Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:14, 21 January 2008

Statements of support and good wishes

I wish you wouldn't leave, Joshua. You are one of the ten smartest people at Misplaced Pages. I respect your right to vanish, however, and I wish you well if that's what you want. If you ever want to get together for a cup of coffee and a bagel in the Upper West Side, drop me a line.

All the best. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Say what, you're vanishing again? I regret your right to vanish; the tens of thousands of people who somehow take WP and its commercial scrapes as providing reliable information need more defenders against silliness and fraud. -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I support the endevour of SA, but I wish he was a bit more timid. One important aspect of debunking is to actually cull all the myths about a subject first, and then inform about what is actually known about it. I also love to learn about myths, but CSI and friends are not good sources if you want to learn about the cutting edge of a subject. And most of the objections that skeptics raised are well known in the field already; you are your best critic after all. There IS a lot of fraud in the field, booksellers, morons, etc; and I support the job to seperate these from the science of the subject. However a priori motivations just doesn't cut it. The old pals in CSI also hated these. But the new generation of skeptics are just booksellers just as the UFO crowd. I hope SA keeps on finding good sources on stuff, because it is good. So I hope we can actually cooperate in the future instead of fighting over each others different POV. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, found a paper from my fave, A Plea for Pluralism in Philosophy and Physics Arne Næss - He is showing how unified science or consensus science is problematic and suggests pluralism instead. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

This is to inform you that you have been included as a party in a request for Arbitration here ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello ScienceApologist. It is really a sad thing that you retired from Misplaced Pages. Your contributions will be remembered. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:HOPE

Policy proposal: WP:HOPE. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages needs you

In an exchange with Benjaminbruheim, I told him that CSICOPers were my personal saviors :)

In your user page list I would add JFK conspiracy theories, such as those debunked in Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. JFK conspiracy theories also belong to your category "Conspiracy theorist claims of suppression of true-science".

And I would add also Scientology-related articles to your category "Religious-based explanation of observable events".

WP really needs editors like you...

—Cesar Tort 18:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't take the bait of assumptions of bad faith

I've seen a lot of editors make bad faith assumptions of others, mostly as a method of baiting and gaming the system. I recommend you get a third party involved when this happens, or at least make a mental note that they're acting from the perspective of assuming bad faith on your part. They're just trying to escalate conflicts, making the conflicts personal, to create an excuse for their own incivility. Best to keep cool and calm. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Crohn's disease

I don't know if you work articles like this but if you know anything about Crohn's I would appreciate some help in making this article readable for the everyday person. Right now the article is ok but the problem I am having is how to make it less medical, it was originally written by a GI, at least that's my understanding.

I've been trying to work on it occasionally but with flare ups and so forth, I get delayed because I am usually unable to focus well enough to keep thoughts in my head with my meds. Anyways, if you can think of a way to keep the article with the knowledge in it but make it user friendlier I would appreciate it. I've been trying to get people interested in the Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) article because to be honest I feel it' important to get people to understand these diseases. Knowing about an incurable disease gives empowerment and I guess this is basically what I want this article to do, explain how Crohn's disease is a life altering disease. If you don't know or you are not interested, don't worry about it. I understand if you are too busy (with Wiki and real life). I am just asking incase maybe you are interested in an article like this. --CrohnieGal 23:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to take a look at it tomorrow. A little to much meds for serious thinking right now. ;) Plus it's time for bed! You are the type of person though that I want this article to reach out to, so you know about this disease and what people go through, esp. the little people. I am talking about little people who are born to the monster or get diagnosed at such an early age that they don't understand. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal 00:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Heads up again

You are being discussed here. Cardamon (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Don't you think it would be a good idea to ask other editors if homeopathy references belong in some of these articles? To not collaborate and claim wp:weight and wp:fringe in an attempt to mass delete homeopathic entries is a POV edit. Some of these herbs are better known for their homeopathic use and in a few cases you have deleted only one sentence in attempt to withhold information to readers and push you "skeptic" agenda forward. Before you continue deleting, discuss. Thank you. --travisthurston+ 18:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors attempt to make the claim that Homeopathy works. Utilizing articles that are not reliable and do not in fact show anything, should not be used. OrangeMarlin 18:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

One might say that the act of editing, in itself, invites collaboration and provokes thought. Antelan 18:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think each disputed piece of text should be joined with up to date science on the subject instead of outright removal. Perhaps that a lot of mentions are un-notable, the WEIGHT does not warrant out right removal just because it is non-mainstream, but reduction of mention. This way the text will be more informal and verifiable. I would love success stories about this as well. I agree with all three above, and I hope not the edits will remove verifiable material. But if this is done right, and SA rather updates than removes it can be very good. The alternative are noise because editors who are knowledgable feels notable aspects are removed. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also concerned about removing what are usually very brief mentions of homeopathy from these articles. I would interpret the policies you are citing to say that the homeopathic uses should not be given undue prominence and that the articles shouldn't imply that they work, however, simply briefly mentioning a verifiable piece of information seems entirely acceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

But what was the rationale for removing the mention of homeopathy from the Aconitum napellus article, but leaving the traditional Chinese medicine? Or similarly, leaving that excremental section on herbal medicine in Calendula officinalis, but only removing the homeopathy? I'm puzzled about why you are applying this so selectively. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate bickering and am hesitant to weigh in on this subject but here goes. A statement like "x is used as a homeopathic remedy." seems to me a statement of fact. It says nothing at all about whether or not it's effective. If an editor is worried about wp:weight then just add a statement like "There is no evidence of it's efficacy". As far as wp:fringe goes, Homeopathy may be stupid and untrue, or may actualy be a kind a faith healing, or whatever and not science. But I can't see why that means there should be no mention of it. That would be like talking about Columbus and not at least mentioning "flat earth". Even with the debate raging over at Homeopathy no one is argueing a total ban on the topic. A scientist must realise that any theory should be open to change or even rejection after a period of acceptance. It seems fundamentaly unscientific to quash all discusion on a topic. That's more of a religious tactic.Darrell Wheeler (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

heh. I thought you retired. You just decide to act as a force of one. "Uses" is relevant to the article whether you like the uses or not. Mayby it comes down to whether or not you take a "proscriptivist" or "descriptivist" view of wikipedia. I try to assume good faith but seriously. get over yourself.Darrell Wheeler (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed your comments on Tim's Talk page ("Deleting homeopathy from mainstream articles") and thought I'd offer my two cents, although I'm probably going to regret this :) You mean the final product does not verifiably contain , right? ;) Wasn't the plant/whatever material used in some stage of preparation? FWIW, I do think such mentions are relevant and harmless, and I don't think this constitutes advertising of homeopathy. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt and detailed reply. I happen to take a slightly different view, particularly with how controversial such statements (so-and-so is used in manufacturing a homeopathic remedy) are and the characterization of homeopathy as fringe theory, which I think is quite inaccurate; surely, as a ScienceApologist, you are well aware that not all pseudoscience is fringe theory, even if it damn well should be. Right now I have to work on a Sunday, so I'll leave a somewhat more coherent and long note here when I have time :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, please allow me to be the Friendly Uninvolved Admin™ who tells you to step back and mind 3RR., the number one reason why good editors are unnecessarily blocked. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Please don't missunderstand me. I don't have a vested interest in either view point. As to my argument being specious. see comment above. also just as a note. Although the flat earth thing and Columbus is a myth it still merits mention in the article on Columbus. Good luck on your crusadeDarrell Wheeler (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hair of the Dog

Good spotting. Wow, I can't believe that article was so polluted. Nice job. Tparameter (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bleep

The problem is that this is the rule for writing about films or books -- for anything contentious we find secondary sources, and we don't rely on our own descriptions and analysis if someone objects to them. If there aren't any sources who have covered these errors, they may have to stay uncovered, or perhaps could be dealt with in footnotes. I know this is a very contentious area, but people really don't like to see editors impose their own views of how a particular movie or book should be approached.

