying to write about what processes he does not use, especially without any sources. --Ronz 17:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The 150+ statement was WP:V citing Quackwatch itself, not an independent source. Should we be searching for an independent source in that case also? --Anthon01 14:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, though it would be a better article if it were supported by an independent source. The number is verifiable, and no one is arguing that it's not important to the subject matter. See WP:SELFPUB. --Ronz 16:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

But why do we need an independent source for review status but not one for 150+? --Anthon01 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Because some of the information that is currently in the article, "Quackwatch.org's articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review" is not verifiable, there is strong disagreement about it's importance, and editors are arguing that it violates multiple policies and guidelines. --Ronz 17:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, I think it's best if we don't repeat arguments. Please go back and read the results of the last time this argument was made. I discussed it with you above. Multiple editors have already discussed it on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Reguarding WP:V: Yes, if a source does not include the same or similar wording as what it is supposed to suppor, an editor should expect it might be challenged. If the source is challenged, and editor should expect that others will ask for rewording or removal depending upon the situation. --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion, and some of your comments, are moving into issues of WP:NPOV. NPOV covers a large number of related issues: "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias." --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

Please check chart in WP:CCC of WP:CON --Anthon01 19:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I did check that chart prior to my edit, and I didn't see how it supported your actions. If you were following it, you should have reached the "Think of a reasonable change that might integrate their idea with yours" point. Such a change might have been to simply keep the wording the same but add in the reference (if you wish to do this now, I have no problem with that). Instead, you reverted. I changed back to Fyslee's version as I thought the wording there was more accurate in any case. However, I see this is now being discussed on the talk page, so I'll refrain from further edits on the article on this until we've hashed this out. --Infophile 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The chart says "Make an edit(Fyslee)"---> "was the article edited further?" Yes by Anthon01---> "Was it a revert?"Yes by Anthon01 --->"Do you(Fyslee)agree w revert?" No. ---> Take it to the talk page. (Fyslee). That means that the person who made the original change needs to take it to the talk page, not the person who made the revert. So beautifully organized. --Anthon01 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll say in my short time here, this flow chart is generally ignored on pages that I have been editing. --Anthon01 19:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If we're going strictly by the chart, then we should have started applying it from your first change: "Make an edit" (Anthon) -> "Was the article edited further?" (Yes, by Fyslee) -> "Was the edit a change or revert?" Change -> "Do you agree with the change?" No -> "Think of a reasonable change that might incorporate your idea with theirs." This is where you broke off. Instead of changing to a compromise, you reverted.

The reason people don't generally hold strictly to flowcharts like this is that it's a guideline for behavior, not an absolute mandate. Often, strict adherence to rules can cause more headaches than it's worth (hence WP:IAR). Be aware that if you try to force in your version based on an overly strict interpretation of the rules rather than reasoning for why your version is best, you're guilty of being a rules lawyer. --Infophile 01:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You've taken things out of order. The editing started with fyslee's edit. He started the editing. --Anthon01 02:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee's edit was a unilateral edit on a historically highly contested page. Consensus had already been reached on that page prior to Fyslee's new edits. --Anthon01 03:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In a certain sense, the flowchart is irrelevant in this situation. The edit was suggested at Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts, where it was objected to so much new material being used there, but suggested that it might be better in the article. That's why I did it. (Actually it is mostly references that make it look large when looking at the code.) I moved it there where it made the article even better. It included extremely good references, was not some undocumented private opinion, but was backed up by good sources, and no guidelines or policies were being violated. An addition of that quality shouldn't be outright deleted. It should be discussed first. In such a situation a deletion is disruptive, and deleting good sources is nearly always a bad idea. One of the major references was added to back up a previously unsourced statement, thus giving it very good backing.

Regardless of how it all went down, a refusal to discuss on the talk page is disruptive and not at all collaborative. Common sense should rule and new users would do well to adapt as quickly as possible to the editing environment here by cooperating with experienced users and taking their advice. We are flexible and try to work things out by discussing them on the talk page, not by edit warring. An exception to all this is when a new or anonymous user makes large additions or many changes at once, thus upsetting a carefully balanced consensus. Such edits are often reverted so the new editor will take it to the talk page to explain what's going on. Otherwise an article can quickly get vandalized or filled with small and sometimes unnoticed edits of dubious quality, often in an attempt by a new editor to bring the article into line with their opinion of how the article should read. They don't realize that Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs or use as a personal website. NPOV requires that they include POV which they may find abhorrent, but if well sourced often must be allowed. -- Fyslee / talk 05:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of your post? To set the record straight? The objections were to much more than just "too new much material." The objection included a WP:COI issue. You are a physical therapist and I didn't realize you had an anti-chiropractic blog.

• Fyslee you're mistaken. You said "The edit was suggested at Talk:List of Pseudo..., where it was objected to so much new material being used there, but suggested that it might be better in the article."

Levine2112 objected soon after. On the Talk:List of Pseudo... page Levine said

"PTs also practice AK. In fact a whole host of practitioners use the questionable technique including doctors, dentists, chiropractors, osteopaths, naturopaths, physiotherapists, and nutritionists. I think it may show a conflict of interest on your part, Fyslee, that you keep removing your own profession from the description of this practice on this article. Please be aware of at least the appearance of this WP:COI"

"You (Fyslee) are a PT, you maintain a very anti-chiropractic blog, you participate in very anti-chiropractic groups on and off the web, and your anti-chiropractic agenda has been clearly demonstrated on Misplaced Pages from the moment you arrived here until today. I am tell you that here you have the appearance of WP:COI and per your ArbCom decision which warned about this, I am telling you to be careful. Fyslee is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits."

Fyslee's RfA. On the same page my objections were much more than too much new material

You classified "the normal use of MMT by PTs" and inadvertently left out any references to PT use of it. I'm sure it was done unintentionally.(AGF) I didn't realize you have a possible COI issue. Your edit does sounds anti-chiropractic.

First impressions. This is a little commercial for PT and an attempted derogatory at chiropractic. I'm sure it was unintentional. It also leave out the fact that PTs also practice AK. Your modification of the text written mostly by Eldereft is an unnecessary edit. You're filling the reference with a disclaimer of sorts, PT good, Chiro bad. I understand you have an anti-chiro website? Is that true? --Anthon01 20:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The objections were to much more than just "too much new material." Contrary to the warning given to you in your ARB case Fyslee's RfA, you instead of seeking consensus first, decided to publish your highly questionable text on the contentious consensus-reached AK page. While we were trying to reach consensus on the Talk:List of Pseudo... page you posted your text on the AK page, effectively by-passing the consensus process.

Re: Your second paragraph and listening to more experience wikipedians. Although you are a more experienced wikipedian, you COI issue makes me leary of your recommendations on these particular pages. Fyslee's RfA In addition your constant personal attacks, insinuations and assumptions about other editors motives make me question your ability to be objective.

You said above "Otherwise an article can quickly get vandalized or filled with small and sometimes unnoticed edits of dubious quality, often in an attempt by a new editor to bring the article into line with their opinion of how the article should read. They don't realize that Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs or use as a personal website. NPOV requires that they include POV which they may find abhorrent, but if well sourced often must be allowed. -- " Are you suggesting that this related to me? Do you believe I am trying to right great wrongs?