I only watched 20 minutes of the film myself, so I should probably get hold of it again and watch the rest before commenting (I had trouble getting through it, to be honest), but so far as I could tell, it's not about science at all. It's philosophy, although not in any kind of rigorous academic sense, and really very mixed up -- a Sophie's World written by a non-philosopher. So the criticism of it that it's not scientific is making a category mistake, in my view. Plus, all the ideas they talk about e.g. that what we regard as the external world is really just a series of perceptions; that there may be parallel universes; that the objects of knowledge can't be known independently of the observer etc -- these are very old, and very respectable, philosophical ideas. They're just not well-presented in Bleep. SlimVirgin 19:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if the film were all about "science" (and let's say all BS) our NOR policy would still demand that we find a verifiable secondary source that said either "All claims about science in this particular film are false" or "Some of the claims about science in this particular film are false" or "This — particular claim about science in this particular film is false" or something like that. It is not for Wikipedians to argue that the science in the film is false (regardless of whatever evidence we marshall to support our view) because we editors do not put our own views into articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely the type of claim (i.e., a well-sourced claim) that is written in the article, and that people are trying to keep out of the lead. Antelan 20:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two separate issues: N, and the lead. Let us keep them separate. SA, you wrote, "a myriad of sources which detail (nearly point-by-point) where the film misrepresents science from Physics Today to the American Chemical Society" - do these sources explicitly refer to the film, what the bleep do we know? if they do, I agree they are appropriate sources. On the second, separate matter of the introduction, I think as a rule introductions should not get into details. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(Am not SA but replying anyway.) Yes, the sources in question explicitly refer to the film. The proportion of this type of material (reviews, reception, criticism) in the lead seems appropriate (about 1/3 of the lead) relative to the amount of coverage in the article (about 1/2 the material). Antelan 23:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SA, I appreciate your telling me. My suggestion is, review them extensively in an appropriate section in the body. When various editors can collaborate together to write an NPOV NOR compliant section in the body of the article - Misplaced Pages is a collaborative process! - when diverse editors reach a consensus about the section in the body, I think then is the time to work out a sentence to add to the intro that signals that there is controversy covered later in the article. look, there is no rush! Have the patience and good faith to take time to work out s extion in the body. i really believe that it will be easier to do this first. And I believe that once this is done, it will be easier to modify the intro second. One step at a time! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Stone Tape Theory

I dropped a comment on the talk page and will fix it up in a few days. Doesn't anyone watch X-Files? : ) --Nealparr 20:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE

See http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623278/description#description

After you have had time to look it over, I will return the info you are working very hard to find a reason to exclude - for some reason; maybe in a day or two. Hard to work on the page with edit conflicts. Hardyplants (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You took the bait

You might want to consider refactoring this. Cardamon (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool it

Please. I'm begging you, just cool it. You're letting "them" win by falling for the attempts to wind you up. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

re:sheep

I just revised it, and added a pubmed source Adam Cuerden provided. Best regards, VanTucky —Preceding comment was added at 07:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked

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

Request reason:

What is it with not getting an opportunity to respond to arbitration enforcement requests? This is the second time I have been blocked without being able to respond to accusations. Has anybody here actually studied civility? Is anyone aware that there are differing interpretations of what civility entails? Civility is a culturally generated standard and here at Misplaced Pages we have cultures galore: not one megalithic culture that can determine immediately what is and is not civil. But aside from that, this block was so hasty and so personally insulting as to leave me almost confused. There is no link to the supposed violations (I had to go to WP:AE myself and hunt around), so I didn't even know what the instances of civility were that people were discussing. So here are the issues. One) incivility about a rather bizarre comment from Rlevse that I subsequently removed. I recognized the comment I made could be considered uncivil and apologized and removed it. However, it was in response to a rather bizarre interpretation of my edits as "edit warring". The other commentator at WP:WQA pointed out that it was strange and we still don't know what it was supposed to mean. In any case it was repeated at WP:AE#Martinphi as well where yet another administrator pointed out that it was a misinterpretation. "If this is not edit warring, I don't know what is" is a comment that looks to me like an extreme insult to my reputation as a Wikipedian, but that comment remains preserved while mine was removed by me. The second set of instances of apparent incivility was for my use of "foul language" (by which I assume the reader means the use of the word "fuck"). If I had used the word "friggin" would this have been considered as uncivil? How about "hay", "flip", "heavens" as in "What the hay" or "That's flippin ridiculous" or "For heaven's sake." Try it out. Replace "fuck" with another word in those instances of civility and you tell me whether it's still problematic. Are people really all that concerned by the use of fuck -- we have an article on the subject! The claim was that it was directed at other users. I was under the impression that directing foul language against other users was considered to be something like: "fuck you" OR "you're a fucking asshole". "What the fuck do you want?" does not to me seem to be "foul language directed against other users. It's emotive, it's dramatic, it's illustrating my frustration, but it's not uncivil. It has been acknowledged time and again that Misplaced Pages is not censored and that it is questionable for someone to be blocked simply for using foul language. I point out that profanity has been used historically at Misplaced Pages to great effect. I have used language that some people object to for years and this is the first time anybody has claimed that its use is uncivil. I have every reason to believe that this posting at WP:AE is in retaliation for User:Rlevse leaving Misplaced Pages (who also seemed to dislike profanity and I respect his dislike). User:Sumoeagle179 is a good friend of Rlevse and while I regret that Rlevse left, I don't think all this had a chance to be aired before being punished once again. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, SA, but the block is good. To make certain that you will not be denied any opportunity to defend yourself, however, I will gladly forward any comment of yours to the appropriate page while you are blocked— but please try to keep the tone of your language one notch higher. You may be correct that some amount of foul language has always been tolerated— in limited circumstances— but at this point you're not achieving any rhetorical effect by using that language; just making more people angry. — Coren  17:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