So your opinion is that if an editor adds 'well sourced' material to a consensus-reached page, that it should never be reverted? Is that the rule the we are going to work by? That seems to conflict with WP:CCC which gives editors the right to remove newly added consensus-breaking material and directs the editor of the new material to take it to the talk page, not undo the revert. That means if I add well-sourced consensus-breaking new material to a page, you will not revert it? --Anthon01 13:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Please do not characterize my revert as some sort of vandalism. The editor who posted that made a personal attack against other editors and was trolling on the talk page. In accordance with WP policies, such drivel can be swiftly deleted, as it was. Don't revert it again. Baegis 19:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The user is obviously trying to come to the talk page in order to provoke some sort of a reaction. His edits could best be summed up as useless. Specifically, when he says: "The people who claim it (that creationism is pseudoscientific) are atheists". That is a blatant personal attack. Baegis 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see it that way. I will let the user respond and repost if he wants to. The statement "people who claim it (that creationism is pseudoscientific) are atheists," can be taken in more than one manner. Thanks for clarifying. --Anthon01 20:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No, its quite clear that the connotation of the comment was meant to be derogatory, especially considering calling someone an atheist is a tactic used by many a creationist. It was meant as an insult and should be taken as such. There is no fine line here. I will be deleting anything he reposts that is not going towards helping the article. He can discuss refs or specific details, but creationism will always be included on that list. I don't want to see that page turn into a war over creationism like so many other pages that touch on creationism and/or ID. The best way to prevent that is to not feed the trolls. Baegis 20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not been involved in a "creationism" discussions so was insensitive to that interpetation. My apologies. However, you insistence that creationism "will always be included on that list" is supposition, inflammatory and insensitive to those on the other side of the debate. According to WP:Policies, he has the right to post on that page any argument in that regard as long as no offensive remarks are included. And it is not your place to judge, and then "deleting anything he reposts that is not going towards helping the article" unless there is an offense remark. Even then, you have the right to remove the offensive remark only. Please correct me if I am wrong otherwise. --Anthon01 20:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not parse with the details here. Creationism will always be on that list. It is not supposition, inflammatory or insensitive. It is just a fact. And he does not have the right to post whatever he pleases on the talk page. From the top of all talk pages: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the X article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. He was in no way discussing an improvement to the article. If he wants to debate the merits of creationism being termed pseudoscientific, the place to do so is the creationism articles. Not on that page. Baegis 21:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I am new to Misplaced Pages and am 'still learning the ropes.'I am not trying to parse. Regarding "creationism," that is your belief and not a fact. In that "He was in no way discussing an improvement to the article" I would agree. As per WP:TALK he has the right to discuss this on this page. If there is a policy page the refutes my comment please provide. Otherwise good day. --Anthon01 21:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's as much a belief as I believe the sun will rise every morning. Or that the Earth spins around the sun. Reread WP:Talk before you cite it. Specifically, reread the part in which editing other people's comments are acceptable. Baegis 22:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I read it before I commented. --Anthon01 10:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, reread it so you are clear. Baegis 11:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the instruction. Perhaps you can quote the part that you think I am not comprehending? --Anthon01 13:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the part that you need to reread: WP:Talk. Pay attention to points 3 + 4. The user in question firstly committed gross incivility in his first edit, therefore it was removed in whole. In the second edit, he was not attempting to help the article but only to troll. While you will say "Thats your opinion", frankly it is not. That particular talk page was NOT the place to argue what he was arguing and I even instructed him on what pages to visit, notably those related to creationism or Evolution. Baegis (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Vampire Warrior

Thanks, I did notice that and didn't think it a particularly appropriate comment. But I think its more important to get the wheels moving than deal with nonsense. WP:SUICIDE is quite clear and I've seen a few cases lately, all involving dragging of feet because it wasn't taken seriously. In one of them, Jimbo got involved himself, showing how seriously these things should be taken. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthon01, next time you accuse me of vandalism back it up with evidence. Black humour on a talk page is NOT vandalism and do not delete other's comments. --WebHamster 19:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

reply to email

I just noticed this email in my Misplaced Pages folder. Sorry for the wait.

From what I can tell you edit warred to remove content sourced to a peer reviewed journal. I would have blocked you in a second. You appear to have a tenuous grasp on the goal of a Misplaced Pages article. It is not to reach a consensus on what all the editors think about the subject; it is to find the most accurate encyclopedia article, as supported by credible external sources. Peer reviewed journals trump everything. You were way out of line and, if you continue citing guidelines rather than credible sources, I have no doubt that you'll be blocked again. If you cannot find any credible sources to back up your opinions, you should walk away from Misplaced Pages and start a blog, as you will find Misplaced Pages frustrating and will undoubtedly frustrate other users. And that's my unvarnished opinion. User:BanyanTree 01:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This excellent advice needs to be heeded, not deleted. Such deletions make it hard to AGF and I fear your stay here will be short and littered with a record marred by edit warring. Please stop deleting warnings and good advice and show that you are interested in becoming a good Wikipedian. If you will show good faith towards other editors who are trying to help you, you will find they will treat you with respect and will AGF towards you. Editing here can actually be a pleasant and enriching experience if you will only try to adapt to the editing environment and learn to follow the policies here, and most of all to learn what Misplaced Pages is all about and what it is not about. Good luck. -- User:Fyslee / talk 06:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I really dislike off-wiki discussions of on-wiki matters so I will reply here. I would appreciate it if you would keep the discussion on wiki as well.

It is not an invitation to leave. It is a advice, based on long periods of observation of many users, that users on your trajectory (e.g. minute parsing of policy in disputes and edit warring over preferred versions of articles) tend to grow increasingly convinced that other editors are being totally unreasonable, which makes them dig in their heels more, which results in more drama and stress. This normally ends in either the editor quitting in disgust after accusing various other users of being inconsistent, biased and/or mean spirited OR being banned for exhausting the community's patience, which results in the same sorts of accusations. In the meantime, everyone involved gets stressed out, and vast amounts of energy are diverted from content improvement to dispute resolution. The one good thing about such situations is that users tend to add citations like crazy, which improves the disputed articles. Speaking entirely analytically, I would give a better than 50-50 chance that you are heading towards either quitting in frustration or a long block. I would really prefer that you simply start citing sources, and graciously accepting defeat when someone provides a better source, since you're clearly passionate about the subject and I like passionate editors. I doubt that this will occur based on one piece of evidence: you previously asked me for advice, I advised you to take a break and described the absolute tyranny of citations - you then immediately went and edit warred to remove cited content, and then asked me for a second opinion on the block, describing it as a 3RR matter. It doesn't inspire confidence. - User:BanyanTree 12:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

You possibly may wish to review WP:USERPAGE, particularly WP:UP#NOT. Shot info (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please be specific. What do you see as a problem? Anthon01 (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No problems, you just need to review the pertinent policies and be confident that you comply with them. That's all. Just think of it as a friendly heads-up (ie/ advice from one editor to another). Shot info (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

May I ask?

Why do you have my user page on your's under policies? I am not a real active editor nor am I one of the better editors. I am just a slow editor who tries at Misplaced Pages the best I can for personal reasons. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal 13:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Because of your list of WP's and the other links near the bottom of you page. Would you like me to remove it? I also would like to know how you found out about it? Anthon01 15:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care either way to be honest. I just felt weird seeing my page linked on yours since I have had no contact with you until now. I just was following links and arrived here to see my page. But I am curious, how did you come upon me to see the links I have accummulated to help me remember where they are? Thanks, --CrohnieGal 15:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw an edit but I don't remember where. I wondered if you had Crohn's and decided to take a look on your page. Anthon01 16:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, yes I have Crohn's, seven years diagnosed, three surgeries later and counting. Thanks for taking the time to respond to me. Hope to see you around, happy editing! --CrohnieGal 16:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable

That random person's webpage that Levine keeps quoting. The person may be slightly notable, but his webpage and opinion of Quackwatch is not. Adam Cuerden 16:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece, not scientific research. He may be notable enough for the criticism section, but what seems to be happening is an attempt to insert criticism, from a minor article not published anywhere notable, into the neutral "Mission and scope" section. Adam Cuerden 16:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:VOTE

Thanks for continuing to help with the discussion in Talk:Quackwatch‎. However, note that discussions progress best when editors explain their viewpoints. Please see WP:VOTE and WP:TALK for more information. --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you read and followed WP:VOTE, to help the discussion progress. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Misrepresentation"

Perhaps it was just a poor choice of a word on your part, but still you're making an accusation of an editor (though it's not clear which editor), when you should be focusing on what the discussion is about.

As for my own claims that "we're making little or no progress", here are some diffs of your own edits that I think back this statement, though I never indicated what editors I was referring to: --Ronz (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the summary. You and Adam characterized our responses as "Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!" You even put it in quotes. --Anthon01 (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I quoted Adam. Please do not misrepresent me, as it is a very serious violation of WP:TALK to do so. --Ronz (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You quoted and then signed you name to it. Seemed like an endorsement to me? --Anthon01 (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And I've explained myself. If you continue to argue for misrepresenting me, I'll seek WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So you disagree with Adams characterization? Did you feel that repeating it was helpful to moving the conversation forward? --Anthon01 (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that an apology to me? --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No. It is two questions? I am trying to understand what you meant to communicate. --Anthon01 (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And I've asked you to stop misrepresenting me. Please address this, as I'm unwilling to take this discussion further if this is the type of thing you're resorting to. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You said "The article is fully protected because of this disputed information and the arguments are basically , as Adam Cuerden put it...." You said the the arguments are basically, as Adam Cuerden put it... This can be interpeted as an endorsement of Adams comments. Then I said "Must be a misunderstanding. but your summary isn't an accurate depiction of the conversation" Do you believe that what you wrote is an accurate depiction? Please clarify you position. Then I will issue an apology if needed. --Anthon01 (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my concerns. I wrote other things as well. You're taking what I said out of context. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I took anything out of context. --Anthon01 (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm taking this to a third party, as I've already indicated multiple other things I wrote that answers your question and which you are now not taking into consideration. --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You said

The problem brought up in Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive337#Quackwatch continues. The article is fully protected because of this disputed information and the arguments are basically, as Adam Cuerden put it,

"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"
"Well, yes, but they never claimed to be. Do you have any reliable source in a notable publication mentioning that?"
"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"
"Without a source, that's original research and a violation of WP:SYNTH"
"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"
"ARRRGH!"