• - Revolving Bugbear 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like we have yet another administrator that values civility over content, accuracy, and rationality. Feh. -- RG 16:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I asked this particular user to stop editing here before, he outright ignores me once and again. Obviously simply asking this user nicely isn't working. I needed to be explicit. Even though I yelled and tried to illustrate my emotion by saying, "STAY THE FUCK OFF MY TALKPAGE" this particular user just didn't get it. Yet he is allowed to harass me on my own user space? I note that WP:USER applies. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't actually have the right to tell users not to post to your talk page. Your talk page does not belong to you -- it is a vehicle for the community to get in touch with you ... the entire community, not just the members you like. - Revolving Bugbear 16:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This was deliberate harassment of SA, in my opinion. Jefffire (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This comment is indicative of why I feld the need to say:"STAY THE FUCK OFF MY TALKPAGE" ScienceApologist (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC) I assume this means I have the right to comment here? Anthon01 (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The correct answer would be that you have the "technical ability to do so", but not "the right to do so". --Nealparr 18:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have the right to keep poking SA with a stick as you have been doing. Enjoy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Jefffire. And as for the ArbCom report: I'm also part of the Scouting WikiProject, and they're not happy about Rlevse's departure. (Nor am I.) But some of them are looking for the "turd" that caused his departure. Guess who commented here, and guess who filed the latest report. -- RG 16:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Four edit conflicts! I was just about to note that someone else would pretty quickly make a comment referencing WP:OWN, all the while dodging the real issue that while the block is in accordance with policy, it's clear that the block is the result of administrators liking their power to enforce the encyclopedia's policies a little better than the encyclopedia itself. -- RG 16:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware that I can't stop a user from posting to my talkpage (see the last thing done by this user again) but I certainly have the right to remove it from my talkpage and forcefully state my preferences, or is that not allowed now either? By the by, User:Anthon01 is in serious violation of WP:POINT and is basically harassing me. If anybody is a distressed user right now, it is me. Where's his block? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll also note that I worried at WP:ANI#User:Rlevse making veiled threats about me to other users that "I hope that doesn't win me a whole new batch of enemies." Obviously my worst fears about the petty, vindictive nature of people in this community was realized. Rlevse left on his own accord. I didn't even want him to leave. Now I'm made to suffer for it. That's civility for you. This place sucks ass. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you let your arguments speak for themselves, and avoid giving your opponents straw man arguments about rude words? Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So why are straw men allowed to rule at Misplaced Pages? Is saying that "this place sucks ass" so rude that I should be shown the door? If so, this is not the Misplaced Pages community I remember from the past. Maybe the cultural climate has changed. Maybe it's now commnunity agreement that anything that can be interpreted as profanity should be blockable offenses. Is that really what's best for the encyclopedia? Am I violating WP:POINT by writing George Carlin's seven deadly words? The last person to directly say to me that something I said something rude to which they took offense was Rlevse. He didn't like that I used the word "hell" in an edit summary connected with his talk page. I apologized. I will never do that again (provided he comes back). Every other comment about my "civility" has been to the tune of: "don't do that because someone will use it against you" instead of "don't do that because I'm offended". Ironic, huh? No one seems to be offended, yet I'm being blocked for causing offense. People seem to be under the impression that if I just suddenly changed online personalities everything would be fine: like there's some switch I can turn on and off at will to stop this nonsense. Well, I've got news for you, this is so petty and vindictive that there is no end in sight. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a "straw man argument". SA is under an editing restriction imposed by ArbCom. ArbCom decisions are binding. He is of course welcome to bring up what he considers problems in the proper forums, but if he does so in clear violation of his editing restriction, he will be blocked. - Revolving Bugbear 16:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a straw man because civility is always contextual. The problem is that the editing restrictions imposed by arbcom require an administrator to interpret what they think is uncivil. There is no due process: it's simply applied when someone feels like it without any standard or consistency. Imagine if ArbComm had said "this user can be blocked for any comment that is deemed by an administrator to be cryptic or adorable." It's that level of pettiness. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In the mean while we have the issue that he was obviously provoked into incivility when he was clearly frayed, and there is no consequence. SA's efforts keep a lot of the nonsense out of Misplaced Pages, and those who want it to stay now have an easy and consequence free way to remove him. Jefffire (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you believe there is a legitimate complaint to be made against another user, make that complaint in the proper forum and in the proper way. If you do so, it will be reviewed and dealt with accordingly. However, this still does not excuse SA's behavior. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. - Revolving Bugbear 16:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So, uneven enforcement of policy is a good thing, because otherwise it would be "an eye for an eye"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that there isn't a proper forum for subtle poking and prodding. Jefffire (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:WQA or WP:RfC. - Revolving Bugbear 16:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Good luck. User RfCs are a complete waste of time (as I outlined in detail in the not too distant past) and WQA is not a place meant to enforce policy but is rather a place to try to diffuse conflicts. Begin again, Finnegan. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, don't blame Revolving Bugbear for his obsequiousness. This is simply the standard cop-out that administrators have been taught or taught themselves to employ because admitting that issues may be more complicated than they first appear is not something out of the RfA handbook. That makes sense, since most vandals and disruptive editors try to game the system, they tend to have their radar screens for sanity switched completely off lest they fall victim to the stray logical argument that someone may make. I've seen it all before, an administrator gets criticized for not acting fairly and then immediately starts calling upon Lord God Procedure to save them. It doesn't matter that there is no procedure in place for handling the subtleties of the conflicts and actually encouraging a thoughtful evaluation of the situation. Rather, people make specious arguments and look at isolated diffs out of context in order to pass judgement. It's all so illogical and self-contradictory that it's practically straight out of Catch-22. For example, I can't report Anthon01 because I'm blocked, but it's perfectly legitimate in the fucked up world of Misplaced Pages logic to say that I should report Anthon01. I can't post to the proper forum because the administrator in question won't let me while at the same time the administrator in question tells me to post to the proper forum. And when I have, in the past, attempted to post to "appropriate fora" as yesterday, other admins tell me that it's the wrong forum, I'm being uncivil, that my complaints lack merit, or that I'm just as at fault (applying as much eye-for-an-eye justice as they can muster). Double standards and making sure to protect the integrity of the lovey-dovey nature of their playground Misplaced Pages is all that matters. And then, after I suggest being scared by the standoffish and outright opaque way punishment is doled out, valued admins pack up and go with the direct result that I get blocked. For the love of Zeus this is fucked up. So I'm left here complaining to anyone who will listen and administrators who coasted through RfAs by means of making friends with other administrators at the usual places give each other congratulatory picture cards of sunsets and daffodils. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I agree, I think it's time to go rest for a bit. You've been baited and you've bitten, the system is faulty but giving more excuse for longer blocks isn't whats going to fix it. Jefffire (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

SA, compare:

STAY THE FUCK OFF MY TALKPAGE

with:

I understand why you may think that way, but I would appreciate it if you stop posting comments and questions about these issues in my talk page. Any further such comments will be simply removed and ignored; if you want to engage in debates, please do so in article's talk pages.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, I find the second comment to be condescending, rude, and uncivil while the first one is to the point and clear. I much prefer the first one. My opinions don't matter though. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How about

I am not interested in discussing this further with you. Further comments on the matter will simply be removed.

Straight(er) to the point, yet still civil. — Coren  17:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't convey the emotion properly. I'm not merely "not interested", I'm angry about it. I find such mealy-mouthed wording to be more than unpalatable, it's disingenuous. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To all the people who in good faith are trying to help me. Notice this diff. Now if someone posts to your talkpage again, what is your response? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't ask someone not to post on my talk page. And if it's rubbish, you have no obligation to reply - leave that to your friends. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I used to be of that opinion. But, frankly, I simply got tired of my talkpage being a dumping ground and a party zone for irrelevant and ignorant chatter. There are users who have posted here in the past whose every comment has been basically unhelpful. I don't want them posting here any more. If I don't put them on notice they claim ignorance. If I do put them on notice they begin poking me. Yet there is no concerted effort going on to get rid of them. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As you don't decide what gets posted on this talk page, you will have problems if you try and control it. You don't even control the corresponding user page. If you want to communicate in a way you control, use a private email address with a spam filter (and set up your own website if you want your own user page). I've had massive debates between third parties on my talk page. Just move to a space where it doesn't bother you. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes - the trick is to provoke your opponents less than they have provoked you so as to diffuse the situation. Your lack of respect for the ignorant and opinionated should not show through into your impartial and well reasoned edits - the debate should be about the content, not the people. And Admin needs quite a low level of performance - mostly being uncontroversial. This is clearly a flaw with Misplaced Pages, but one which is easy to circumvent by obeying the rules they enforce. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like gaming the system to me. Sorry, I am who I am. It's a headache, but you get what you get. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Obeying the rules is not the same as gaming the system. And I notice you haven't changed over the years, so I wouldn't expect you to change now. But are you willing to sacrifice the end result in order to attempt to enforce your process? Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What end result? I don't see any end in sight. One cannot obey the rules if they aren't easily interpreted. That's why we need to have a better definition for incivility. I think my solution works. I'm going to ask that it be the new standard by which I'm held. Since I am so dense that I cannot figure this out despite it being so obvious to many other people including a great deal of people who seem to have some level of sympathy for me, I need to come up with a tool to help me figure it out. If the Misplaced Pages community refuses to let me do this, then I'm not quite sure what else I can do. It's like ordering a southpaw to write with their right hand. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What else can you do? Try something new. Ironically, you have the fervour of a fundamentalist, and this is divisive. I'm going to have a look at one of these controversial articles and see if I can square the circle. Can you suggest one to get started on? Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I like fervor. I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with fervor. Maybe the Misplaced Pages community doesn't like fervor, though. I'll think about that. Anyway, here's a nice little selection to get you started: Electronic voice phenomenon, Quackwatch, Homeopathy, WTBDWK, and, for shits and giggles, Potassium dichromate and strontium chloride. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

At first glance Homeopathy introduction looks OK - reporting the main principles and what mainstream medicine thinks about it. Electronic voice phenomenon is a new one on me. I'll have a look now... Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok I would like to make an objective comment here. First I would like to say that I have had barely any contact with SA. We had once on QuackWatch when I calmed the waters sort of with a suggestion and SA gave me a barnstar and thanked me.