The arguments began 27 November 2007. Over 400 edits to the talk page later and we're making little or no progress. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

and then 2 1/2 hours later you said

Like Adam Cuerden, my concern is that the discussions are just going in circles. We've already had a large number of outside editors give their perspective after two requests for outside opinions. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I said

Must be a misunderstanding. but your summary isn't an accurate depiction of the conversation at Talk:Quackwatch. I'm sorry you see it that way. --Anthon01 (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What did I take out of context? --Anthon01 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at the context. You've taken my quoting of Adam out of context of the above, as well as the additional comments that I've made to clarify the situation. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Going in circles is accurate. Characterizing the conversation as Adam had and you reiterated is an inaccurate depiction. --Anthon01 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't reiterate it. Please stop misrepresenting me. If you are actually so concerned with what Adam wrote, I would have expected you to actually discuss it with him. Perhaps you should do so now?

You might also want to look through WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, if you're not already familiar with them. --Ronz (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reiterate means to repeat. Adam said it and you repeated it. Anthon01 (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And I see no reason to continue this discussion. I suggest you look to WP:DR if you want to continue. --Ronz (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

On that, I can agree. --Anthon01 (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:MENTOR

Since you're fairly new here and editing mostly in extremely controversial articles, it might be a good idea for you look at WP:MENTOR. It's a good way to get a neutral viewpoint to help you learn the ropes here. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's great. Are there mentors waiting in the wings, so to speak? --Anthon01 (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. I wish someone had let me know about it when I was first starting to edit Misplaced Pages. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's never too late! -- Levine2112 18:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I've got experienced editors helping me now, mostly admins. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you look to finding a mentor. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you know but I just learned this myself

Hi, on your user page you have 'Policies' and links under it. Well if you want the links to tell you what it is then at the end of the URL put a space then in quotation marks say what the link is. For example, "Anthon01 talk page" and you will see just what is in quotes but the link is still there which you can tell by just putting your mouse over it. I am just trying to help you as a new user since it takes me a long time to learn things I thought I would share this with you. I hope this is helpful to you. Also the above suggestions for a mentor is really good I have one and it is helpful for me. Happy editing --CrohnieGal 15:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate your help. I actually have left the links that way as it will help me memorize over time the WP shortcut for each link. If I am misunderstanding you please clarify. I have a question. What is the customary way to respond to a talk page comment? Would it be here as I have, or on your talk page? --Anthon01 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand, memory in not something I do too well which is why I have all those links on my user page so I can remember where they are. As for your question, the way I have my preferences set up is that if I post to someone it get put on my watchlist so that I can know if there is a response. Some don't have it set that way probably but I would think answering here would work and if your response required a response and you don't get it in a reasonable amount of time then I myself would go to that user's page and repeat my response. I hope this makes sense! :) --CrohnieGal 17:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthon01 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Physical therapy

Yes there is, you can place a request for page protection at WP:RFPP, but they will probably deny your request because they want to see a recent pattern of vandalism, and by recent i mean today. 9 vandal reverts within a week unfortunately is a norm of articles that receive a lot of viewing. If you have any more questions please let me know. Cheers! Tiptoety (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine‎

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So why did you chose to discuss it on that page? You even created a separate section for it. --Anthon01 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to move the discussion along with two edits:

1. Pointing out the actual facts
2. Creating a subsection, expounding on my previous points, and pointing out that the subject is unfit for Misplaced Pages as is

--Ronz (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Barrett

On the Quackwatch talkpage, you stated, "I took that statement to mean what everyone else has, that the review board reviews when Barrett request it. I also confirmed it with Barrett." Can you produce a copy of the personal communication by which you confirmed it with Barrett? It would be most helpful. Thanks, Antelan 19:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to do that. How would you like me to send it to you? Please explain what the purpose of sending it would be? --Anthon01 (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration requested

Please reconsider this reversion. Since I found that version disagreeable, the collaborative move would be an attempt to find a better (third) alternative. Right now the current title can still give the impression that generally alternative medicine gradually becomes accepted, which is far from the case. Very little of what is now termed alt med has any chance of being accepted. That which has had a chance has already been accepted, and what is left is left for a reason. The wording I chose was chosen because I felt it didn't leave any impression one way or the other. I tried a neutral wording. Maybe it did leave an impression I wasn't noticing. If so I'd like to know what it was. In which case I'd appreciate that you choose a third alternative that is even more neutral instead of just reverting to a version I obviously found disagreeable. -- Fyslee / talk 07:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture and will reconsider. More to come.:) Anthon01 (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you gesture I am happy to collaborate with you. I think this discussion could set a positive tone for future collaborations. Please allow me state my position before we consider collaboratively changing the title. You state that "Very little of what is now termed alt med has any chance of being accepted." I do see how you and others with a similar POV might interpret the title to mean that. In my opinion, your POV is influencing your read of that title. However the title itself doesn't say "most of these therapies will migrate," it simply implies that this section covers how therapies migrate without stating percentages, chances etc ... IMO, the title on its face sounds textbookish or encyclopedic and is neutral.

So why do you believe that most of what is going to be accepted already has been? Do you have a reference, a highly reliable and 'relatively neutral' source that suggest that? I don't see it the way you do, maybe because our lists are different. Looking at the NCCAM site, which lists a large number of CAM therapies, I see many that are likely to be accepted, perhaps not whole but significant aspects of many of these therapies. Help me understand what you mean by "Very little of what is now termed alt med has any chance of being accepted." Anthon01 (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit uncertain how to answer this: "So why do you believe that most of what is going to be accepted already has been?" Could you please reword it? I just don't understand it. Maybe my rusty English after 24 years living in Denmark. I will be happy to answer, but just need clarification. -- Fyslee / talk 17:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha! I just reread it and realized you were actually including a paraphrase of what I wrote above. I thought it was your thoughts and I couldn't figure it out.

Starting over again. I think that most of what is left has already been investigated and found wanting, or is so pseudoscientific, metaphysical, or outright quackish, that it has little chance of being accepted. Of course we no doubt have different lists, so you correctly describe probably a good part of the reason why we see things differently, and that's perfectly fine. I can deal with that. What list are you looking at? Just copy it here and write what you think has a chance (or what part of it has a chance, even if the rest of it may not), and I'll add my comments. This way we can at least get to understand each other. Kind of like comparing each other's baseball cards as kids.....;-) That's the nice thing about a conversation on our private user talk pages. We can discuss things like this without distracting from discussions in article talk space. It's also nice to get to know each other. I suspect that in real life I'd enjoy sharing a beer or bottle of wine with some who seem to be adversaries here. In reality we are just normal people who are coming from different places and actually have some understandable reasons for why we have our particular POV. If we understand where each other is coming from, it makes it easier to assume good faith and be more patient with each other. I actually hate all the controversy. It's just not me. -- Fyslee / talk 18:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll work on that. Anthon01 (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to you on my talk page

Good morning, I use both alternate and conventional to help me with my Crohn's. I don't know what CAM is so I am sorry I can't answer that part. But I use supplements, things like massage and things along these lines. My family also has used chiroprator's for their back problems. I had a very nice editor here that helped me understand what to expect during this. I hope this answers your question. --CrohnieGal 12:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Specific statement not included

From what I understood, the proposal was to remove all the stuff about the mission statement. This is independent of the mission statement. So, I think you have misinterpreted what was being discussed on talk. Cheers. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

While I don't find this statement relevant to the scope, I do find it relevant to the history. I'm fine with keeping it in for now. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

citations

brief guide on my talk page. DGG (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch and WEIGHT

Generally speaking, yes. But note that WP:WEIGHT applies to the overall balance found in the available acceptable sources, the overall POV found in specific sources, and specific views found in parts of a source. If an article is neutral (complies with the NPOV principle), picking and choosing from a source may inject bias. A biased article may be made worse or improved by selective quoting. In cases like this, the approach found in SA's #1 version will make sure that the addition does not change the current balance. There's much more to be said, but I think this covers the basics. Avb 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your vote is requested

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Oldspammer/Robert C. Beck

-- John Gohde (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

QW source

I think shortening the excerpt removes the rationale, i.e. why it matters that QW is not peer reviewed. —Whig (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

I just want to wish you a very Happy, Healthy Holiday! May 2008 be a good year, happy editing. --CrohnieGal 17:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Private communications