Now I have been talking to Anthon01 about his talk page and comments on it about editors which I found rude, not in compliance with civility policy and not assuming good faith about editors. Him and other editors were behaving, IMO, quite rudely towards other editors that they consider being in the other camp.

Here are some diffs about complaints made Anthon about SA and some commentary. , , . I think editors should look at this users talk page and follow the links that are there. To me I asked about what was going on because it looks like a group are trying to get others banned/blocked or to quit. So far one editor when you follow the links did quit. I think aallowing editors to be harrassed to make a pont or get things there way is wrong. states that users tall pages are given more latitude. I have also read On ANI and other sites here that a user can ask an editor (s) to leave them alone and not post to them. I think what is going on here is unfair and a vendetta is going on. I am usually very quiet and stay away from things like this but this time I don't think the playing field is at all even. I can give more links if it is needed. Just my opinions, thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal 18:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am ignorant of Misplaced Pages's standards of civility

I've come to realize that what people have been saying to me since the last arbcomm, I simply am unable to understand. If this were a class, I would get a failing grade for the simple fact that I either have the wrong textbook or the language in which the textbook is written doesn't make sense to me. I simply do not see any of my contributions as uncivil. Others do. There is no amount of training that I can go through to figure this out. Jossi's comparison illustrated it perfectly to me. I'm simply not going to understand what people here consider to be civil and what people here consider to be uncivil. That's me. I just don't get why patronizing is civil while expressing negative emotions is not. Fine. I have instituted a mechanistic process below for determining when things are civil and when things aren't. I don't buy this "it's not offensive to me, but it may be offensive to someone else" bullshit. Since civility is in the eye of the beholder, the only time someone is truly being uncivil is when they cause offense. Unless we have a means for determining when that happens, we're shit out of luck. So now I have the means. After this block is up, I'm going to petition arbcomm to replace the vague and problematic restriction I'm placed under that rests on the (false) assumed monolithic nature of the few thousand personalities who are admins with a much more straightforward and fair process outlined below. What do people think arbcomm's response will be? Will they allow me to institute a process whereby if I offend someone in the same manner twice I get blocked? Can that be a reasonable way out of this morass?

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends how much time they have. The more "high maintenance" you are as an editor, the less they will feel like helping you. If you like, I can help you on civility. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Tried it before. It didn't work. You aren't going to be around all the time to help me. While it would be great to have a shadow that switches all my comments to ones that Jossi seems to prefer when problems arise, I need a tool that is independent of other users and the incidental nature of when they are available. I don't think that it is very "high maintenance" to have a place prominent on my talkpage where people can air my grievances and I'm bound to respond. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because one experiment has a negative result, it doesn't mean that all will ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, there have been no fewer than five separate experiments. With each null result the null hypothesis gains strength and skepticism naturally takes hold. You can only waste so much time trying to measure the changing speed of light before you decide it is constant. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this will help:

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873). On Liberty. 1869. Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion

Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take some notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate, and do not pass the bounds of fair discussion. Much might be said on the impossibility of fixing where these supposed bounds are to be placed; for if the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent. But this, though an important consideration in a practical point of view, merges in a more fundamental objection. Undoubtedly the manner of asserting an opinion, even though it be a true one, may be very objectionable, and may justly incur severe censure. But the principal offences of the kind are such as it is mostly impossible, unless by accidental self-betrayal, to bring home to conviction. The gravest of them is, to argue sophistically, to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case, or misrepresent the opposite opinion. But all this, even to the most aggravated degree, is so continually done in perfect good faith, by persons who are not considered, and in many other respects may not deserve to be considered, ignorant or incompetent, that it is rarely possible on adequate grounds conscientiously to stamp the misrepresentation as morally culpable; and still less could law presume to interfere with this kind of controversial misconduct. With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation. Nbauman (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes me feel like I'm in the right and everyone else is in the wrong. That's obviously not very helpful. ;) ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

People who are right when everybody else is wrong are in for a difficult time in life.

It's too bad you're not wrong when everybody else is right. Then you could admit your error and be accepted. Nbauman (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's basically what I was getting at. Believe me, I've tried to "admit my error and be accepted." Short of getting on my proverbial hands and knees and begging for forgiveness (which is so hard to do in text form), I'm not sure what more is possible. John Stuart Mill may not be the best person to read at this juncture. I'm pretty sure he also thought he was right while everyone else was wrong, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell me how you are offended

Note: I invite everyone in the community to post the diffs of where I've offended them personally here. That's everyone, including those I asked in the past to stay the fuck off my talkpage.

This is the place to tell me about where I offended you. These are the only places I will assume legitimate evidence for incivility. You should do the following:

1. Provide a diff of the comment.
2. Explain what was offensive about the comment (for example, it was insulting to my grandmother)
3. Explain why it was offensive (for example, comments about my grandmother hurt my feelings because she is a very important person in my life.)

This will help me measure who exactly is taking offense to my supposed incivility. Only postings that contain all three criteria will be considered legitimate complaints.

If you do this I promise never to offend you in that way again. If I do, I will ask an administrator to block me.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Those wishing to express that I've never offended them

You have never offended me, just to comment that I commend you on this initiative of yours, as a good step in the right direction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jossi. I know you have friends in what I would call "low places". Can you encourage them to post here all their grievances? Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You have never offended me. Have I you? I know you're being serious, so I won't throw in my usual joke here. But civility is different than a personal attack, IMHO. A personal attack can be defined objectively. Civility is merely a tool of certain individuals to extract punishment on your opposing their POV. Civility is impossible to define except in extreme cases. OrangeMarlin 18:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well if I remember correctly you, me, and User:Filll had a little tiff over Level of support for evolution and Misunderstandings about evolution a few years (!) back. Don't think I was offended, though. Frustrated, but not offended. Anyway, water all under the bridge now. Sometimes I miss those days when I could argue with sane people rather than what passes for discourse these days. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You've never offended me. It's a sad fact that Misplaced Pages exists in it's own little world and thinks everything is going to be sunshine and puppy farts all the time. We are failing to recognize that there exists a problem with fringies trying to gain their way here and many would rather make barnstars to trade with other editors than acknowledge the problem. Anyway, remember this SA...every time you get blocked, God forces a mixture of potassium dichromate down a kitten's throat and gets it published so it can be argued to death for inclusion on the Homeopathy article. Don't let any more kittens get hurt. Baegis (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's worse than that. God dilutes a solution of potassium dichromate to the point where it is indistinguishable from distilled water and then forces that down a kitten's throat! ScienceApologist (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Come gather round children and I'll tell you a tale of how administrators at Misplaced Pages turned into puffballs

Back in the bad old days of Misplaced Pages when women were women and men were men, I used to edit pages on redshift, plasma cosmology, and Eric Lerner. Now in those days, there was a small group of Wikipedians convinced that modern astronomy was wrong, wrong, wrong and they were going to let the world know about this through Misplaced Pages. There were basically two camps: there were the bat-shit crazies who wrote run-on sentences, could barely spell, and were convinced that crop circles were evidence that the Big Bang was false. Then there were the polite-to-a-fault true believers who kept their personal weirdness to themselves and diligently and tendentiously kept prodding and poking with the hopes that I would someday give up the ghost and they would have free reign to declare their gospel to the world. Lo and behold, many moons passed and now none of these people are with us any longer (though your illustrious narrator stays on). This is because the community in the past had real administrators willing to make the difficult determinations required to stop this kind of behavior. Any more this is not the case: such administrators have vanished or are too scared to act.