Given all the bantering about on my talk page regarding personal attacks, violations of Civility Rules, and whatever; I have set up an Email Me feature on the very top of my talk page which provides for completely private communications. -- John Gohde (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine (again)

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

3rr warning on Quackwatch

As you may be aware, you're up to three reverts on Quackwatch. Further reversions may result in a block. See WP:3RR. Please use the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 21:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He also appears to have three, and yes, I've warned him. Cool Hand Luke 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch (again)

Please stop using talk pages as forums to discuss other editors' behavior. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't using it to discuss behavior but why his edits don't work. Anthon01 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a mess going with Ronz too. Anyway, thanks for doing some refactoring on the QW talk. Pete St.John (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Anth, thanks for notifying me about ScienceApologist. I'm sorry for the result, because I think he's not so far from being approachable, and he makes a real effort to explain his points, and people who goad him to excess hostility, from the sidelines, are getting away with it. QW is a mess, and there's a meta-mess with adversarial wiki-legalism overtaking content-driven consensus-building. But anyway thanks. Pete St.John (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

AN post

I just wanted to notify you, there's a discussion regarding you on the administrator's noticeboard. Maser 22:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I always make a point to ensure that editors are aware oof discussions involving them. :) Maser 23:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please consider refactoring and explaining

I have no idea what you're referring to here, but I think you should refactor it before any attempt at explaining what you're referring to:

Ronz, where are you? Your characterization is UNCIVIL and factually incorrect. The Consultant Pharmacist and the Village Voice are not quacks.

--Ronz (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you are continuing to comment to Talk:Quackwatch without making any attempt to respond to my comment above. Please strikeout the comment I've quoted above from Talk:Quackwatch, and apologize for these baseless accusations. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No accusations. I notice you sometimes leave message when SA starts to respond in uncivil manner. I was requesting your assistance. Anthon01 (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. It could be read as you're accusing me, when instead you're accusing SA. Either way it's inappropriate. Please refactor it. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary as SA often writes in an uncivil tone and has currently been blocked for this. Anthon01 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And you escalated the situation by using the talk page to harass SA. Please refactor it so that at least you're clear who you are harassing. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WTB and ScienceApologist

I haven't seen a concrete proposal from SA. In general, the dispute centers on the use of the observer principle by the movie. Its usage clearly contradicts all science, but we aren't allowed to refute the specific usages in the movie because the reviewers did not go into that detail, even though any good reference on QM clearly contradicts the movie.Kww (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with the wikistalking

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Ronz but you are mistaken. Anthon01 (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You're the one that is clearly mistaken. Please stop with the harassment immediately. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I myself prefer when slanderous allegations are accompanyied by specifics so they can be either rebutted or corrected. Ronz's habit of broad strokes of the tarbrush infuriates me. Anyway, the above is a specific example of his broad brush with no specifics. Presumably he assumes what specifics are meant from context, but if one were to assume good faith, then logically you can not be assumed to know what rule you are breaking by what specific mistake, or you would not have made the mistake. Pete St.John (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on here except that the three of you are having a problem with each other. As an outsider reading this though, I find the above to be uncivil to say the least. Please, let's all just get along. It's really not that hard to be polite, but if that is not possible in your eyes then avoiding each other is best till tempers cool down. I know there is a problem between Anthon and Ronz but I don't understand why PeterStJohn has added his/her comments as the comments seem to be escalating the problem between the two, not helping. Please, everyone, try to avoid each other for awhile or try to talk it out civily. --CrohnieGal 11:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You said, "escalating the problem between the two." Which two? You mention that "everyone, try to avoid each other for awhile." I don't have a problem with Peter, nor does he with me, so there is no need for us to avoid each other. Ronz repeatedly initiates comments on our talk pages about our behaviors. I think Pete is complaining that the accusations "like wikistalking" that, in our opinion, don't assume AGF, and/or accusations without specifics needed for 'rebuttal or acknowledgment' are disruptive. I personally don't have a problem with Ronz, but I find his/her recent focus(past 3 weeks or so) on edits by Peter and myself, that he/she deems inappropriate, while ignoring ScienceAplogist, who was recently banned for incivility, curious. I have agreed to avoid Ronz, but he has not agreed to do the same. So, you may have to take that up with him. Anthon01 (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your mediator has been indefinitely banned, after indicating that he was assuming bad faith of me. How do we proceed now? You seem to want your behavior excused because of what ScienceApologist is doing. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Blood electrification