What I learned from that episode is that civil POV-pushers are worse than crazy blowhards. I can handle editors who are so ignorant that they barely can form a coherent thought. In fact, there's some advantage to having them around because they tend to lighten the mood. However, it's the technically savvy and careful POV-pusher that's the real problem and the ones who really need to be shown the door. They are the ones who stay just below the radar screen and make great protestations whenever they get scolded. Back in the bad old days, there were a number of great administrators who were emboldened to scold these editors even as the editors complained about their persecution. Today, these administrators have gone on to other things: some of them are being battered themselves. We are left with a group that is in power who has very little understanding of how to sift through controversy and consequently I'm finding myself blocked at every turn. Administrators with good heads on their shoulders are afraid to act because they see what happens to the administrators who are brave. These are dark days for Misplaced Pages. What we need is a whole slew of sane and competent editors that are not wikignomes to be in charge of handing out blocks and bans against the true believers. The current system just rewards incompetence and mealy-mouthed love-in sessions.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone can fix a typo. There are not enough Admins who can sort out controversial issues. It's a pity you didn't support my RfA! Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a pity you didn't support mine too! Then again, my support is often not that great to receive. If it comes to early, a certain group of editors tends to go in and vote oppose in rather large numbers, I've found. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I started off in support. But I was concerned by your difficulty in understanding the other point of view, which is important in resolving disputes and having a judgement accepted. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What can I expect? Assuming good faith gets thrown out the window all too often in RfA discussions, as you no doubt are well-aware. Too bad I understand the "other side" better than almost anyone who isn't editing these pages. I have an account at creationwiki where I write all the time, for example, to glowing reviews. I know who the good editors are and who the bad ones are (and yes, there are good editors who have fringe beliefs and edit articles about them. There aren't very many of them, but they do exist.) ScienceApologist (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a bad thing to tone down WP:AGF in an RfA, as an RfA is hard to reverse. I wasn't surprised by the level of paranoia and misinformation in mine. All I can say is that I've fixed up loads of dodgy articles, for example Creation-evolution controversy, without animosity. These people are not the enemy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is "the enemy". There are just a whole lot of people out there with different agendas and don't have time to understand the problems of others. It's a very selfish world and full of a remarkable level of ignorance. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you can thank me for having no anmiosity at creation-evolution controversy because I worked really hard to get all the dyed-in-the-wool POV-pushing creationists off Misplaced Pages when I first arrived. You should've seen what the creationism pages looked like when I arrived! ScienceApologist (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only people left were sweetness and light. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the puffball admins, I agree. There are times when I'm tempted to do what's right and damn the consequences. Perhaps someday I'll act on that impulse. May as well go out with a bang instead of a whimper. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Administrators with good heads on their shoulders are afraid to act because they see what happens to the administrators who are brave." Truer words have never been spoken.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Too many Admins want the sysop bit for its own sake, rather than to actually do good stuff with. Why take risks? Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the entire thing be abolished for one and an advisory counsel set up for people to handle disputes. The jobs of an admin are too varied to be bundled together like they are right now. Being a good admin does not mean you must have the GFDL memorized, though there are admin functions where having it memorized may very well help. Anyway, this is all a moot point, the community doesn't like us very much anyway (otherwise we'd be admins) so they're not going to take us seriously. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The community likes me. People who I've never met just thought I was too dangerous to be an Admin. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but people you've never met are also the community. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

But they don't dislike me. They have no opinion about me on a personal level. Basically, all the people I know supported me, and all those who didn't support me didn't know me. That's how RfAs can work. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I knew you and I didn't support you. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was mistaken then. Why didn't you support me? Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I was on hiatus. ;) ScienceApologist (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I ever get nominated again, you are welcome to support me. I'm hoping for a bigger majority of Admin support over banning requests next time! Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We are left with a group that is in power ... but ... there is no cabal :), and I do not think that your rhetoric helps your case not even a bit; on the contrary. Why is it that during your blocks you generate so much back and forth? Take a break, go for long walks, do things that you do not do because of WP ... it would be better use of your time, and will demonstrate that you are taking the time to reflect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem, Jossi, is that administrators and other users are lax in defending users with short fuses that are valuable contributors. For instance, you have blocked none of SA's adversaries for any of their conduct - the constant needling on his talk page, for instance, has gone without sanction. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes - this is the problem. I know a lot of good editors who care about WP and they get very cross indeed - unlike the casual vandals who don't care so much. It's a case of fixing the symptom rather than the cause. The objective is not to have placid talk pages, but to have a brilliant encyclopaedia. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) you have blocked none of SA's adversaries. From my perspective, there is no such a thing as two groups of editors that are adversaries. We have one goal, and that is create an encyclopedia of all human knowledge, on a basic framework of collaboration and a few principles. As such, I look for that goal as the main drive for my actions as an admin. Blocking "adversaries" from any side, is not part of that goal, rather, find ways in which these adversaries can stop from escalating their disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We have that goal. Some of his "adversaries" do not. Their goal is an encyclopedia that reflects only their views. When you see one of "those" types, please block them, as they are little more than vandals. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that I find Jossi's comment irnoically very uncivil. I'll live my own life, thank you very much. I'm not much interested in whether rhetoric helps my case, and I'm certainly not interested in taking time for bullshit "reflection". If you don't like what I'm posting on my talk page, go ahead and protect it. I'm used to insult being added to injury anyway. I'm perfectly okay with my understanding that Misplaced Pages administrators have either no balls to act correctly or have their heads shoved way up their asses. That's just the way it is right now. I don't blame anyone for this problem: it's simply a matter of how the political situation worked itself out after having an RfA process that acts more like a popularity contest in grammar school than a way of determining who are the people with the best plans for this encyclopedia. Maybe in the future things will get better. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you took my comment in that light. It was not my intention. Again: using foul language would be best left to people that cannot argue their cases without them, and I think you are not one of these people. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's an excellent place to illustrate how my strategy would work. I took offense to Jossi's comment. I would then post the diff, and say I took offense to Jossi giving me advice about how to behave on Misplaced Pages because I find it to be condescending. Then he would never post advice to me again (if he were subject to the same restrictions I was). See? How easy is that? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? What's so bad about foul language? Some of the best literature in the world is chalk full of it. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Winners don't use foul language. People who are right sometimes do. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Now you're beginning to sound like a certain character on Little Miss Sunshine. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Good advice though. I bet you'd be paying through the nose for it in the Real World. My advice is to take his advice. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there something I'm missing here? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No. I believe Stephen is praising my advice as generally accurate. It is. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There is a secret process which allows you to get your way, only known to the initiated. This guy PouponOnToast knows it and you don't. It's like a violinist playing in tune or out of tune. You may not even know you are slightly out of tune, but everyone can tell that you don't know where the notes are, and they treat you worse. Learn to play in tune, and your whole life becomes much easier. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not into esotericism and I don't want to be initiated. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - I'll help you without telling you how it works ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to win or be right. I can only help you win. Above does not help. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea which alternative is better. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Winning feels better. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Winning is better :-) Only if you're right of course ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with this. I've been in some pretty fantastic Pyrrhic victories in the past that made me feel just great. Perhaps I'm just a masochist then, hm? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes - but now you only have us to listen to you ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not involved in Misplaced Pages to soapbox. I don't care if anyone listens to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know me

You don't know me, but I ran by a change to your Arbitration Enforcement on recent changes. It appears that you don't have enough knowledgable people helping you out in dealing with these problematic users. I am relentlessly "civil" in the bureaucratic sense (I would write the appropriate sentence to get people off of my talk page, as opposed to your direct, honest but "uncivil" sentence.)

In the future, if you need assistance in phrasing things that may come across as "uncivil" to people who may have less than honest motives with regards to you, please contact me on my talk page, which I have RSSfed to my email. I will be happy to help. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried this in the past. You'll be on my list along with about a dozen others. We'll see if it does anything. It didn't in the past. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Top please. I'm better than them. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You got it. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

in regards to your claim that I am "POV pushing"

One question I have is: what is the POV that you believe me to be "pushing"? I would also like to refer you to the RfC you initiated. Dlabtot (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As a professional civility coach, I would advise you not to respond to this - in fact, I would blank it, my statement here, and write on Dlabtot's talk page that " are not interested in discussing his behavior in a non-structured setting. You are happy to comment at any user-conduct RFC that you should feel free to file so that you can get community input regarding your conduct. Please don't attempt to engage me on my talk page in the future - I will not respond. Thanks!" PouponOnToast (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You realize that I cannot write on anyone's page while blocked, right? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you'll have to rely on your friends 8-) But it's no good having twelve advisors if you don't take advice. I'll investigate this guy a bit. See you later. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There's an interesting result in game theory. Tit for tat is quite a good strategy - if the set of people you have to play with is out of your control. But only playing with cooperative people is even better. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, empirical tests have shown that Tit for tat is the optimal strategy for repeated games if you do not know your opponents strategy, because it works both for individuals who are cooperating and who are not. If they are here to rile you, they will be blocked, and if they actually want input they'll be either savaged in RFC or vindicated. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there are problems... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy POV-pushing

Can someone reading this page take a look at the homeopathy POV-pushing going on at these pages? Thanks.

• Thuja
• Deadly nightshade
• Aconitum napellus
• Vinca
• Strychnos ignatia
• Aconitum
• Agaricus
• Veratrum album
• Aesculus
• Anamirta cocculus
• Arnica montana
• Apocynum
• Strychnine tree

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked Thuja, and all I could find is lack of sources related to assertions made by Homeopaths about it use. Such sources should be easy to find, if that is the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is mainstream articles should not mention homeopathy unless there are mainstream sources which say that homeopathy is relevant to that subject. The say-so of homeopaths and sources written by homeopaths is not good enough. There are, indeed, homeopathic sources that talk about antimatter, light from Venus, and other sorts of weird provings. We obviously don't include homeopathic assertions on those articles for the same reason. Yes, undue weight sometimes means outright exclusion. Finding a source independent of homeopathy that states homeopathy is relevant to the subject is all we need to include a blurb about it. For example, we came up with an excellent discussion of homeopathy and other alt med concepts on domesticated sheep just last night since homeopathy was mentioned in sources that were independent of homeopathy. It's really that simple. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent point. Preparation and storage of homeopathic remedies use water, glass bottles, and paper labels, but it would be ridiculous to include discussions of homeopathy in those articles. There are some who would like to shoehorn a mention of homeopathy every nook and cranny of Misplaced Pages that they can, regardless of relevance or significance. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You must have been reading my edit on the Talk:Deadly nightshade page then ;-) Though yours seems to be an earlier date stamp! Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re. Vinca—it is disingenuous to say that Vinca was or is used in homeopathy; the plant itself isn't, or homeopathy would be herbal medicine. The paragraph on Ignatia amara has no place here; we are not Homeopedia. However, I still do not see how noting that a given plant or substance is or has been used to prepare homeopathic remedies constitutes POV-pushing. Stating that "X is used to prepare homeopathic remedy Y" is uncontroversial; notes on indications or efficacy would be an entirely different matter, and I would like to see exceptional sources covering any such assertions, but—call me daft—I am still a bit concerned by your removal of any mention of homeopathy where it would be uncontroversial. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean X can be used in homeopathy to cure poisoning by X - for all X. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's fringe POV-pushing, that's why it's controversial. There are literally millions of homeopathic rememdies available. Should every single substance that is a homeopathic remedy say "X is used to prepare homeopathic remedy Y" when the number of X is on the order of the number of articles in most print-sized encyclopedia? That's overstating homeopathy's importance. It's really quite simple: homeopathy should only be mentioned in a subject when sources independent of homeopathy have taken notice of homeopathy's connection to the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, I'm feeling uncharacteristically confrontational today. Wouldn't the notability and somewhat broad acceptance of homeopathy by laymen, however misguided or unwarranted, disqualify it as fringe science? Pseudoscience, of course—but WP:FRINGE? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've got pseudoscience guidelines on my user page. However, there are a great number of people who dispute the label outright so I am going to keep it in user space for the time being. In the glorious future when the community comes to its senses, there will be a pseudoscience guideline that looks something like that. Aslo, a fringe theory is anything contradicted by the mainstream academic community (in this case, the medical community). Alt med is fringe because it is "alternative". ScienceApologist (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) OK—back to what I originally came here for: basically, you take issue with mentioning, in an article on a plant/chemical/thing, that the subject of the article is used in preparing a homeopathic remedy because you believe this overstates the importance of homeopathy, and over-represents it in WP? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I'm not opposed if we have sources outside of the homeopathy community that state the relevance of homeopathy to the substance, but using a provings guide to source statements about the plant's use in homeopathy is just plain POV-pushing. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. In case you were wondering, the reason I am interested in the rationale behind your "crusade", as someone delightfully put it above, is that I was planning on doing a minor overhaul of the Arnica montana article after expanding the article on helenalin, the main bioactive constituent of Arnica. I planned to add a note on the use of A. montana in homeopathy (it's quite a popular one) until I realized it was already mentioned. Let's say you were reviewing Arnica montana for GA or FAC—would you consider mention of its homeopathic use negative? I, personally, would consider the lack of a mention evidence against comprehensiveness of the article (which is a frequent concern of mine when I'm reviewing or preparing an article).

As an aside, I'm quite sure the malaria article makes no mention of homeopathy, or at least didn't when I last looked it over. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the relevant section that discusses homeopathy is here. Read all about it.

Secondly, (or firstly, as the case may be) the mention of homeopathy is fine and great as long as the sourcing is impeccible. For example, if Arnica montana's use in homeopathy is really that important, then there should be easy to find sources about arnica montana that mention its importance to homeopathy independent of the homeopathic industry. This is why homeopathy is mentioned in the domesticated sheep article. There is a book on sheep raising that mentions homeopathy explicitly. So, if you have a source on A. montana that mentions its use in homeopathy and the source is not a homeopathic reference guide written by homeopaths, then I'd definitely support your article for GA or FAC. If you feel that a lack of a mention is an oversight then, given your expertise on the matter, you probably shouldn't have a hard time finding independent sources which confirm your suspicions. On the other hand, it may just be that you are overly exposed to this particular pseudoscience more than others and it may just not be that important. For example, many people in the U.S. know about the head-on homeopathic product which claims to use potassium dichromate. However, there are no sources independent of homeopaths which claim that a major use of potassium dichromate is its (lack of) inclusion in head-on. One person from Europe commented in our discussions on the potassium dichromate article that there isn't nearly the notability for this homeopathic solution seen in other parts of the world. Indeed, independent sources that describe the importance of homeopathy to potassium dichromate have not been found. After the article is unprotected, mention of homeopathy will be excised. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with Head-On, or its pertinence to the potassium dichromate issue; I send my headaches to the nether with loxoprofen, much to the dismay of my family physician. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