Hi Anthon, and Happy New Year to you! I am terribly sorry for being so late in my reply to your question. I guess I have too many things on my plate at times! -- Fyslee / talk 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I too owe you a response to the excellent discussion you proposed, that is CAM thearpies that might migrate to medicine. Anthon01 (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I had pretty much forgotten about that one, but I think it would help us understand each other better, and barring the possibility of sharing a beer or bottle of wine together and just chatting and getting to know each other, it would help us get along much better here, and I would appreciate that. Even though we do have different POV, just being able to disagree agreeably would be a big step in the right direction. AGF doesn't mean agreement, but just not imputing deliberately evil motives towards one another. I think we have managed to stay away from that sort of thing! Take care. -- Fyslee / talk 20:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Re. About WP:BITE

I have explained the situation to Vfrken‎. I think you tried to help and to ensure that the user did not feel unwelcome, which was very nice of you. I think for the most part you handled this situation quite well. You ensured the editor was welcomed and assisted, and remained civil throughout. One thing, though, is when you welcome someone, be sure to leave it on their user talk page instead of their userpage, so the orange "you have new messages" bar'll appear. ;)

However, the reason Ronz has accused of Wikistalking you is likely because you have had previous encounters with this user, and there does appear to be disputes of sorts between the two of you. Though you were quite civil and well conducted on his talk page, I recommend altogether keeping some distance from him, and instead focus on editing articles. :) Maser 07:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm accusing him of wikistalking because I was already in discussions with him about harassment, and because he named me specifically, in violation of WP:TALK, when it was another editor, if anyone, who did anything even the tiniest bit wrong. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What appears to have happened was you tried to assist somebody who may have felt bitten, and Ronz felt that you were interfering, and in that light, may have even felt as though you did it in a way that made him look uncivil, and as a result felt you were stalking him. What I think you should try is to not have any real involvement with Ronz or his affairs at all for now - take a breather, and edit articles. You seem to be interested in Quackwatch, maybe you should just get back to editing there. :) Maser 04:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

But I had already handled the situation before either of you got involved, and I wasn't the one that did anything that could even remotely be considered BITE. Another editor could have been better, but that editor's actions were ignored, while I was first singled out and then accused. Anthon01 caused the problem, escalated it, then ran to Maser Fletcher for help. After I discussed the situation with Maser Fletcher, he admitted he had assumed bad faith. Now Anthon01 is annoyed that I am upset at his behavior. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing

Your wikistalking of me needs to stop. You have been found guilty in the past by a wikipedia inquiry of POV editing. you have refused to discuss your changes, indeed you said you thought your edit was the same as mine. It is not. Please desist with this style of editing. Mccready (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs that confirm your accusation. Anthon01 (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent CAM edits

Mccready: We (myself and other editors) have discuss my changes on the talk page. Please check these sections of the CAM talk page.

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

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

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

References

Hey, sorry I missed the fact that you had duplicated my comment before removing the duplicate. My bad! You can remove that duplicate if you'd like. Antelan 18:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"balance" of pharmacologist's review of QW

I don't myself have a strong opinion about the overall review in question; my sense was that on the whole it was positive, but that is not germane to the quote for which we (originally) used the review; which was just to establish (with an acceptable citation) that QW didn't at that time use peer-review for it's own articles (not necessarily any reason they should, but the matter had been questioned) and that a reviewer existed who recommended that they do. My own purpose was merely to acknowledge a legitimate criticism of QW (not to condemn QW over it; like most complex things, QW has better and worse facets). SA then wanted to balance the representation of the review itself (but the article is about QW, not the review; so the representation of QW should be balanced, not each and every reference within it). But I don't think it does any harm to the article (other than a bit of bloat) to use the review to also cite praiseworthy things. I think it's knee-jerk protectionism but not harmful, so I consider the longer material, with postive stuff alongside the (constructive) criticism, to be compromise towards consensus. I feel the whole thing is blown out of proportion but that seems to be true of every issue there. Pete St.John (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the review as mostly a neutral explanation of what Quackwatch is, essential just the facts. I don't see one positive comment made by the reviewer himself. I have ask a few editors to point out a positive statement made by the reviewer, but no one has beem able to point one out to me. Anyway, I to agreed to the compromise, but apparently that wasn't enough. Anthon01 (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)