???? The problem is mainstream articles should not mention homeopathy unless there are mainstream sources which say that homeopathy is relevant to that subject. If there is a herb, plant, or tree about which there are sources that describe its use in homeopathy, there is absolutely no reason why not to include a mention of that. And sources from homeopathic treatises would fit within the sources that could be used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Homeopathic sources are not reliable for describing plants and chemicals. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but we are not talking here about plant descriptions from an Homepathic viewpoint. Were are discussing how Homeopathic sources are reliable for the fact that they use the plant in their practice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Then they can put that on the page dedicated to the practice of homeopathy. But to establish that the use of the plant in homeopathy is relevant enough for inclusion on a page dedicated to the plant we need an independent source (not a homeopathy source) that says this. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well, of course not. But shouldn't be reliable enough for describing a particular use—namely, the homeopathic use—of a plant or chemical? After just reading your reply above, I thought your objection to inclusion of such information in mainstream articles was predominantly a WP:WEIGHT issue. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a weight issue. You've got it. But weight requires us to measure the prominence of the fringe topic with respect to the mainstream topic. To do this, we need independent sources. Homeopathic references are not reliable for establishing the prominence of their remedies with respect to the chemicals and plants they claim to use. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. For example, if the British Association of Homeopathy, says that plant X is used in homeopathy, that is a verifiable fact by virtue of their publication of that data. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Yes, but it is not necessarily a prominent fact per WP:WEIGHT. If the British Association of Homeopathy says that water memory is proven, that doesn't go in the water article. Mainstream sources should be used to determine the prominence of a fringe idea with respect to a mainstream topic. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

An article about a plant, should include all viewpoints about that plant, as per WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure Gene Ray has an interesting viewpoints about a lot of plants. Maybe Nancy Lieder does too. And I might have a few things to say. No, it's not "all" viewpoints, Jossi, it's all prominent viewpoints. Remember WP:WEIGHT is important here, it's an "important qualification". The question is, are homeopaths' views on plants prominent enough to include in an article about that plant? I argue that if we can find independent sources discussing homeopathy's viewpoints of that plant then we're good to go. But simply parroting a homeopath's views on various plants without trying to determine how prominent that viewpoint is would be a gross misinterpretation of WP:NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a minor edit to the above comment to show SA how to win, as opposed to be right. Please revert it if you want, SA. no offense was intended. PouponOnToast (talk)

From now on, PouponOnToast, you have the freedom to edit any of my comments in any way you see fit. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To put this another way, there used to be a cadre of editors arguing that the Big Bang article should include information from people in the plasma cosmology community describing their objections to the Big Bang. This was excised from the article because there were no mainstream sources which said that the perspective of those in the plasma cosmology community was prominent. WP:WEIGHT relies on mainstream sources -- not fringe sources

Of your articles, removals have stuck for all of them but Thuja, where an editor who was created Jan 18 reinserted the Homeopathy discussion. It is worth considering if the fact that if the plant is one of the top X plants used in homeopathy that may be notable. For instance, we may wish to note in the article on lead that some people in the long long ago though it could be converted to gold. We should not note the same for the article on Titanium. PouponOnToast (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I might be ammenable to this, but if it is one of the top X plants used in homeopathy, don't you think we can find independent sources which mention it? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume the Homeopaths can. If they want to add that "this plant was used in Homeopathy" to every plant, that's a bit dumb, no? PouponOnToast (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't need the homeopaths to do it. I'll take anyone's attempt to find a source (c.f. domestic sheep). ScienceApologist (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the subject, but from the little research I have done today, there are plenty of sources out there on the use of these plants in Homeopathy, including non-homeopathic ones. I just found a source for one of these articles. Rather than raise hackles, we can do some research and find these sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you might be right, but since homeopathy is a fringe theory, you're saying there are good sources for the use of plants in a fringe theory? I'm confoozled about this. In other words, it's a reliable source if it supports it's use in a discredited pseudoscience. Not sure I can agree with your assessment. It maybe used by homeopaths, but it doesn't make it work. OrangeMarlin 01:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's just important that the sources you find are considered good sources for the article in question. For example, don't use a source from a local paper to discuss the homeopathic uses of strontium chloride. Instead use a source written by a chemist. These are all fairly straightforward rules, but for some reason when it comes to fringe theories, nearly every kind of source under the sun has been offered as "evidence" for inclusion. If you have a source, by all means discuss with other editors whether it establishes the homeopathic "use" as prominent enough for inclusion in the article. That's all I've been asking for. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The question that must be asked is the notability of the "sourced" information you are adding. Misplaced Pages is a general use encyclopedia - most every plant was used by someone at some time for something. Including all of that information is not relevant or valuable. Please be certain the information you are citing is useful information, not just what a google search for "homeopathy " came up with. For instance, you added a source that says Thuja is used "to counteract the side effects of vaccinations" - but you are not aware if many practitioners do this, or if it is a common use at all. Please be certain you are not just turning our articles into lists of factoids. I have disengaged from that article for 24 hours to avoid rewarding a new-SPA for his aggressive reverting, but when I return to it I will certainly question the accuracy and relevance of your information. PouponOnToast (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about solid sources such as this: Peirce, Andrea (1999). The American Pharmaceutical Association practical guide to natural medicines. New York: William Morrow. pp. p.462. ISBN 0-688-16151-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help), for example. It includes information about all the plants and trees you referred to at the top of this section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll pop on over to the library and pick up a copy. From the description of the book, I'm pretty sure it doesn't really deal in depth with homeopathy and what uses of homeopathy are prominent. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You have said in front of you? PouponOnToast (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to go to the library... There is a limited preview at Google books: "The American Pharmaceutical ... - Google Book Search". Retrieved 2008-01-20., as well as a full search inside the book at Amazon: "Amazon Online Reader : The American Pharmaceutical Association Practical Guide to Natural Medicines". Retrieved 2008-01-20. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, the source that you highlighted says, "No reliable scientific or clinical evidence can be found to confirm the validity of homeopathy." Then, every page that discusses a homeopathic remedy refers back to this page as a disclaimer of sorts. What are your thoughts on how we should address this disclaimer? Do we take it as an indication that, in keeping with other mainstream publications, we also provide a similar statement? Or do you have in mind other options? Antelan 02:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the introduction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Got to say, I'm nonplussed with this as a source. Most of the references in the book don't deal with how common the use is and so it's not a very good way of judging WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that you and others here are demonstrating a lack of interest in NPOV. As stated in its introduction: This unique book from a trusted name in medicine rates the effectiveness and safety of more than three hundred natural substances, based on a careful assessment of the scientific research available. If that is not good enough as a source for these articles, then nothing is. I would argue that rather than keep beating the drum "protectors of science", that you start doing some basic research on subjects you seem not to know much about it. It took me less than five minutes to find that source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Well, that's not very civil now, is it? Something of a personal attack too, I might add. Let me just say this, the source is fine and I encourage its use, but it doesn't really deal with the subject at hand very well. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP:WEIGHT argument may be a good one ... if we were discussing having a substantial portion of an article abut a plant to be related to its homeopathic use. But that is not my argument. My argument is that it warrants a short mention of its use in that practice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A single sentence in a book devoted to discussing naturopathic remedies of various plants does not inspire the prominence I would like to see for inclusion in a Misplaced Pages article. After all, WP:REDFLAG is relevant here. Generally speaking the source uses a single sentence to the effect of "this plant is used by homeopaths". I just don't see this as indicating prominence at all. There have been some discussions going on that we should come up with a standard for when homeopathic "use" should be included on plant/chemical articles. I don't think this particular source does a really good job establishing the prominence needed to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. And yes, I'll repeat myself, sometimes applying proper weight means completely eliminating mention of the fringe idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to learn when to concede when it is obvious that you have lost your argument. I would encourage you and other interested editors to read some of the entries in the book. It makes for a fascinating reading in exploring the homeopathic claims from a scientific perspective. For example, read the entry about Thuja and other red cedars. Fascinating indeed. I will do another bit of research and find a few other sources. You can do the same if you are interested, and we can then compare notes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Who determined I lost what argument? I'm actually reading the book right now. It has single sentences on homeopathy in most of the entries that actually discuss the term and a lot on herbal (that is non-homeopathic) remedies. The entry on Thuja doesn't even mention homeopathy. I don't think I'm missing anything here. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, it's beginning to sound as if you are mistaking homeopathy for herbal medicine or perhaps naturopathy in general. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am discussing sources that refer to the use of plants as homeopathic remedies. That source describes such use. Other sources I found after 10 minutes research:

• Foster, Steven. Forest Pharmacy: Medicinal Plants in American Forests (Forest History Society Issues Series). Santa Cruz, Calif: Forest History Society. ISBN 0-89030-051-8.

• Duke, James A.; Foster, Steven (2000). A field guide to medicinal plants and herbs of eastern and central North America. Houghton Mifflin Co. ISBN 0-395-98814-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• Andrew Chevallier (1996). The encyclopedia of medicinal plants. New York: DK Pub. ISBN 0-7894-1067-2.

• Karen J. Tietze; Berardi, Rosemary; II, Edward M. DeSimone; Gail D. Newton; Michael A. Oszko; Popovich, Nicholas G.; Carol J. Rollins; Shimp, Leslie A. Handbook of Nonprescription Drugs. APhA Publications. ISBN 1-58212-050-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Before we start going to other sources, I'd like to figure out what just happened in our research. Jossi, can you quote to me where homeopathy was mentioned in Peirce's entry on Thuja? You seemed to indicate above that she discussed it extensively. I see absolutely no mention of it. That's a pretty big discrepancy. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Jossi, can you respond to my comments below? Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing homeopathic remedies

Jossi, I don't think the source you chose is actually "independent". In fact, it's quite "dependent". The American Cancer Society's CAM discussions are essentially parroting the CAM proponents themselves. While ACS is careful to discuss where the science ends and the wild speculation begins, it is reasonable that this group with its constituency that runs far beyond the medical community and the botany community would take a "big tent approach" to discussing subjects. In short, the American Cancer Society is not a reliable source for uses of the Strychnine tree. If you wanted to include some information about this subject on alternative cancer treatments, it might be appropriate there. But for an article on a tree, I don't think that the ACS works as a good source. Would you kindly remove it?

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Long live NPOV ... the current text reads: The seeds are is used in homeopathic formulations, to treat paralysis and fight various tumors. No reliable scientific or clinical evidence can be found to confirm the validity of homeopathy. A 2005 study published in The Lancet found evidence that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but you didn't deal with my comments about your ACS source. I don't think that this is a good source because ACS for establishing the prominence of this particular remedy. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how common is nox vomica anyway? The dosages are a little extreme. 30X is patently absurd. How can we claim that this is a "use" of this plant? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Read chapter 12 of Sidney E. Skinner (2001). An introduction to homeopathic medicine in primary care. Gaithersburg, Md: Aspen Publishers. ISBN 0-8342-1676-0. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Or the chapter on Nux Movica at Anirban Sukul; Nirmal C. Sukul. High Dilution Effects: Physical and Biochemical Basis (Handbooks of Behavioral Neurobiology). Berlin: Springer. ISBN 1-4020-2155-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you forget? We're trying to find independent sources. Both these books are written by true-believing homeopaths. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting issue

User:Hardyplants wanted to include discussion of the use of Aconitum napellus in homeopathy on that page. The reference he gave was to a very interesting article in the Annals of Emergency Medicine which includes passing mention of homeopathy in the abstract, but nowhere in the article does it include any mention of homeopathy at all. In fact, the article talks about poisoning due to ingestion of rather large (from a poison control standard) amounts of the plant. That's certainly not homeopathy. Therefore, though this would have been an excellent source for determining the prominence of homeopathy, I actually think it does the opposite as it doesn't mention homeopathy as important to the discussion of uses of the plant at all (it's only found in the abstract and nowhere in the main text of the article!).

Can someone who is watching this page write a note on User talk:Hardyplants to let him know about this? I would e-mail him the paper myself, but he hasn't enabled e-mail.

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI Shot info (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I received the note, I realize that the main focus of the ref is on cases of poisoning, but the article does say that Aconitum is used by homeopaths. Even if its only in the abstract its still part of the article. I do not know much about homeopathy, I believe its some type of "magic" water diluted down - as such its not going to poison any one and the ref only makes the passing reference that Aconitum is used by homeopathy so I altered the sentance. The Aconitum napellus page is not the place to prove or disprove homeopathic remedies- that should be done on the page about homeopathay. Hardyplants (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is, though, I think the author probably confused homeopathy with naturopathy. To be on the safe side, why don't you find another mainstream source that mentions Aconitum's use in homeopathy as prominent? From the searching I have done I see that is not as prominent as its use in fairly highly concentrated tinctures. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will add this to my to do list and see what terns up, will most likely take a few days. They are not confusing homeopathy, but simple listing it has one of the fields that fail under the umbrel term "natural remedies" the main subject is poising in the context of natural remedies. Hardyplants (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, though, did you actually read the article in question? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I have enough of these ":" things, No sadly, I do not have full access to the article the parts I could read were interesting. Hardyplants (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want to read the full article, I have a copy here. If you enable e-mail I'll send it over (it's only three pages). ScienceApologist (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Block reduced to 24 hours

I have reduced your block to 24 hours, as the cited uncivil remark was directed at an admin, and not a contributor you were in a content dispute with. Further, the dispute with the admin was over a misunderstood comment. Also, it is clear that you are being baited, and that a number of vexatious and groundless or nearly groundless complaints have been filed against you recently. Of course, that does not excuse you taking the bait and responding in kind, and there is more than enough rude behavior on your part in the past few days to justify a block of some length.

On the issue of civility, let's try a couple of simple suggestions. First, don't tell an editor "You are a <blank>." Discuss the content of their edits, not who they are or why they might be making edits that you disagree with. Second, do not say anything on Misplaced Pages that you would not say in front of a 6 year old child. This edit, for example, is something I can wholeheartedly agree with except for all the cursing. Fucking this and fucking that is language you would never use at the workplace (I hope); certainly I never would; nor does it lead to constructive discussion.

Fringe articles are clearly targeted by a determined group of editors interested in inflating the legitimacy of the topics and de-weighting the scientific or evidence-based view. It is part of the wikipedia way of doing things that neither admins, nor arbcom, can make content rulings. The remedies available in this area are limited to civility parole for you and probation for Martinphi and do not address any of the other editors or issues. I believe an extension of the remedies involved is necessary, and I will apply to Arbcom. Other than that, you need to be patient and avoid making personal comments about editors and please please avoid the 4-letter words and anything else you would not say in the presence of a child or in front of an audience of your peers. Thatcher 22:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Children. Got it. That gives me an interesting feeling of gestalt shift. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Or peers. Imagine you and the other editors you are in disputes with were participating in a debate at your University in front of your peers. Thatcher 23:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the most delightful and smartest scholars I know swear a blue streak in conversations at work. I think that academia may be a bit more lax than the business world. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(Off-topic) The guy that came after you this morning at WP:AE brought something up on my talk page a few minutes ago, and I did some digging and uncovered this. Aw, it's me, you, and a blocking administrator getting along. Do you feel warm and fuzzy inside yet? -- RG 23:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)